Jump to content
IGNORED

Florida drug testing for welfare recipiants


Richard_D

Recommended Posts

Hmmmm.......Would the taxpayer's money get back into the taxpayer's pocket faster when the money is spent on drugs or not....?

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
In before the lock :grin:

 

No lock required, as long as participants can avoid dragging politics into this.

Link to comment

Old New$$.

Doesn't point out that the recipients pay out of pocket for testing.

Reimbursement (eventually) if they pass.

 

Another great leap forward for the $un$hine $tate.

:(

 

Like our new law requiring at least 4 visits annually to your Dr. if you want to get pain meds.

A wa$te of time, $ and re$ource$ by the patient and the doctor.

 

We have pill millS.

They are bad.

They are also easy enough to track by size of prescription, number of patient$, frequency of refill$.

 

But no, make every law abiding citizen and their doctor spend huge amounts of time and energy on the paperwork, miss work and spend hundreds of dollars on doctor visits.

 

You also have to sign a contract.

In it you agree that if you are found using alcohol, applying to multiple doctors, or using illicit drugs, you can lose your

medical insurance coverage.

For a state that depends on tourism and relocation to grow, these Draconian steps are frightening.

 

Please delete if this is too "political" but them's the facts.

 

Link to comment

Brian, My lifestyle does not allow me to drink or use drugs. There's also a big difference between risking my job and being on welfare.

Link to comment
In before the lock :grin:

 

No lock required, as long as participants can avoid dragging politics into this.

 

I don't give it much hope for avoiding politics...

Link to comment
CoarsegoldKid

For a state that depends on tourism and relocation to grow, these Draconian steps are frightening.

Draconian! No! Not in Florida.

Link to comment

The Florida gubment, if this law passes, should track the numbers of the mass exodus of welfare recepients that will surely shift their whirlpool to another state.......

Link to comment
Witch_Doctor

For a state that depends on tourism and relocation to grow, these Draconian steps are frightening.

Draconian! No! Not in Florida.

 

As a 5th generation Floridian, I wish the relocationist would relocate somewhere else. I mean really, what happened to all those folks moving to Arizona for the dry heat. I mean really, do I need another bagel shop, another deli, another pizzeria, or any other darned rude refugee of taxation turning my homestate into a little New York or New Jersey. Then after fleeing the high taxes of their home state, they go and elect the same idiots to office that ruined the state they fled. Makes no sense to me, if your going to move somewhere why wouldn't you want to assimilate to the new culture, isn't that the point. If your going to turn it into what you left why leave.

 

Oh yea, peeing for an unemployement check or welfare, about damn time.

 

Link to comment
Calvin  (no socks)

"To pee, or not To pee, that is the question"....... for $300.00 a month of my tax dollars......where is that jar, I'll get the samples!

Link to comment
Brian, My lifestyle does not allow me to drink or use drugs. There's also a big difference between risking my job and being on welfare.

 

just busting your chops...nothing personal. i do not drink or drug either.

Link to comment

This thing will never even make it through the first day of a court challenge. It's political kabuki theater....this way the politicians can say they tried but the courts ultimately tide their hands.

Link to comment

I have to do it to get a job that I'll have to work at in order to get money, so if it's to get money for free I see no problemo!!! :)

Link to comment

So no one wants to evoke the slippery slope?

First unemployment, then what, Social Security?

How about state retirements?

Link to comment
Witch_Doctor
So no one wants to evoke the slippery slope?

First unemployment, then what, Social Security?

How about state retirements?

 

There is no Slippery Slope with this. If a private employer drug tests than the employee can choose not to work for them, same holds true with public employees, and those seeking government assistance. Fact of the matter is that a public employee is held to a higher standard because of "Public Trust" since they are paid with tax dollars. Regarding retirements, no one has suggested or even alluded to drug testing retirees. Once a person is retired they have essentially meet the requirements of contribution and are no longer an employee.

 

As a retired policeman, we took drug tests randomly several times a year throughout my entire career. Not only were we randomly tested, but we had to appear for the testing in a required time frame. If we tested positive we were fired. Why should it be any different for other government employees or those wanting a government susidies. Fact of the matter is, any government employee can be and should be subjected to random drug testing during their career. Has to do with the "Public Trust." The government is not obligated to employ anyone specific or obligated to pay anyone unemployment or any other subsidies for that matter. I consider those who collect social security that have not contributed, or those collecting any other form of government subsidies obligated to meet the requirements set forth.

 

If person wants to sit at home and smoke pot, then don't get a job that requires drug testing. If you want a freebie from the government, don't take drugs. If drugs weren't illegal, then they might have a leg to stand on, but until then. . .

 

 

Link to comment
So no one wants to evoke the slippery slope?

First unemployment, then what, Social Security?

How about state retirements?

 

Good one. never quite thought of it that way...

Link to comment

You earned social security and retirement , paid into unemployment but what did you do to deserve welfare ?

Link to comment

I don't mind the concept of aid recipients having to stay straight, but will this have any effect? And, if these people are already financially distressed, does it make sense for them to have to pay to remain in the program?

 

I'm all for measures that make it more likely that people will escape the throes of poverty, but this sounds more like a measure to demean those in need.

Link to comment
I don't mind the concept of aid recipients having to stay straight, but will this have any effect? And, if these people are already financially distressed, does it make sense for them to have to pay to remain in the program?

 

I'm all for measures that make it more likely that people will escape the throes of poverty, but this sounds more like a measure to demean those in need.

 

I see it as measure to hold those in "need" accountable. And know that the ACLU wasted no time in filing their predictable law suit claiming racial profiling.

Link to comment

How does it make them pay to stay in the program ? It says they will be reimbursed if they pass the drug test.The effect of staying straight and off drugs is clear in my eyes. They may just have the ability to get off welfare by getting a job. Funny how that is, drugs make you lazy , and unmotivated. IMO. I know for a fact if I party too much I'd lose my job to lack of motivation.

Link to comment
So no one wants to evoke the slippery slope?

First unemployment, then what, Social Security?

How about state retirements?

 

There is no Slippery Slope with this. If a private employer drug tests than the employee can choose not to work for them, same holds true with public employees, and those seeking government assistance. Fact of the matter is that a public employee is held to a higher standard because of "Public Trust" since they are paid with tax dollars. Regarding retirements, no one has suggested or even alluded to drug testing retirees. Once a person is retired they have essentially meet the requirements of contribution and are no longer an employee.

 

As a retired policeman, we took drug tests randomly several times a year throughout my entire career. Not only were we randomly tested, but we had to appear for the testing in a required time frame. If we tested positive we were fired. Why should it be any different for other government employees or those wanting a government susidies. Fact of the matter is, any government employee can be and should be subjected to random drug testing during their career. Has to do with the "Public Trust." The government is not obligated to employ anyone specific or obligated to pay anyone unemployment or any other subsidies for that matter. I consider those who collect social security that have not contributed, or those collecting any other form of government subsidies obligated to meet the requirements set forth.

 

If person wants to sit at home and smoke pot, then don't get a job that requires drug testing. If you want a freebie from the government, don't take drugs. If drugs weren't illegal, then they might have a leg to stand on, but until then. . .

 

 

Not all public employees are paid by tax dollars, some are funded through grants.

 

Ref earning retirement, tell that to the LEO's et al in NH who are most likely getting theirs cut in half.

 

Social contracts exist, moral contracts exist, but they have no weight.

 

WRT "those seeking public assistance". well there are thousands of potential "those" in Fla. who have been cut soley based on budget changes.

Nothing they did other than rely on their employment contract.

In some areas there are no jobs to replace the one they were cut from.

 

Drugs illegal?

That's a good one.

You can buy all the alcohol and tobacco you want.

Social/health/work costs related to those drugs are phenomenal.

 

Go back and read my post about new regs for pain meds.

I hope there isn't a retired LEO out there who objects to being treated like a suspect (potential drug sales/abuse) if they need disability related pain meds.

The contract our HMO has could casue someone who drank a beer to lose their health coverage if they were prescribed pain meds.

Trying to walk the line wrt politics but this pee in a cup policy is strange when we have a governor who made an obscene fortune in the health care field, spent $73,000,000.00 of his own money to get elected, and took the 5th innumerable times when his companies investigated and required to pay incredible amounts in fines.

 

They have changed the vesting and payout for LEO's and other state employees.

It is a slippery slope.

 

If there was a reason to test a recipient of public assistance and they failed a drug test, then act.

Don't unilaterally treat all potential recipients as a drug user.

Smells of something when those in power may benefit financially (their companies/associates) and public good is used to shove it down the throat.

 

How about Vietnam Veterans?

Data shows a higher use of illegal drugs among them.

Shouldn't public good dictate that their benefits be tied to passing the pee test?

 

Before anyone flames, I'm being devadvocatish and am opposed to any testing w/out cause.

And yes, in my job we can be tested.

In fact, when I was possibly poisoned at work this year they tested me for all kinds of substances to try and find out what it was.

Still awaiting FDLE testing results on that to conclude or proceed on the felony.

 

Now employees who operate machinery such as buses that have passengers, or any comparable occupation where loss

of life could result from impaiment usually have testing as a condition of employment.

That is different.

 

Our current leaders (in Fla) have an agenda.

If that isn't clear, time will make it so to one and all.

Link to comment

Tim, I'll admit to not having read the bill. But to my understanding, this will only affect recipients of welfare & perhaps food stamps. I've heard nothing of it involving retired LEO's, veterans, etc. I don't see that as The Gov's intention. Am I wrong? If so, please point me to where I can see it for myself.

Link to comment

We need a new store called Welfare-Mart. Only welfare recipiants can purchase goods there with vouchers. No cigaretts, alcohol, etc. would be sold there. Only the necessities, healthy food etc.

Run by the govt. and all the profits would benefit taxpayers. Staffed by people on welfare too. Am I a genious or what ? Don't answer that.

Link to comment
We need a new store called Welfare-Mart. Only welfare recipiants can purchase goods there with vouchers. No cigaretts, alcohol, etc. would be sold there. Only the necessities, healthy food etc.

 

To quote Russell...+1.

Link to comment

Why don't we try it for a while and see what happens?

 

That is why we have states.

 

If it causes untold problems they will do away with it.

 

If it lowers drug use and gets people back to work then the entire country should do it.

 

MY $.03 (inflation....Russell reminded me)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday

Anybody know how expensive drug testing is? This is highly relevant to any kind of cost/benefit analysis.

Link to comment

The cost's are in this article. http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility I don't understand the reasoning when they say welfare recipiants are not prone to drug use any more than the rest of us. I think the point is that if we do drugs we work and pay for our drugs and when they do it we work and pay for theirs too.After reading the article, It will probably never happen . Putting the money towards job training instead of drug testing is said to be more cost effective.

Link to comment
Witch_Doctor

I will preface this response with one of my favorite quotes

 

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

 

-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

So no one wants to evoke the slippery slope?

First unemployment, then what, Social Security?

How about state retirements?

 

There is no Slippery Slope with this. If a private employer drug tests than the employee can choose not to work for them, same holds true with public employees, and those seeking government assistance. Fact of the matter is that a public employee is held to a higher standard because of "Public Trust" since they are paid with tax dollars. Regarding retirements, no one has suggested or even alluded to drug testing retirees. Once a person is retired they have essentially meet the requirements of contribution and are no longer an employee.

 

As a retired policeman, we took drug tests randomly several times a year throughout my entire career. Not only were we randomly tested, but we had to appear for the testing in a required time frame. If we tested positive we were fired. Why should it be any different for other government employees or those wanting a government susidies. Fact of the matter is, any government employee can be and should be subjected to random drug testing during their career. Has to do with the "Public Trust." The government is not obligated to employ anyone specific or obligated to pay anyone unemployment or any other subsidies for that matter. I consider those who collect social security that have not contributed, or those collecting any other form of government subsidies obligated to meet the requirements set forth.

 

If person wants to sit at home and smoke pot, then don't get a job that requires drug testing. If you want a freebie from the government, don't take drugs. If drugs weren't illegal, then they might have a leg to stand on, but until then. . .

 

 

Not all public employees are paid by tax dollars, some are funded through grants.

Those paid through grants are still paid by tax payers, as the government grant program is funded by tax dollars.

 

Ref earning retirement, tell that to the LEO's et al in NH who are most likely getting theirs cut in half.

My retirement system was a municipal system that was not based upon or relied upon state compensation, we also had to contribute 6% of our salary toward it. At 20 years we have 63%, at 25 years 83%, and at 30 years we were 100% of the the best three years of salary. Our retirement is way in the black. Regarding LEO's that have pensions vested in state systems, as in Florida, they also base the three best years as inclusive of overtime and details. We did not, and we were also not vested until 12 years.It absolutely drives my nuts when I hear family complain about putting in a lousy 3%. Does it stink, of course, is it neccessary, yes if they want it to be liquid and viable.

 

Social contracts exist, moral contracts exist, but they have no weight.

 

Yes social and moral contract exists as well as civil responsability

 

WRT "those seeking public assistance". well there are thousands of potential "those" in Fla. who have been cut soley based on budget changes.

Nothing they did other than rely on their employment contract.

In some areas there are no jobs to replace the one they were cut from.

 

As this is unfortunate, it is a fact of life. Uprooting a family in search for work is as old as time itself. Just within the USA, how many small towns and cities have dried up through the years because business or industry left, or draughts killed the crops. Fact is we have become accustomed with the mentality that "It should come to me," or as I like to call the "Fast Food lifestyle." I want it and i want it now, that is why so many are in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. Business, whether industrial or agricultural is reliant on making a profit to stay prosperous which in turn employ's workers. It used to be that a civil servent understood that they would accept lesser pay with the pay out of a better retirement through a pension, that has not become the case anymore. Remember why and when company paid healthcare and retirements came about.

 

Drugs illegal?

That's a good one.

You can buy all the alcohol and tobacco you want.

Social/health/work costs related to those drugs are phenomenal.

 

As long as the federal government maintains Schedule I, II, III, and IV in the USC as a criminal act they will be illegal. It wasn't to long ago that we had prohibition in this country. Just because something is illegal does not dictate the social norms associated with it. As we know social norms are communally based, what is accepted in San Francisco isn't accepted in Montgomery. Just as the person who chooses to drive drunk, sooner or later they will have the brunt of law enforcment brought upon them for their actions, it is the law of averages. You believe social, health, and work related incidents associated with alcohol and tobacco are phenomenal; wait until drugs are legalized and studies of their abuse come to the forefront. We are already seeing the affects of decriminalization in states like California. Until now, narcotics use have been studied in a very limited manner in relation to to those cost because it is illegal.

 

Go back and read my post about new regs for pain meds.

I hope there isn't a retired LEO out there who objects to being treated like a suspect (potential drug sales/abuse) if they need disability related pain meds.

The contract our HMO has could casue someone who drank a beer to lose their health coverage if they were prescribed pain meds.

Trying to walk the line wrt politics but this pee in a cup policy is strange when we have a governor who made an obscene fortune in the health care field, spent $73,000,000.00 of his own money to get elected, and took the 5th innumerable times when his companies investigated and required to pay incredible amounts in fines.

 

I have no issues with with having to make 4 trips to my doctor annually for proper prescription of medication, and neither do I feel like a suspect. If my doctor saw me once a year and I were reliant on various medicines for my health and well being, I would want my physician to be as up to date on my health as possible for proper planning. My mother who in her early thirties had brain surgery, who in her 40's was placed on thyroid and heart medications, and in her 60's was place in hormone therapy, and in her 70's had complete knee replacement, has what I would call an intimate relationship with her physician, as it should be. If my mother went once a year to the doctor, how in the world would he know how to prescribe the proper medicines, let alone even diagnose anything other than symptoms.

 

They have changed the vesting and payout for LEO's and other state employees.

It is a slippery slope.

 

We are living longer, unfrotunately a thirty year career now is being eclipsed by an even longer retirement. Is it acceptable for person to work until they are 55 or 65, and live on a pension longer than they actually worked, especially when our later years are considerably more costly due to medical costs associated with longer lives? Though it may be undesirable, it is neccassary. We have to live within our means, as individuals, communities and countries.

 

If there was a reason to test a recipient of public assistance and they failed a drug test, then act.

Don't unilaterally treat all potential recipients as a drug user.

Smells of something when those in power may benefit financially (their companies/associates) and public good is used to shove it down the throat.

 

I would correlate that statement to Global Warming and those companies who would benefit on cap and trade, but to your original statement; would you propose another government bureaucracy to regulate who is tested and who is not. Why is the assumption that anyone tested is assumed to be a drug abuser? Does that assumption pretain to random testing policies in place by private industry and government agencies? If tax payer money is being dulled out, shouldn't we make a vested effort to make sure that those recipients are legitimate and qualified to recieve it, and will make the best use of the funding to become a productive member of our society. That is what "Asistance" is meant to do, isn't it? Its not meant to be a paycheck. Reminds me of the altruistic program of "No Child Left Behind," When does the one outway the many? Or the more colloqueial, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!"

 

How about Vietnam Veterans?

Data shows a higher use of illegal drugs among them.

Shouldn't public good dictate that their benefits be tied to passing the pee test?

 

Absolutely, those studies also show that veterans were using illegal substances to cope with their return home and assimilation back into society. The government failed our veterans of that era, as they have have in many before it. As a society we are learning from experiance, and considering the vested interest we should have in our veterans their well-being is paramount. We may not be where we should be, but we are leaps and bounds from where we were. I would much rather take a majority of the funding used for welfare and social aid programs and reinvest it into our vets.

 

I will relay a common experiance that I saw in my career in law enforcement. I retired from New Orleans Police Department, and anytime you have a predominatly rural state with one or two metropolitan cities, the dregs of society migrate to those cities for the social welfare handouts. Conduct an investigatory stop of a man under the age of 25, he has no source of income, he lives in government housing, get susidized services, have multiple children to multiple women, and is clearly capable and able to work, but choose not to. Should they recieve that SSI check, a state check, should they recieve that subsidized housing, food stamps, or subsidized utilities, not to mention that tax return they get even though they never worked. Or maybe make a choice, and work hard for a living and be a productive person in our society. In 1999 the Mayor's Office conducted a study, over 70% of the population was indigent, and of that percentage, over 50% had never held a job. Who fits the bill in taxes, and who benefits, definitely not the tax payer.

 

Before anyone flames, I'm being devadvocatish and am opposed to any testing w/out cause.

And yes, in my job we can be tested.

In fact, when I was possibly poisoned at work this year they tested me for all kinds of substances to try and find out what it was.

Still awaiting FDLE testing results on that to conclude or proceed on the felony.

 

Hope it works out for you

 

Now employees who operate machinery such as buses that have passengers, or any comparable occupation where loss

of life could result from impaiment usually have testing as a condition of employment.

That is different.

 

Not only those, but any individual who is embued with the Public Trust or responsable for others well being.

 

Our current leaders (in Fla) have an agenda.

If that isn't clear, time will make it so to one and all.

 

I will respectfully disagree, as I believe that will only lead to a political discussion which is not appropriate in a polite discourse of opinions

Link to comment
I will preface this response with one of my favorite quotes

 

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

 

-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

So no one wants to evoke the slippery slope?

First unemployment, then what, Social Security?

How about state retirements?

 

There is no Slippery Slope with this. If a private employer drug tests than the employee can choose not to work for them, same holds true with public employees, and those seeking government assistance. Fact of the matter is that a public employee is held to a higher standard because of "Public Trust" since they are paid with tax dollars. Regarding retirements, no one has suggested or even alluded to drug testing retirees. Once a person is retired they have essentially meet the requirements of contribution and are no longer an employee.

 

As a retired policeman, we took drug tests randomly several times a year throughout my entire career. Not only were we randomly tested, but we had to appear for the testing in a required time frame. If we tested positive we were fired. Why should it be any different for other government employees or those wanting a government susidies. Fact of the matter is, any government employee can be and should be subjected to random drug testing during their career. Has to do with the "Public Trust." The government is not obligated to employ anyone specific or obligated to pay anyone unemployment or any other subsidies for that matter. I consider those who collect social security that have not contributed, or those collecting any other form of government subsidies obligated to meet the requirements set forth.

 

If person wants to sit at home and smoke pot, then don't get a job that requires drug testing. If you want a freebie from the government, don't take drugs. If drugs weren't illegal, then they might have a leg to stand on, but until then. . . marijuana is decrimed in about what 15 states? So, not illegal any more than Calilanesharing.

 

 

Not all public employees are paid by tax dollars, some are funded through grants.

Those paid through grants are still paid by tax payers, as the government grant program is funded by tax dollars.

I'll just assume you have no expereince with endowmwnets and non-government grants.

They are substantial.

 

Ref earning retirement, tell that to the LEO's et al in NH who are most likely getting theirs cut in half.

My retirement system was a municipal system that was not based upon or relied upon state compensation, we also had to contribute 6% of our salary toward it. At 20 years we have 63%, at 25 years 83%, and at 30 years we were 100% of the the best three years of salary. Our retirement is way in the black. Regarding LEO's that have pensions vested in state systems, as in Florida, they also base the three best years as inclusive of overtime and details. We did not, and we were also not vested until 12 years.It absolutely drives my nuts when I hear family complain about putting in a lousy 3%. Does it stink, of course, is it neccessary, yes if they want it to be liquid and viable.

So because that is the way your job did it everyone should? Perhaps, but a huge number of Fl state employees are OPS and have no benefits or retirement. They would jump at the opportunity to invest ^% of your salary rate in a retirement plan.

 

Social contracts exist, moral contracts exist, but they have no weight.

 

Yes social and moral contract exists as well as civil responsability

 

WRT "those seeking public assistance". well there are thousands of potential "those" in Fla. who have been cut soley based on budget changes.

Nothing they did other than rely on their employment contract.

In some areas there are no jobs to replace the one they were cut from.

 

As this is unfortunate, it is a fact of life. Uprooting a family in search for work is as old as time itself. Just within the USA, how many small towns and cities have dried up through the years because business or industry left, or draughts killed the crops. Fact is we have become accustomed with the mentality that "It should come to me," or as I like to call the "Fast Food lifestyle." I want it and i want it now, that is why so many are in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. Business, whether industrial or agricultural is reliant on making a profit to stay prosperous which in turn employ's workers. It used to be that a civil servent understood that they would accept lesser pay with the pay out of a better retirement through a pension, that has not become the case anymore. Remember why and when company paid healthcare and retirements came about.

And this means what, we should just tell those state employees who have relied on compensation for upholding their half of the contract that it is just too bad? See ya?

Drugs illegal?

That's a good one.

You can buy all the alcohol and tobacco you want.

Social/health/work costs related to those drugs are phenomenal.

 

As long as the federal government maintains Schedule I, II, III, and IV in the USC as a criminal act they will be illegal. It wasn't to long ago that we had prohibition in this country. Just because something is illegal does not dictate the social norms associated with it. As we know social norms are communally based, what is accepted in San Francisco isn't accepted in Montgomery. Just as the person who chooses to drive drunk, sooner or later they will have the brunt of law enforcment brought upon them for their actions, it is the law of averages. You believe social, health, and work related incidents associated with alcohol and tobacco are phenomenal; wait until drugs are legalized and studies of their abuse come to the forefront. We are already seeing the affects of decriminalization in states like California. Until now, narcotics use have been studied in a very limited manner in relation to to those cost because it is illegal.

 

Again, nice monologue but non responsive. So it OK to spend public benefits on illegal drugs if you "earned" it?

Go back and read my post about new regs for pain meds.

I hope there isn't a retired LEO out there who objects to being treated like a suspect (potential drug sales/abuse) if they need disability related pain meds.

The contract our HMO has could casue someone who drank a beer to lose their health coverage if they were prescribed pain meds.

Trying to walk the line wrt politics but this pee in a cup policy is strange when we have a governor who made an obscene fortune in the health care field, spent $73,000,000.00 of his own money to get elected, and took the 5th innumerable times when his companies investigated and required to pay incredible amounts in fines.

 

I have no issues with with having to make 4 trips to my doctor annually for proper prescription of medication, and neither do I feel like a suspect. If my doctor saw me once a year and I were reliant on various medicines for my health and well being, I would want my physician to be as up to date on my health as possible for proper planning. My mother who in her early thirties had brain surgery, who in her 40's was placed on thyroid and heart medications, and in her 60's was place in hormone therapy, and in her 70's had complete knee replacement, has what I would call an intimate relationship with her physician, as it should be. If my mother went once a year to the doctor, how in the world would he know how to prescribe the proper medicines, let alone even diagnose anything other than symptoms.

You're retired. Tell an OPS state worker with no benefits they have to miss at least 4 days of work per year without pay and pay the cost of a visit simply to continue getting a prescription.

 

They have changed the vesting and payout for LEO's and other state employees.

It is a slippery slope.

 

We are living longer, unfrotunately a thirty year career now is being eclipsed by an even longer retirement. Is it acceptable for person to work until they are 55 or 65, and live on a pension longer than they actually worked, especially when our later years are considerably more costly due to medical costs associated with longer lives? Though it may be undesirable, it is neccassary. We have to live within our means, as individuals, communities and countries.

So it is OK to unilaterally change a contract? A contract that they other party fulfilled their duties to? Gee, Mr. Contractor thanks for building my house but my circumstances have changed and I'm only going to pay you half of what I agreed to in the contract.

The Florida REtirement System is completely viable. It has an 88rating. Anything above 80 is considered exceptional. The FRS does not need the 3% tax on state workers to maintain the ability to pay retirees. Any individual, whether a politician or private citizen who says it does is uniformed. The FRS is one of the soundest most secure plans in the country. Look it up. Facts are facts.

 

If there was a reason to test a recipient of public assistance and they failed a drug test, then act.

Don't unilaterally treat all potential recipients as a drug user.

Smells of something when those in power may benefit financially (their companies/associates) and public good is used to shove it down the throat.

 

I would correlate that statement to Global Warming and those companies who would benefit on cap and trade, but to your original statement; would you propose another government bureaucracy to regulate who is tested and who is not. Why is the assumption that anyone tested is assumed to be a drug abuser? Does that assumption pretain to random testing policies in place by private industry and government agencies? If tax payer money is being dulled out, shouldn't we make a vested effort to make sure that those recipients are legitimate and qualified to recieve it, and will make the best use of the funding to become a productive member of our society. That is what "Asistance" is meant to do, isn't it? Its not meant to be a paycheck. Reminds me of the altruistic program of "No Child Left Behind," When does the one outway the many? Or the more colloqueial, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!"

 

If you think NCLB is an altruistic program you are mistaken. Again. I'll chalk that up to limited opportunity on your part to learn what it really consists of and what it can cost. It is subject for another day but we have considerable experience and knowledge of NCLB to draw from.

Also no need to create a new beauracracy the new law passes all of the money to the private sector so the primary benficiaries of the law are private companies that do drug testing.

 

How about Vietnam Veterans?

Data shows a higher use of illegal drugs among them.

Shouldn't public good dictate that their benefits be tied to passing the pee test?

 

Absolutely, those studies also show that veterans were using illegal substances to cope with their return home and assimilation back into society. The government failed our veterans of that era, as they have have in many before it. As a society we are learning from experiance, and considering the vested interest we should have in our veterans their well-being is paramount. We may not be where we should be, but we are leaps and bounds from where we were. I would much rather take a majority of the funding used for welfare and social aid programs and reinvest it into our vets.

 

I will relay a common experiance that I saw in my career in law enforcement. I retired from New Orleans Police Department, and anytime you have a predominatly rural state with one or two metropolitan cities, the dregs of society migrate to those cities for the social welfare handouts. Conduct an investigatory stop of a man under the age of 25, he has no source of income, he lives in government housing, get susidized services, have multiple children to multiple women, and is clearly capable and able to work, but choose not to. Should they recieve that SSI check, a state check, should they recieve that subsidized housing, food stamps, or subsidized utilities, not to mention that tax return they get even though they never worked. Or maybe make a choice, and work hard for a living and be a productive person in our society. In 1999 the Mayor's Office conducted a study, over 70% of the population was indigent, and of that percentage, over 50% had never held a job. Who fits the bill in taxes, and who benefits, definitely not the tax payer.

 

Do some research on the top 10 myths of welfare. There is considerable data available. Fraud exists everywhere including the NOPD and churches. If he was doing something illegal prosecute and put him away. Still will cost the tax payer for trial and incarceration.

 

Before anyone flames, I'm being devadvocatish and am opposed to any testing w/out cause.

And yes, in my job we can be tested.

In fact, when I was possibly poisoned at work this year they tested me for all kinds of substances to try and find out what it was.

Still awaiting FDLE testing results on that to conclude or proceed on the felony.

 

Hope it works out for you

Thank you.

Now employees who operate machinery such as buses that have passengers, or any comparable occupation where loss

of life could result from impaiment usually have testing as a condition of employment.

That is different.

 

Not only those, but any individual who is embued with the Public Trust or responsable for others well being.

Sounds to me like doctors fit that criteria. And police officers, lawyers, cooks, tire installers, airplane mechanics, life guards, ets. etc. so let's test everyone.

 

Our current leaders (in Fla) have an agenda.

If that isn't clear, time will make it so to one and all.

 

I will respectfully disagree, as I believe that will only lead to a political discussion which is not appropriate in a polite discourse of opinions

Without a doubt it could. The new challenge to the ballot proposal for 2012 on who can get state funds is another example.

 

 

Danny,

The Welfare law for drug testing is stand alone.

But, for all new hires in the State of Florida (after 7/1/11) entirely dif requirements for LEO's and others in high risk cat. along with thise in regular risk.

And those employed before that date have had their contract unilaterally breached by the state.

We signed a contract. We did our part.

Now, we are being taxed, oops, I mean we are voluntarily contributing 3% of our salary to the FRS on the premise that money is needed to keep it solvent.

It isn't, look it up, Facts are facts.

And just like the Lottery money that was to be used to enhance education (remember that promise) well, lottery money goes to education but other funding cut substantially so it wasn't used to enhance or improve.

Watch what happens to the FRS contributions, follow the money, it will end up elsewhere voiding the premise for the tax, er, contibution.

Link to comment
I don't mind the concept of aid recipients having to stay straight, but will this have any effect? And, if these people are already financially distressed, does it make sense for them to have to pay to remain in the program?

 

I'm all for measures that make it more likely that people will escape the throes of poverty, but this sounds more like a measure to demean those in need.

 

If they truely are "Financially Distressed", were are they getting the cash for the drugs in the first place??

Link to comment
I don't mind the concept of aid recipients having to stay straight, but will this have any effect? And, if these people are already financially distressed, does it make sense for them to have to pay to remain in the program?

 

I'm all for measures that make it more likely that people will escape the throes of poverty, but this sounds more like a measure to demean those in need.

 

If they truely are "Financially Distressed", were are they getting the cash for the drugs in the first place??

 

From dealing, of course! :grin:

 

I don't think your rhetorical question makes any sense, as it presupposes the guilt of those in the welfare system. It sort of strikes me the same was as "roadside compliance checks," where Joe Blow, riding his motorcycle down the highway, has to submit to a check of his registration, insurance, etc., based on the assumption that "someone" is breaking the law. Legally, those practices have passed muster; morally, I find it offensive in a purportedly free society to be subject to the intrusion of government based on a generalized suspicion that "someone" is breaking the law.

 

I actually think there are a few things wrong with the policy, but my fundamental objection is that it's typical government slight of land--in an era of widespread budget woes, we, as a populace, tend to be easily misdirected by those who don't want to address the really big budget issues. Those same people then trumpet their accomplishments in "tackling the budget issue," while the economy crumbles around them.

 

Intractable reliance on welfare really is a problem--you see less of it around these parts than you once did, but years ago it was clear that many welfare recipients in Chicago came from families where multiple generations had known nothing but welfare. It was a deplorable situation and a terrible injustice to kids growing up in that environment--I mean, how would you ever have any chance at a decent life if you came from a background where all your role models had never been employed, and had no motivation or idea of how to break out of that cycle? I'm very much in favor of getting people off of welfare; I just question whether this will have any effect.

 

If this really were intended to have a positive impact on folks who are in this system, great. I hope it works out that way. But, let's be honest here--a lot of us who work hard to eke out a living are pissed at the thought of paying for others who are portrayed as not pulling their share of the load. It's meant to appease the former and deliver a kick in the groin to the latter. And it gives those who don't want to fundamentally change the way government(s) do business a handy bit of cover.

Link to comment

Well said, Mike. I always take a step back when an argument is being made on puttting it to someone less fortunate than me, i.e., people on welfare, minorities, gays, etc... Maybe less fortunate is not appropriate right here, but you know what I mean. How about drug testing CEO's of big banks, all people in the higher income tax brackets. I could go on and on.

Link to comment

The oddest thing about this to me is that this is the same government that doesn't want anyone to check immigration status before delivering services.

 

----

 

 

Link to comment
Tallman, your persuasion is as obvious as the name of the Tallahassee fish wrapper. :rofl:

 

Again, I disagree.

You are so far wrong on that it is humorous to me.

Don't buy a lottery ticket this week.

 

I owned and ran a private business for over 20 years.

I created jobs and paid taxes.

I've worked in private and public sector.

How about you?

Ever run your own business and have hundreds of people counting on you to get out of bed every

morning?

Not an attack, a reply to your erroneous postulation.

 

Glad I can so easliy amuse you.

Best wishes.

Link to comment
Well said, Mike. I always take a step back when an argument is being made on puttting it to someone less fortunate than me, i.e., people on welfare, minorities, gays, etc... Maybe less fortunate is not appropriate right here, but you know what I mean. How about drug testing CEO's of big banks, all people in the higher income tax brackets. I could go on and on.
How about my point of ,if we use drugs we're paying for them from our hard earned money and if welfare people are using drugs , why should we pay for theirs ? The drug use by anyone is a whole different subject than who's paying for them IMO. If we work and are taxpayers, we can buy whatever we want if it isn't hurting anyone.If we lose our job due to drugs ,we will suffer the consequences, we should learn a lesson, pay our dues, and hopefully correct the problem . Investing in my company with my profits will make my business better. Taking money from welfare and using it to buy drugs will only postpone becomming a benifit to society.
Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday

Is there an analogy to be made with food stamps, the idea of which is that we don't want recipients spending this wealth on anything other than food? If we weren't concerned about taxpayer money funding alcohol binges and road trips, we'd just hand out cash with no strings attached.

Link to comment
Well said, Mike. I always take a step back when an argument is being made on puttting it to someone less fortunate than me, i.e., people on welfare, minorities, gays, etc... Maybe less fortunate is not appropriate right here, but you know what I mean. How about drug testing CEO's of big banks, all people in the higher income tax brackets. I could go on and on.
+1
Link to comment
How about drug testing CEO's of big banks, all people in the higher income tax brackets. I could go on and on.

 

Why drug test those who are making there "OWN" living. These folks get up everyday get dressed and off to work they go. Those who we are talking about don't. And I'm sure that they just might of had to pee in a cup to get a job in that big bank in the first place.

Link to comment
Anybody know how expensive drug testing is? This is highly relevant to any kind of cost/benefit analysis.

I think that’s a key point that I was also wondering about. The actual test’s cost is just the tip of the iceberg. I’d love to see the cost/benefit analysis that included the cost of for example sending a practitioner to the nursing home to test bedridden grandma who is on an assistance program.

 

To say nothing of the administrative/staffing overhead of the program. Including software development BTW (what my main employer does = not cheap) to track the results of 100s of 1000s of people, and integrate it with all the existing legacy benefit systems to turn off violators' benefits. That, vs. the money that will actually be saved by removing 3% (or whatever) users from the programs.

 

And what about the cost of appeal processes?

 

But then I suspect this has less to do with saving actual money, and more with political posturing, pandering and positioning.

 

Link to comment
Anybody know how expensive drug testing is? This is highly relevant to any kind of cost/benefit analysis.

I think that’s a key point that I was also wondering about. The actual test’s cost is just the tip of the iceberg. I’d love to see the cost/benefit analysis that included the cost of for example sending a practitioner to the nursing home to test bedridden grandma who is on an assistance program.

 

To say nothing of the administrative/staffing overhead of the program. Including software development BTW (what my main employer does = not cheap) to track the results of 100s of 1000s of people, and integrate it with all the existing legacy benefit systems to turn off violators' benefits. That, vs. the money that will actually be saved by removing 3% (or whatever) users from the programs.

 

And what about the cost of appeal processes?

 

But then I suspect this has less to do with saving actual money, and more with political posturing, pandering and positioning.

 

Ohh well lets just open up the bank vaults then hand have a free for all then!!!

Link to comment

Richard,

In order to collect, under present regs, the recipient must have been employed during 4 of past 5 quarters.

They must be able to work and look for employment.

Benefits range from $32 up to $275 per week derived from a formula that reflects higher pay divided by 26.

There is a time limit for payment of benefits so "welfare" is not available to recipients in Florida for an indeterminate length of time.

The new law will send revenues to private drug testing companies.

There are approximately 6.5 to 9 million recipients in the US.

The average monthly benefit (from 2006 data, there may be newer is $372)

 

Now let us avoid politics and please not go into the area of

Government Subsidies to farmers and people in many other areas.

 

If it is OK to drug test all these druggies getting welfare,

why oh why aren't we screaming for drug test of all who recieive government payouts such as subsidies?

 

And just as with a subsidy, distinguishing between the recipient of the payment and the benficiary can be an important distinction.

 

If someone on welfare (more correctly called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is fraudulently receiving payment there are already ways to stop the benefit.

Nation wide fraud rates are around 4%.

 

According to Gov. Scott's website the new law will impact about 58,000 individuals.

 

Smoke and mirrors.

The few applicants who fail the test will be a drop in the bucket and cost savings will be negligible.

But it sure will generate a lot of press, right?

Sure will make someone seem like they're tough on "X" whatever it is they want the public to perceive.

 

Have we as a nation, we as individuals become so calloused?

 

Florida has more fraud in Medicare than any other state.

A fact.

A well known fact for years.

 

A governor who was truly interested in making Florida a better place to live would've made that his target.

 

Oh wait, he made his fortune in health care.

Oh wait, his company paid a record $1,700,000,000.00 in fines.

Oh wait, he took the fifth 75 times during the investigation.

 

Waiting for him to put some teeth into Medicaid fraud investigation?

Don't bother.

 

Much better to create a schism, turn us against one another, perpetuate a myth.

 

Want to read the opinion of one of the biggest fraud perpetrators in our history?

link

 

His POV is

"As a just society, should we be careful not to selectively target our moral outrage on one specific group of people? Illegal drug use is not restricted to only poor people receiving government assistance. Think about how the same logic behind Florida's law can be used to ultimately require every single American to be subjected to such drug testing.

 

My point is that it is hypocritical to apply the logic behind the Florida law to only some of the people receiving government assistance. Should every American receiving any kind of government assistance be required to take drug tests? Further, we have to decide as a just society how far we are willing to go to stamp out illegal behavior before we become like the totalitarian societies that we despise. Tough choices."

 

 

Best wishes.

 

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Why drug test those who are making there "OWN" living. These folks get up everyday get dressed and off to work they go. Those who we are talking about don't. And I'm sure that they just might of had to pee in a cup to get a job in that big bank in the first place.

 

More to the point, the drug-testing policy at a place of business is dictated by the owners/shareholders of that business. If the owners determine that it is in their interest to implement a company-wide drug testing program, they can do so.

 

Ohh well lets just open up the bank vaults then hand have a free for all then!!!

 

:confused: Are you saying you're in favor of a drug-testing program for welfare recipients even if the costs outweigh the benefits?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...