9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

[Modbert]

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?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Plus cost of appeals and court costs if they sue the state.

 

[Lovebears65]

Well it could be that the ones who are on drugs just did not show up to take the test.

 

[Modbert]

Well it could be that the ones who are on drugs just did not show up to take the test.

No evidence of that, especially since two people did test positive though one is appealing.

 

[Oddball]

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?

 

[Truthseeker420]

That's why people are laughing at these tea party jokers who say they want less spending by the government.

 

[hortysir]

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?

As I mentioned in another thread, if we start to see that it's costing more than it's worth we can repeal it.

Only 40 have been tested in central Florida, though?

Pretty small sample group

 

[Oddball]

That's why people are laughing at these tea party jokers who say they want less spending by the government.

Gotta laugh at welfare moochers and nanny state bureaucrats, who suddenly complain that something costs too much with dubious results.

Given my druthers, there's be no welfare handouts to apply for, hence no pee testing.

Deal?

 

[Oddball]

As I mentioned in another thread, if we start to see that it's costing more than it's worth we can repeal it.

A shame we can't rid ourselves of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, WIC, endless unemployment handouts, farm subsidies, the "war" on (some) drugs, on and on and on, using the same criteria.

 

[Trajan]

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?

we peed in a jar in the army too.....*shrugs*...

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

 

[Modbert]

"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.

I never gave my opinion about the program itself in this thread. I posted the article. Rick Scott is the one who said the program was going to save the state money, and it hasn't so far.

 

[Oddball]

You didn't have to give your opinion...Your motivations are so transparent that it's not even challenging to guess anymore.

You're a one-trick pony, s0n.

 

[hortysir]

"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.

I never gave my opinion about the program itself in this thread. I posted the article. Rick Scott is the one who said the program was going to save the state money, and it hasn't so far.

40 test subjects for a program that's 50 days old

 

[Truthseeker420]

That's why people are laughing at these tea party jokers who say they want less spending by the government.

Gotta laugh at welfare moochers and nanny state bureaucrats, who suddenly complain that something costs too much with dubious results.

Given my druthers, there's be no welfare handouts to apply for, hence no pee testing.

Deal?

That a good theory but Tea Party candidates are defending corporate welfare. And social welfare is not a handout they do work for the money.

 

[Oddball]

That's why people are laughing at these tea party jokers who say they want less spending by the government.

Gotta laugh at welfare moochers and nanny state bureaucrats, who suddenly complain that something costs too much with dubious results.

Given my druthers, there's be no welfare handouts to apply for, hence no pee testing.

Deal?

That a good theory but Tea Party candidates are defending corporate welfare. And social welfare is not a handout they do work for the money.

Nobody said anything about corporate welfare, deflectopottamus....And I haven't encountered any Tea Party type who defends it in the first place.

 

[hortysir]

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?

we peed in a jar in the army too.....*shrugs*...

Sometimes I pee in a jar.




Nobody's testing it.....I just like to pee in jars

 

[Againsheila]

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?

That's just stupid. I'm all for fingerprinting welfare recipients to help avoid fraud. Heck if you work for the government you have to get fingerprinted. They're also fingerprinting volunteers for our schools and the special olympics.

Drug testing, however, is just plain dumb as these studies have shown.