AZ Welfare Drug Testing Cost/Benefit Ratio Is...

[danielpalos]

.
It's amazing how Republicans come up with bullshit ways to waste taxpayer money. Drug testing 87,000 welfare recipients in AZ has netted a grand total of $560 bucks - more proof Republicans are piss-poor managers of public money...

Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found they are flushing taxpayer dollars
Jen HaydenFollow
Jul 22, 2015

From Gregory Krieg

The results are thin: According to USA Today, three years after the program began Arizona had tested more than 87,000 welfare recipients. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one — a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560.

Checking in again in March, the Arizona Sonora News Service cited state Department of Economic Security figures which found that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

That adds up to a grand total of three failed tests from 2009-2014. The net savings reaped from withholding benefits for those who either tested positive or failed to complete a drug test was around $3,500, once the $500 cost of testing the 19 is factored in, according to one state agency report. The haul is shockingly unimpressive when you consider the $1.7 million in savings state officials promised when they began the program.

<snip>

What non-issue will Republicans waste our/taxpayer time and money on next, voter fraud, Benghazi, another vote on Obamacare... what?

.

I believe we should drug test Congress and corporate welfare recipients first.

 

[occupied]

.
It's amazing how Republicans come up with bullshit ways to waste taxpayer money. Drug testing 87,000 welfare recipients in AZ has netted a grand total of $560 bucks - more proof Republicans are piss-poor managers of public money...

Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found they are flushing taxpayer dollars
Jen HaydenFollow
Jul 22, 2015

From Gregory Krieg

The results are thin: According to USA Today, three years after the program began Arizona had tested more than 87,000 welfare recipients. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one — a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560.

Checking in again in March, the Arizona Sonora News Service cited state Department of Economic Security figures which found that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

That adds up to a grand total of three failed tests from 2009-2014. The net savings reaped from withholding benefits for those who either tested positive or failed to complete a drug test was around $3,500, once the $500 cost of testing the 19 is factored in, according to one state agency report. The haul is shockingly unimpressive when you consider the $1.7 million in savings state officials promised when they began the program.

<snip>

What non-issue will Republicans waste our/taxpayer time and money on next, voter fraud, Benghazi, another vote on Obamacare... what?

.

How many left the program to avoid testing? How much was saved because they left?

There can be no real answer to your question but I am sure proponents of treating the poor like animals will produce from their anal cavities a suitably impressive number for you guys to chew on.

Fuck off child, I asked simple questions that require simple answers, keep your name calling and bullshit to yourself.

The question you asked is hypothetical so supply the answers for yourself, it's what you people do all the time anyway, that way you can claim triumph in spite of having no solid results to speak of.

 

[occupied]

Drug testing people who receive assistance is no more about saving money than trying to kill social programs altogether, it's about punishing the poor for being poor, a totally sadistic impulse. They get a charge out of treating people like dirt and, to them, it's money well spent. They would spend a hundred times more to feel the thrill of walking on the faces of "worthless" people. Hell is going to be hot for you unchristian motherfuckers.

And we should be financing criminals why?

You should be treating this as the minor problem it is rather than trying to blow it up into a crisis just like all the other social issues conservatives are concerned about.

That didn't answer my question.

According to the OP, AZ welfare programs do not seem to be having that problem so why ask? You want me to supply an answer to a hypothetical question not based in reality? Your stereotype of lazy drug addicts sucking the government teat does not seem to match the reality, but you can bet a crony who owns a drug testing lab just bought a new Porsche.

Well they have, according to the OP, stripped benefits from 23 criminals, so yes they do have a problem with that.

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

 

[OKTexas]

And we should be financing criminals why?

You should be treating this as the minor problem it is rather than trying to blow it up into a crisis just like all the other social issues conservatives are concerned about.

That didn't answer my question.

According to the OP, AZ welfare programs do not seem to be having that problem so why ask? You want me to supply an answer to a hypothetical question not based in reality? Your stereotype of lazy drug addicts sucking the government teat does not seem to match the reality, but you can bet a crony who owns a drug testing lab just bought a new Porsche.

Well they have, according to the OP, stripped benefits from 23 criminals, so yes they do have a problem with that.

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

 

[occupied]

You should be treating this as the minor problem it is rather than trying to blow it up into a crisis just like all the other social issues conservatives are concerned about.

That didn't answer my question.

According to the OP, AZ welfare programs do not seem to be having that problem so why ask? You want me to supply an answer to a hypothetical question not based in reality? Your stereotype of lazy drug addicts sucking the government teat does not seem to match the reality, but you can bet a crony who owns a drug testing lab just bought a new Porsche.

Well they have, according to the OP, stripped benefits from 23 criminals, so yes they do have a problem with that.

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why don't we make welfare recipients pay for their own drug test? That should solve the problem.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

.
It's amazing how Republicans come up with bullshit ways to waste taxpayer money. Drug testing 87,000 welfare recipients in AZ has netted a grand total of $560 bucks - more proof Republicans are piss-poor managers of public money...

Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found they are flushing taxpayer dollars
Jen HaydenFollow
Jul 22, 2015

From Gregory Krieg

The results are thin: According to USA Today, three years after the program began Arizona had tested more than 87,000 welfare recipients. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one — a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560.

Checking in again in March, the Arizona Sonora News Service cited state Department of Economic Security figures which found that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

That adds up to a grand total of three failed tests from 2009-2014. The net savings reaped from withholding benefits for those who either tested positive or failed to complete a drug test was around $3,500, once the $500 cost of testing the 19 is factored in, according to one state agency report. The haul is shockingly unimpressive when you consider the $1.7 million in savings state officials promised when they began the program.

<snip>

What non-issue will Republicans waste our/taxpayer time and money on next, voter fraud, Benghazi, another vote on Obamacare... what?

.

I believe we should drug test Congress and corporate welfare recipients first.

Would that have stopped the auto bailout? Why should union workers suffer because their boss has a drug problem?

 

[OKTexas]

That didn't answer my question.

According to the OP, AZ welfare programs do not seem to be having that problem so why ask? You want me to supply an answer to a hypothetical question not based in reality? Your stereotype of lazy drug addicts sucking the government teat does not seem to match the reality, but you can bet a crony who owns a drug testing lab just bought a new Porsche.

Well they have, according to the OP, stripped benefits from 23 criminals, so yes they do have a problem with that.

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

 

[occupied]

Why don't we make welfare recipients pay for their own drug test? That should solve the problem.

Why don't you people quit trying to solve problems that do not exist?

 

[jwoodie]

.
It's amazing how Republicans come up with bullshit ways to waste taxpayer money. Drug testing 87,000 welfare recipients in AZ has netted a grand total of $560 bucks - more proof Republicans are piss-poor managers of public money...

Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found they are flushing taxpayer dollars
Jen HaydenFollow
Jul 22, 2015

From Gregory Krieg

The results are thin: According to USA Today, three years after the program began Arizona had tested more than 87,000 welfare recipients. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one — a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560.

Checking in again in March, the Arizona Sonora News Service cited state Department of Economic Security figures which found that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

That adds up to a grand total of three failed tests from 2009-2014. The net savings reaped from withholding benefits for those who either tested positive or failed to complete a drug test was around $3,500, once the $500 cost of testing the 19 is factored in, according to one state agency report. The haul is shockingly unimpressive when you consider the $1.7 million in savings state officials promised when they began the program.

<snip>

What non-issue will Republicans waste our/taxpayer time and money on next, voter fraud, Benghazi, another vote on Obamacare... what?

.

How stupid are you? 26 of 42 people refused or failed the test. That's OVER 50%, moron. At $3,500 net savings per\recipient, the net savings was

.
It's amazing how Republicans come up with bullshit ways to waste taxpayer money. Drug testing 87,000 welfare recipients in AZ has netted a grand total of $560 bucks - more proof Republicans are piss-poor managers of public money...

Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found they are flushing taxpayer dollars
Jen HaydenFollow
Jul 22, 2015

From Gregory Krieg

The results are thin: According to USA Today, three years after the program began Arizona had tested more than 87,000 welfare recipients. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one — a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560.

Checking in again in March, the Arizona Sonora News Service cited state Department of Economic Security figures which found that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

That adds up to a grand total of three failed tests from 2009-2014. The net savings reaped from withholding benefits for those who either tested positive or failed to complete a drug test was around $3,500, once the $500 cost of testing the 19 is factored in, according to one state agency report. The haul is shockingly unimpressive when you consider the $1.7 million in savings state officials promised when they began the program.

<snip>

What non-issue will Republicans waste our/taxpayer time and money on next, voter fraud, Benghazi, another vote on Obamacare... what?

.

How stupid are you? Over 50% failed or refused the test, with a net savings of $3,500 per recipient. That's $90,000 from this sample alone. Extrapolated to all recipients, the savings would be much more than $1.7 million. Are you idiots trying to undermine this program, or are you too stupid to understand statistics??

 

[occupied]

According to the OP, AZ welfare programs do not seem to be having that problem so why ask? You want me to supply an answer to a hypothetical question not based in reality? Your stereotype of lazy drug addicts sucking the government teat does not seem to match the reality, but you can bet a crony who owns a drug testing lab just bought a new Porsche.

Well they have, according to the OP, stripped benefits from 23 criminals, so yes they do have a problem with that.

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

 

[amrchaos]

If you only got 23 criminals then either

a)Your premise is faulty. You overestimated the number of criminals on welfare
or
b)Your methodology is faulty. Your method is not stringent enough to remove the majority of criminals.

In many ways, you are wasting more money than the criminals you caught. That calls for a major rethinking of the problem and how to tackle it.

 

[OKTexas]

Well they have, according to the OP, stripped benefits from 23 criminals, so yes they do have a problem with that.

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

I really feel sorry for you, such acrobatics trying to rationalize your pathetic position, got any more straw men in the closet?

 

[occupied]

LOL you people are fucked in the head. 23!

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

I really feel sorry for you, such acrobatics trying to rationalize your pathetic position, got any more straw men in the closet?

OK I'll go at it from another angle, what specific problem do think this exercise has solved? From what I can see all it has done is provide a little sadistic glee for you people.

 

[Socialist]

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

I really feel sorry for you, such acrobatics trying to rationalize your pathetic position, got any more straw men in the closet?

OK I'll go at it from another angle, what specific problem do think this exercise has solved? From what I can see all it has done is provide a little sadistic glee for you people.

It has solved nothing, the right wing focuses on attacking the poor rather then focusing on real problems.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

I really feel sorry for you, such acrobatics trying to rationalize your pathetic position, got any more straw men in the closet?

OK I'll go at it from another angle, what specific problem do think this exercise has solved? From what I can see all it has done is provide a little sadistic glee for you people.

It has solved nothing, the right wing focuses on attacking the poor rather then focusing on real problems.

It is why I believe the hard money crowd should "crack down" on this form of "funny money".

 

[OKTexas]

So you agree with aiding and abetting criminal activity with State and federal funds, typical wrong headed commiecrat.

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

I really feel sorry for you, such acrobatics trying to rationalize your pathetic position, got any more straw men in the closet?

OK I'll go at it from another angle, what specific problem do think this exercise has solved? From what I can see all it has done is provide a little sadistic glee for you people.

It gets drug criminals out of the system, it deters other drug criminals from applying, mission accomplished. No need to reply, I'm tired of your backhanded insults, get back to me when you grow the fuck up.

 

[Socialist]

I am saying as problems go it was not worth the effort, if this were a program that actually helped people you would consider it a failure. All that effort and bureaucratic red-tape burdening a program already beset by cuts every time an election rolls around just to shit 23 people out of the program.

Law enforcement is rarely worth the effort, it's expensive, sometimes yields zero results, should we cease funding for all law enforcement because it's expensive? Or should we by happy with the little victories?

Your "little victories" hurt more than they help but they make you feel good that 23 people are no longer sponging off "respectable" citizens who are gobbling prescription drugs in record numbers.

I really feel sorry for you, such acrobatics trying to rationalize your pathetic position, got any more straw men in the closet?

OK I'll go at it from another angle, what specific problem do think this exercise has solved? From what I can see all it has done is provide a little sadistic glee for you people.

It gets drug criminals out of the system, it deters other drug criminals from applying, mission accomplished. No need to reply, I'm tired of your backhanded insults, get back to me when you grow the fuck up.

Yeah, this is all I needed to see. "Drug criminals" I'm sorry, but I don't want to think drug users are bad people, most are poor and need an escape, drugs fill this gap, we need to focus on helping them out, not punishing them in prison. Yeah, the problem is, the cost/benefit ratio doesn't back up your case EVERYWHERE it has been tried. You need to grow up.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why don't we make welfare recipients pay for their own drug test? That should solve the problem.

Why don't you people quit trying to solve problems that do not exist?

When I apply for a job that requires a drug test I have to pay for it. They reimburse me if I pass. Why can't we do the same for welfare recipients? And if we want those welfare recipients to get a job then we have to make sure they can pass a drug test since any future employer will require them to pass the same drug test. It just makes sense to make sure they can pass a drug test.

It also may end some discrimination against welfare recipients because if every welfare recipient was guaranteed to be drug free then we may start to realize these are the most sober people on earth.

 

[Socialist]

Why don't we make welfare recipients pay for their own drug test? That should solve the problem.

Why don't you people quit trying to solve problems that do not exist?

When I apply for a job that requires a drug test I have to pay for it. They reimburse me if I pass. Why can't we do the same for welfare recipients? And if we want those welfare recipients to get a job then we have to make sure they can pass a drug test since any future employer will require them to pass the same drug test. It also may end some discrimination against welfare recipients because if every welfare recipient was guaranteed to be drug free then we may start to realize these are the most sober people on earth.

Yes, yes, we know you fail to look at the failures every time this has been tried, and even then, who the hell cares if someone smokes pot?