Welfare Drug Testing Bill in Florida (Page 4)

As far as the original topic. I don't have a problem with the law, butI do feel it is political grandstanding and Repubicans have a lot of nerve going after social wellfare when they funnel tens of billions to coorporate wellfare. Perhaps we should require the CEOs of companies recieving subsidies to pee in a cup!

Perhaps if Scott was truly trying to fix problems and help those in his State.... he would require drug testing for recipients.... but if you come up positive.... then you still get benifits as long as you are enrolled in some sort of addiction recovery program... be it meetings, classes, therapy or rehab.... something to actually help those that we just identified a problem in.

If they do not want the help, that is there choice. Withholding funds to give to those that do can be our choice.

Here's what is amazing about political party loyalists.  You don't have a problem with the law, but you find fault because the "other" party proposed it.  Don't worry though, the "other" guys would do the same thing.  The parties love it - absolutely nothing can happen without the "other" guys either being wrong or hypocrites.  Awesome.

I really love how I have been labeled so many times in this thread with putting out so little information about me. No suprise every one of them have been dead wrong.

I hate both parties. They are all nothing but crooks. Talk about free loaders taking advantage of the system...Liberals only want get their liberal friends rich, conservatives only want to get their conservative friends rich. Big government, big buisness. Two peas in a pods. Same animal, different stripes.

I like this idea, I think it would be a great compromise.  Although the fact that it makes sense probably means it has 0% chance of ever happening.

this is why I swing both ways politically, so to speak.. I like getting paid off by both sides.. It the easiest way to double my money 

Requiring enrollment in a program while still paying is no incentive to quit.   I think majority would agree to having assistance on hand if person wants it, but requiring a clean re-test to get back benefits would be my line in the sand.   I am not an expert of how long it takes to get drugs out of system, but I do not believe we are talking months here vs. weeks.   Oh and the re-test cost is deducted from first check if you are clean.   If not, have predetermined time (6 months etc) until you are able to reapply after 2nd failure.   This is what makes sense to me.     

Non-Profits, family, churches, community groups are the long-term answer IMHO and not goverment intervention.   Same can be said for education, healthcare, etc, but that is different thread.   

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Even if you go to a non-profit rehab (or outpatient program), if there is a cost, who pays - especially if you are on assistance in the first place? Are you thinking that there is a government run intervention? At least in this area, when we refer people to the county agency, they hoepfully get funding to get services, and a referal to the service provider. Is that "government intervention"?

velocomp - 2011-06-03 1:12 PM

drewb8 - 2011-06-03 9:34 AM

powerman - 2011-06-03 8:40 AM

Perhaps if Scott was truly trying to fix problems and help those in his State.... he would require drug testing for recipients.... but if you come up positive.... then you still get benifits as long as you are enrolled in some sort of addiction recovery program... be it meetings, classes, therapy or rehab.... something to actually help those that we just identified a problem in.

I like this idea, I think it would be a great compromise.  Although the fact that it makes sense probably means it has 0% chance of ever happening.

Not bad, but I would prefer they go to rehab then get the money.  The issue is that once they have it you have no way to make them attend.  Why buy the cow when the milk is free.

I think the way I would structure is that you get the money while you're at rehab, but if you stop going to rehab, you stop getting the money.

Like most non-profits, the programs are suported in large part by philanthropy.   Private grants are another large portion of funding as well as volunteer services.    I am against government intervention due to ineficiency and waste.    Largest pull back I get on this topic is fear that this type of assistance is not permanent answer.  My take is that examples of these non-profits, etc already exist around us and you just have to provide examples.   We lack trust that our society would be willing to help eachother without goverment intervention and this is biggest issue.   

The largest operating cost of most government run organizations is payroll.   You eliminate that and use volunteer services and much can be done.  Even if someone can not give monetarily, it is hard to argue offering time to an organization.   

velocomp - 2011-06-03 1:12 PM

drewb8 - 2011-06-03 9:34 AM

powerman - 2011-06-03 8:40 AM

Perhaps if Scott was truly trying to fix problems and help those in his State.... he would require drug testing for recipients.... but if you come up positive.... then you still get benifits as long as you are enrolled in some sort of addiction recovery program... be it meetings, classes, therapy or rehab.... something to actually help those that we just identified a problem in.

I like this idea, I think it would be a great compromise.  Although the fact that it makes sense probably means it has 0% chance of ever happening.

Not bad, but I would prefer they go to rehab then get the money.  The issue is that once they have it you have no way to make them attend.  Why buy the cow when the milk is free.

It isn't a one shot deal... those that need it usually need it longer than one month. So they get a month free... then they are done and that's that... they want continued subsistence, then they need to continue to get better.

I'm not necessarily any expert on government assistance. I do belive that in a country as wealthy as ours we should help those that need it. And with such assistance, you will have fraud. There will always be those looking to get something for free. No way around it. We should just do our best to put reasonable safeguards in place to ensure those assistance dollars are being used the best way to help the most that need it.

When there is a problem, usually there are reasonable solutions that can make most people happy. But politicians are not about solving problems, they are about getting elected. Even if Scott has a good idea.... I'm willing to bet it has nothing to do with helping out you and me.

I'm not being snarky, but isn't the user paying for their drugs?  Couldn't this money be used to help offset the cost of their rehab?  This would even give them the benefit of seeing a positive return on what they are paying for, the so called "buy in" effect.

Well, the money they spent on drugs is gone. Spent. Up the nose, in the arm, through the lungs, whatever. As one addict put it - "I'm an addict. When you ask 'How much did I use?' the answer is 'How much did I have?' ". And if they were funding their habit with stolen money or fenced goods, that doesn't really help. 

One local well regarded rehab costs $20k for a month of acute treatment. That is an awful lot of drugs, assuming the actual cash was on hand in the first place.

A non-profit may well get funding from donations and other private resources. But, to use an example, the hospital I work for is a non-profit. But patients don't get free healthcare. Someone still pays the bills - and in many cases, that someone ends up being county or state taxpayers in the form of MA. Are you suggesting that the doctors, nurses, techs, housekeeping staff, etc should all be volunteers? A non-profit rehab is not that much different. And even less intensive services such as intensive outpatient or even outpatient counselling can be run by a non-profit, but people working there still need to eat and pay their bills. 

Maybe you are correct. Maybe the better deal is to have them continue to steal, or end up on welfare, or jail, costs to the economy in terms of lost productivity, traffic accidents, etc. 

Personally, I think if we invest in the people, then we are investing in the future. And that is true whether we are talking about addicts, children,  the poor, the sick, etc. - all groups of people who at the time they are getting services are contributing less to society then they getting from it, with no guarantee of a payback to society. And don't even get me started on the wasted money and resources on the elderly - those freeloaders aren't ever going to be contributing in a meaningful way to the economy.

But of course, that is just my opinion. Others may feel that paying for services they themselves do not use is a waste of money and amounts to socialism and the forced redistribution of wealth and resources.

Could not agree with you more...

Or it could just be a great way to get them clean and sober and useful productive members of society rather than drains on the entire system.

Which is actually kinder getting them straight or letting them live as druggies?

Yeah really! Been there done that and when I hit bottom and saw that no one was going to bail me out I picked myself up dusted my self off and got going, and news flash didn't cost the taxpayers a dime.

Yes there are peole with realy needs, but not those that are putting drugs in their system to get away from their crappy lives. their live are "crappy" probably more so because of the drug use.

14.7 TRILLION diollars in debt. That is Trillion with a T.

How about the responsibility that these druggies have to society not to be a drain on it? Ask not what your country can do for you etc...

Yes there are people thqt desperately need help. but if you are going to use welfare money to keep yourself in an altered state I don't want my tax dollars supporting your addiction. 

Not a single post that I ahve read on this thread has suggested ignoring the problem, we aree saying that the government is not the solution and that we don't want tax dollars paying for it.

We are simply echoing the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin Make them uncomfortable in thier poverty... In this case make their use of drugs difficult for them. When they hit bottom they can begin the climb back up.

Then I take you also support restricting access to alcohol by welfare recipients? It may be legal, but it keeps people in an altered state, and has most of the same societal costs as illegal drugs.

That is not the topic that the OP gave if you want to start a new thread we can discuss that as a seperate issue, but please don't throw out red herrings it is a logical fallacy and a poor debate technique.

The limited issue of the initial article was about drug testing in welfare recipients. It is you who has opened the door by talking about it as being a problem due to being an altered state, as opposed to using the money (from welfare) for illegal activities. I am following your issue. If you wish to state that it is a separate issue (altered states as opposed to illegal activities), then fine. You also have thrown in the red herring of the federal debt in a discussion about state issues and funding. Florida is not trillions of dollars in debt.  You have also thrown in a odd twist on the call to service from JFK - Perhaps those who are addicted ARE taking more from the country than they are giving to it. But those of us who are able are, in this context, called on to serve (which may well be interpreted as providing help to those in need).

If you wish to state that the conversation has drifted too far from the original topic, fine. But at least recognize your own role in this.