9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

[Ravi]

9 investigates: Welfare drug testing - news story - wftv orlando

9 investigates' reporter george spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs.

the department of central florida's (dcf) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.

Governor rick scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle.

therefore, the 38 applicants in the central florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

9 investigates first uncovered evidence in june that a similar program in idaho also cost more than it saved.

thoughts usmb?

rotflmnao!!!

 

[Ravi]

Gotta pee in a jar for a lot of jobs that carry any responsibility.

But to be a moocher, it's beyond the pale....And since when did liberoidals become concerned about the cost effectiveness of any of their stupid programs?

All I did was simply post the article. Rick Scott is the one who said it's going to save money and he used that as a talking point for this program.

"All I did was simply....."

What you did was simply post your all-too-predictable "HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! ALERT! ALERT!" bullshit.

Fact remains that having a leftist tool complain about lack of cost effectiveness of any nanny state program rings equally, if not more, hypocritical as any claim by any given righty, claiming that more bureaucracy is going to be a net savings.

You've met the enemy, pal, and he is ye.

Such a bitter little man.

 

[Ravi]

I, for one, never cared about any cost savings. For me it's about the principle of it. If you can afford drugs then you can afford to take care of your family and don't need government assistance. Taxpayers should not be in the business of making drug addiction a comfortable lifestyle.

However, if you want to look at it from a purely cost saving point of view. 6 months of not paying those 2 people is all it takes to balance out testing 40 people, and any time past that is pure savings. If you only look at the immediate costs it doesn't seem worth it, but in a short half year the savings become very tangible. Now if we could just make government assistance a truly temporary program, the savings would be phenomenal.

Bingo.

Year over year comparisons with this sample group, and the program has saved the taxpayers money.

And when the children go hungry, who really cares?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I, for one, never cared about any cost savings. For me it's about the principle of it. If you can afford drugs then you can afford to take care of your family and don't need government assistance. Taxpayers should not be in the business of making drug addiction a comfortable lifestyle.

However, if you want to look at it from a purely cost saving point of view. 6 months of not paying those 2 people is all it takes to balance out testing 40 people, and any time past that is pure savings. If you only look at the immediate costs it doesn't seem worth it, but in a short half year the savings become very tangible. Now if we could just make government assistance a truly temporary program, the savings would be phenomenal.

Bingo.

Year over year comparisons with this sample group, and the program has saved the taxpayers money.

And when the children go hungry, who really cares?

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

 

[Valerie]

Bingo.

Year over year comparisons with this sample group, and the program has saved the taxpayers money.

And when the children go hungry, who really cares?

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

So you think it's rational for The State to take custody of children because daddy smoked some weed...???

 

[RadiomanATL]

And when the children go hungry, who really cares?

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

So you think it's rational for The State to take custody of children because daddy smoked some weed...???

The state isn't taking custody of anyone due to this new law. If the state take custody of children its due to existing laws that were already on the books.

 

[chanel]

Looking at the cost effectiveness of a program is a wonderful thing and revisiting that idea should be applauded by both sides of the aisle.

But with that said, drug abuse is far more expensive than the cost of a freakin test. 2 people out of 40 could translate into 2000 out of 40000 Puhleez.

 

[Valerie]

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

So you think it's rational for The State to take custody of children because daddy smoked some weed...???

The state isn't taking custody of anyone due to this new law. If the state take custody of children its due to existing laws that were already on the books.

Your post mentions the new primary caregiver twice. Talk about Big Gubmint.

 

[RadiomanATL]

BTW, legalize pot

 

[RadiomanATL]

So you think it's rational for The State to take custody of children because daddy smoked some weed...???

The state isn't taking custody of anyone due to this new law. If the state take custody of children its due to existing laws that were already on the books.

Your post mentions the new primary caregiver twice. Talk about Big Gubmint.

Primary caregiver does not mean government. Aunt, Uncle, grandparents. That's what's meant by "the next primary caregiver". Not the government.

 

[Oddball]

BTW, legalize pot

BTW, end the ridiculously expensive and utterly failed federal "war" on (some) drugs and let the states deal with the situation.

 

[RadiomanATL]

BTW, legalize pot

BTW, end the ridiculously expensive and utterly failed federal "war" on (some) drugs and let the states deal with the situation.

That too. Although we may disagree on what (some) drugs are.

 

[Valerie]

The state isn't taking custody of anyone due to this new law. If the state take custody of children its due to existing laws that were already on the books.

Your post mentions the new primary caregiver twice. Talk about Big Gubmint.

Primary caregiver does not mean government. Aunt, Uncle, grandparents. That's what's meant by "the next primary caregiver". Not the government.

Custody as prescribed by some big government agency... Sorry but that is an irrational approach which is not in the best interest of American families and their civil liberties.


Forget about drug testing otherwise law abiding citizens who apply for benefits from an insurance policy they have paid into... This is just a big daddy gubmint class warfare bullshit proposal with no realistic insight.

 

[chanel]

Drug abuse is not a "victimless" crime. I'd be fine with legalizing drugs as long as the junkies can't breed. Throwaway children are everyone's problem; whether we like it or not.

I suggested on another thread that this program would likely deter drug abuse. Could the low numbers suggest that?

They should have tested people before and after the law went into effect. You can't measure prevention without a starting point.

 

[Seawytch]

Bingo.

Year over year comparisons with this sample group, and the program has saved the taxpayers money.

And when the children go hungry, who really cares?

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

Doesn't cost anything to grow weed. Smoking it does not mean you've paid for it.

I'm amazed "conservatives" support this kind of violation of personal freedoms.

Doesn't Governor Skeletor's wife now own a company that does drug testing? How convenient.

Looks like the gov isn't interested in saving the taxpayers as much as he's interested in increasing his personal coffers...allegedly.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Your post mentions the new primary caregiver twice. Talk about Big Gubmint.

Primary caregiver does not mean government. Aunt, Uncle, grandparents. That's what's meant by "the next primary caregiver". Not the government.

Custody as prescribed by some big government agency... Sorry but that is an irrational approach which is not in the best interest of American families and their civil liberties.


Forget about drug testing otherwise law abiding citizens who apply for benefits from an insurance policy they have paid into... This is just a big daddy gubmint class warfare bullshit proposal with no realistic insight.

Nope, not even custody. The money alone goes to the next primary caregiver. Not the child.

Like I said. No rational or logical objections.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And when the children go hungry, who really cares?

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

Doesn't cost anything to grow weed. Smoking it does not mean you've paid for it.

I'm amazed "conservatives" support this kind of violation of personal freedoms.

Doesn't Governor Skeletor's wife now own a company that does drug testing? How convenient.

Looks like the gov isn't interested in saving the taxpayers as much as he's interested in increasing his personal coffers...allegedly.

Thanks for proving my last sentence. I knew I could count on you

 

[Gadawg73]

These statutes are a joke. None of them test for prescription drugs and HIPPA laws do not allow any government entity to ask if the person has a prescription or not.
These folks could be on oxycontin, codeine, ambien and a dozen other prescription pills illegally and there is nothing they can do to stop them, test them for it or deny them benefits because of it.
Today 4 out of every 5 overdoses seen in ER are from PRESCRIPTION DOPE.
Another feel good moronic law that will do nothing.
And the dumb ass masses eat it up as they always do.

 

[Gadawg73]

Obesity, cigarrette smoking, alcoholism and lack of exercise are a bigger problem with these folks.
Are they testing for any of those things that are 10 times worse than smoking the twisty?
Americans are fucking brain dead these days. Any lure that a politician throws their way that sounds good they bite.

 

[Seawytch]

The children don't go any hungrier than they do now. The benefits that were earmarked for the children go to the next primary caregiver.

And they may go less hungry, considering the primary recipient doesn't have a drug habit to feed.

So far there is no rational nor logical objection to this program. Other than the guy who proposed it has an (R) next to his name.

Doesn't cost anything to grow weed. Smoking it does not mean you've paid for it.

I'm amazed "conservatives" support this kind of violation of personal freedoms.

Doesn't Governor Skeletor's wife now own a company that does drug testing? How convenient.

Looks like the gov isn't interested in saving the taxpayers as much as he's interested in increasing his personal coffers...allegedly.

Thanks for proving my last sentence. I knew I could count on you

Do you have information to the contrary?

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion