This is just Common Sense
- Thread starter Richard L
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
Florida does drug testing of welfare folks. Costs more to do the tests than it saves the welfare dept.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark K,
It has nothing to do with saving money for the Welfare Dept. It's about not spending taxpayer's money to support people with drug habits.
If employer's can afford to do drug testing, so can the Welfare Dept....it's not all that expensive...they just need to get a contract with a local clinic to do the testing at a discounted rate...that's how most employers do it.
Better yet, deduct the cost of the drug test from the first welfare check, and they are subject to random drug testing at anytime they are on welfare. If they fail the drug test, the state eats the cost of the test, but they cannot apply again for 6 months or a year?
...Rich
It has nothing to do with saving money for the Welfare Dept. It's about not spending taxpayer's money to support people with drug habits.
If employer's can afford to do drug testing, so can the Welfare Dept....it's not all that expensive...they just need to get a contract with a local clinic to do the testing at a discounted rate...that's how most employers do it.
Better yet, deduct the cost of the drug test from the first welfare check, and they are subject to random drug testing at anytime they are on welfare. If they fail the drug test, the state eats the cost of the test, but they cannot apply again for 6 months or a year?
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Why welfare gives out money directly to its beneficiaries is a mystery to me. Why government-run welfare exists at all is a further mystery.
I agree on the drug testing. If the government is going to extort money from me and then toss it to someone "more deserving" (ie:welfare) then the least they could do is to give me some assurance that the welfare people aren't blowing my money on having a good time.
I agree on the drug testing. If the government is going to extort money from me and then toss it to someone "more deserving" (ie:welfare) then the least they could do is to give me some assurance that the welfare people aren't blowing my money on having a good time.
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Because the people that work for a living are outnumbered by the people that vote for a living.
KL,
I actually do believe that there are people who genuinely need Welfare and probably will never get it unless through some government sponsored program. I also believe in Unemployment benefits....all of which should have time limits and drug testing.
Years ago, I had a co-worker in my IT Department who previously worked for the Local Welfare Department. He had a degree in Social Services and was a genuinely caring guy, but he had to quit working for the welfare department when he was required to approve all applications for welfare, even if he suspected, or was convinced the applicant was lying and was not even allowed to question their lack of a Social Security Number, or any ID to confirm their name, address, eligibility, or anything that most working people are required to provide in order to get a job....And this all happened long before Obama became President.
So it is not just Obama, it's most of his predecessors....Obama does not need to pile it on the taxpayers any deeper....It has always been Welfare State for many decades before Obama got elected. That's why I think Obama has breached the trust of the American People by promising that he would essentially open up the US Treasury to be looted by those unwilling to earn an honest living.
...Rich
I actually do believe that there are people who genuinely need Welfare and probably will never get it unless through some government sponsored program. I also believe in Unemployment benefits....all of which should have time limits and drug testing.
Years ago, I had a co-worker in my IT Department who previously worked for the Local Welfare Department. He had a degree in Social Services and was a genuinely caring guy, but he had to quit working for the welfare department when he was required to approve all applications for welfare, even if he suspected, or was convinced the applicant was lying and was not even allowed to question their lack of a Social Security Number, or any ID to confirm their name, address, eligibility, or anything that most working people are required to provide in order to get a job....And this all happened long before Obama became President.
So it is not just Obama, it's most of his predecessors....Obama does not need to pile it on the taxpayers any deeper....It has always been Welfare State for many decades before Obama got elected. That's why I think Obama has breached the trust of the American People by promising that he would essentially open up the US Treasury to be looted by those unwilling to earn an honest living.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
I really don't worry too much about welfare folks taking drugs. The vast, vast majority don't and, as a 911 ambulance nurse, I know. Now, if they would only test them for nicotine.... Far more of my tax money eventually goes to paying for smokes and paying for the smoking-related illnesses. For some reason, welfare people who smoke have MUCH more and worse smoking-related illness than the average Joe down the street who smokes. Christ... all the welfare folks seem to have chronic bronchitis and pneumonia by the time they're 40 years old. Every two weeks, they're into the urgent care or ER for another round of antibiotics.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark K,
I have recently heard that the most common cases of overdose seen in the ER is for overdosing on Tylenol.
I agree with your assessment of smoking, however until it is illegal to sell cigarettes it will continue. Perhaps instead of showing ID to buy cigarettes, we should require them to show proof of private Health Insurance. The same applies to alcohol abuse....but it's legal to buy alcohol and unfortunately a Drunk Driver will get an average of 9 DUI citations before he/she is involved in a fatal accident.
My comment about drug testing welfare recipients may not reduce the welfare rolls by much, but we should not be supporting anyone with a drug habit... especially with Unemployment payments since you must be able to work and seeking work to collect unemployment. If you have a drug habit, you are not likely going to get hired if the employer does drug testing...and even if you do get hired, you are not likely to be able to keep the job for very long.
...Rich
I have recently heard that the most common cases of overdose seen in the ER is for overdosing on Tylenol.
I agree with your assessment of smoking, however until it is illegal to sell cigarettes it will continue. Perhaps instead of showing ID to buy cigarettes, we should require them to show proof of private Health Insurance. The same applies to alcohol abuse....but it's legal to buy alcohol and unfortunately a Drunk Driver will get an average of 9 DUI citations before he/she is involved in a fatal accident.
My comment about drug testing welfare recipients may not reduce the welfare rolls by much, but we should not be supporting anyone with a drug habit... especially with Unemployment payments since you must be able to work and seeking work to collect unemployment. If you have a drug habit, you are not likely going to get hired if the employer does drug testing...and even if you do get hired, you are not likely to be able to keep the job for very long.
...Rich
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Rich, I get your point--but the question remains, at what cost? If it turns out that the cost of (drug testing plus welfare-to-only-those-who-pass) is greater than the cost of the current welfare system, should we do it? Depending on how much more it is, the answer may very well be 'yes', as it may cause some of them (granted, not many--but some) to get off of drugs (or never get on them in the first place), thus increasing their employability and decreasing their ER medical costs. But I'm not sure anyone knows yet where that line where the cost becomes too great currently is, let alone where it should be.
Bill V,
Yes we should do it! Especially if we have the person applying for Welfare pay for the test out of their first welfare check. If the person fails the drug test the state only eats the cost of the test for those who failed. If what Mark mentioned is true, and that not that many people on welfare are drug abuser, then the cost should be negligible in proportion to the savings in not having to pay welfare to drug abusers.
Like Mark, I would also like to see some restrictions on the use of tobacco and alcohol for Welfare recipients, but since they are legal drugs, it would be hard to enforce...but both take their toll on many people in our society. So, if a welfare applicant has a history of DUI, he/she should not be given welfare unless they remain enrolled in an approved drug/alcohol program and attend meetings/counseling and pass periodic breathalyzer tests.
There are other issues that we should use to limit welfare recipients, but the main purpose should be is to get these people off the welfare roll merry-go-round.
I believe we should help people who have hit on hard times, lost their jobs, or have some injury or disability, but for those who are just lazy or not willing to go out and get a job, or would rather lay around the house and drink or do drugs, then we do not need to contribute to their lack of ambition. For those individuals, we need to make the Welfare process as difficult as possible.
Taking a drug-test to be eligible for Welfare is not much to ask for someone with a legitimate Welfare need. Not too much different then requiring all voters to show a photo ID before voting... There is way to much voter fraud now although many politicians want to down play this because with an honest vote, they probably would not have ever been elected.
That brings us back to my original statement...If I have to be drug-tested to get a paycheck, then people should be drug-tested to get a Welfare check.
...Rich
Yes we should do it! Especially if we have the person applying for Welfare pay for the test out of their first welfare check. If the person fails the drug test the state only eats the cost of the test for those who failed. If what Mark mentioned is true, and that not that many people on welfare are drug abuser, then the cost should be negligible in proportion to the savings in not having to pay welfare to drug abusers.
Like Mark, I would also like to see some restrictions on the use of tobacco and alcohol for Welfare recipients, but since they are legal drugs, it would be hard to enforce...but both take their toll on many people in our society. So, if a welfare applicant has a history of DUI, he/she should not be given welfare unless they remain enrolled in an approved drug/alcohol program and attend meetings/counseling and pass periodic breathalyzer tests.
There are other issues that we should use to limit welfare recipients, but the main purpose should be is to get these people off the welfare roll merry-go-round.
I believe we should help people who have hit on hard times, lost their jobs, or have some injury or disability, but for those who are just lazy or not willing to go out and get a job, or would rather lay around the house and drink or do drugs, then we do not need to contribute to their lack of ambition. For those individuals, we need to make the Welfare process as difficult as possible.
Taking a drug-test to be eligible for Welfare is not much to ask for someone with a legitimate Welfare need. Not too much different then requiring all voters to show a photo ID before voting... There is way to much voter fraud now although many politicians want to down play this because with an honest vote, they probably would not have ever been elected.
That brings us back to my original statement...If I have to be drug-tested to get a paycheck, then people should be drug-tested to get a Welfare check.
...Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Maybe it makes sense but for those states/counties that have instituted a drug screening policy for recipients they have shown the cost of administering the tests is something like 10x more costly than any savings due to benefits not given to those that have been shown to fail said tests.
So, if you are willing to step over dollars to grab dimes in an attempt to make sure that no one taking drugs gets a check, then by all means, test away.
TJR
So, if you are willing to step over dollars to grab dimes in an attempt to make sure that no one taking drugs gets a check, then by all means, test away.
TJR
TJR,
Again, my point is not to save the states money, but it is to stop subsidizing drug users with taxpayers money. Those states who did apply drug testing only did so on initial applicants. If you follow that up with random drug screening for everyone on welfare, you will weed out a lot more.
If employers can find clinics and labs that will do drug screening for job applicants at a reasonable price, so can the various welfare agencies. The fact that there may be additional cost associated with the drug testing should not be deciding issue. If deduct the drug testing cost from their first couple of welfare checks....cost would be minimal since they would be reimbursed the cost for all that passed and those that failed have saved you money by not receiving welfare benefits.
The average cost of a drug test is $42 and if you want to add a few more dollars to cover the administrative costs for people and paperwork, you are still talking about a cost of well under $100 per person? When Michigan did drug testing on welfare applicants it found that about 10% tested positive which is about the same percentage of people as test positive in the US population.
Do the math: If 1000 people are tested in one month, and only 10% (100) fail, and they would get $1000 a month in welfare ($1200 per year) that is $120,000 you did not pay out. Even if each test cost you $100 each, the total cost would only be $100,000 vs the $120,000 you did not pay out in welfare?
If you do not qualify welfare candidates, then just give everyone a check and get rid of all the administrative costs? In fact, the late Paul Harvey once reported that if we stopped all welfare administration and had every welfare dollar go directly to those who are on welfare, with not questions asked, we could pay every man, woman, and child on welfare $70,000 a year!
I suspect that the claim of excessive cost by some states is just an excuse to hide a liberal political agenda rather than based on facts. It's the ACLU who is behind all the objections to drug testing and they will sue states and communities who attempt to implement drug screenings....that's what's making it so costly?
If an employer can legally drug test job applicants without being sued, the state should be able to legally drug test welfare recipients without frivolous lawsuits.
If you are feeding at the taxpayer's trough, the taxpayers should be able to set the rules.
...Rich
Again, my point is not to save the states money, but it is to stop subsidizing drug users with taxpayers money. Those states who did apply drug testing only did so on initial applicants. If you follow that up with random drug screening for everyone on welfare, you will weed out a lot more.
If employers can find clinics and labs that will do drug screening for job applicants at a reasonable price, so can the various welfare agencies. The fact that there may be additional cost associated with the drug testing should not be deciding issue. If deduct the drug testing cost from their first couple of welfare checks....cost would be minimal since they would be reimbursed the cost for all that passed and those that failed have saved you money by not receiving welfare benefits.
The average cost of a drug test is $42 and if you want to add a few more dollars to cover the administrative costs for people and paperwork, you are still talking about a cost of well under $100 per person? When Michigan did drug testing on welfare applicants it found that about 10% tested positive which is about the same percentage of people as test positive in the US population.
Do the math: If 1000 people are tested in one month, and only 10% (100) fail, and they would get $1000 a month in welfare ($1200 per year) that is $120,000 you did not pay out. Even if each test cost you $100 each, the total cost would only be $100,000 vs the $120,000 you did not pay out in welfare?
If you do not qualify welfare candidates, then just give everyone a check and get rid of all the administrative costs? In fact, the late Paul Harvey once reported that if we stopped all welfare administration and had every welfare dollar go directly to those who are on welfare, with not questions asked, we could pay every man, woman, and child on welfare $70,000 a year!
I suspect that the claim of excessive cost by some states is just an excuse to hide a liberal political agenda rather than based on facts. It's the ACLU who is behind all the objections to drug testing and they will sue states and communities who attempt to implement drug screenings....that's what's making it so costly?
If an employer can legally drug test job applicants without being sued, the state should be able to legally drug test welfare recipients without frivolous lawsuits.
If you are feeding at the taxpayer's trough, the taxpayers should be able to set the rules.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Richard L,
In theory and basis I agree. Standing on one's principles often makes one less wealthy.
I'm just saying that at the end of the day, no matter what is done to optimize this situation, the taxpayers might be paying $100 to fix a $10 problem; yes, the problem would be fixed, and some would sleep better at night with their principles pacified.
TJR
In theory and basis I agree. Standing on one's principles often makes one less wealthy.
I'm just saying that at the end of the day, no matter what is done to optimize this situation, the taxpayers might be paying $100 to fix a $10 problem; yes, the problem would be fixed, and some would sleep better at night with their principles pacified.
TJR
TJR,
It's not a matter of sleeping better at night. It's all about Integrity, and Integrity may cost a little more. The fact that most of our States and the Federal governments lack any form of Integrity, then cost becomes the ruling factor.
The Federal government has already agreed that they use the Sue & Settle to promote the liberal evironmental causes. That's where the government reacts to lawsuits by various liberal environmental groups like the Sierra club, by not contesting the lawsuits, accepting a default settlement, and changing the the laws that were enacted by more conservative administrations.
Let's not turn our backs on the fact that this country and it's political machine runs on money. You can bet that anytime a citizens rights are pushed aside in the name of cost or national security, it is all about money and nothing else!
...Rich
It's not a matter of sleeping better at night. It's all about Integrity, and Integrity may cost a little more. The fact that most of our States and the Federal governments lack any form of Integrity, then cost becomes the ruling factor.
The Federal government has already agreed that they use the Sue & Settle to promote the liberal evironmental causes. That's where the government reacts to lawsuits by various liberal environmental groups like the Sierra club, by not contesting the lawsuits, accepting a default settlement, and changing the the laws that were enacted by more conservative administrations.
Let's not turn our backs on the fact that this country and it's political machine runs on money. You can bet that anytime a citizens rights are pushed aside in the name of cost or national security, it is all about money and nothing else!
...Rich
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Richard L, I definitely get your point, and to a large extent agree with it. But I think you will be able to admit that there is a large portion of this population who wouldn't agree. There are a lot of fiscal conservatives out there who would say that if this drug testing results in a greater cost to the taxpayers, i.e. more money coming out of our pockets, that it's the wrong route to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V,
I do agree that many fiscal conservatives would object. But as a fiscal conservative myself, I fee that if you deduct all the costs of doing the Drug Test from the Welfare check then the taxpayer does not incur any additional costs. If the Drug Test comes back positive, you have still saved the taxpayers money by only spending about $100 or less for the testing, but avoided paying out thousands of $$ in benefits to support someone's drug habit.
The problem we have now is that the government does not mind spending other taxpayers money to buy votes from people who are too willing to take a handout, and yet unwilling to work or be productive citizens.
...Rich
I do agree that many fiscal conservatives would object. But as a fiscal conservative myself, I fee that if you deduct all the costs of doing the Drug Test from the Welfare check then the taxpayer does not incur any additional costs. If the Drug Test comes back positive, you have still saved the taxpayers money by only spending about $100 or less for the testing, but avoided paying out thousands of $$ in benefits to support someone's drug habit.
The problem we have now is that the government does not mind spending other taxpayers money to buy votes from people who are too willing to take a handout, and yet unwilling to work or be productive citizens.
...Rich
