-FAIL - Florida Gov. Rick Scott drug testing welfare applicants -FAIL-

[The Other Side]

You had to reach for that lie...but this is expected from you.

Piss.

You and moreluck remind me of WYLE E. COYOTE..... cartoon failures.

Peace.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

"They" know its costing florida MORE money to run these tests, FOXED SPEWS themselves told them that today. "They" say, if someone wants state money, they should be tested, but not corporations who ask for the money in state contracts, or lawyers who ask the state for money, or school boards who ask for money, as if DRUG use doesnt exist in the upper pay grades.

Simpletons.

Only 2% tested positive, while 98% tested negative and have to be paid for those tests at around 35 bucks each. Multiply that by lets say 500K and you get......a big number.( i made it easy for moreluck and brett and trip)

There are plenty of "rich" people and their families and kids using DRUGS in this country and they too recieve tax payer money.

The fact is, nobody wants to find out if White people are doing drugs, just minorities.

Peace.

All I have heard are theories and weak explanations so far. lol Didn't expect much else. I'll be patient.

 

[klein]

Next step is to test the unemployed.
Then after that - they'll be thinking, why not test everyone - then we can totally get rid of drugs , right ?

And here I always thought America was free !

My opinion remains - if they want to blow that little bit of money they get up in smoke, so be it - let them starve !

 

[moreluck]

Yeah, Screw You, America !!!!!

 

[klein]

Forgot, students get government loans... have to test them, too - before the loan is granted.

 

[moreluck]

Go test your weiners !!

 

[trplnkl]

"They" know its costing florida MORE money to run these tests, FOXED SPEWS themselves told them that today. "They" say, if someone wants state money, they should be tested, but not corporations who ask for the money in state contracts, or lawyers who ask the state for money, or school boards who ask for money, as if DRUG use doesnt exist in the upper pay grades.

Simpletons.

Only 2% tested positive, while 98% tested negative and have to be paid for those tests at around 35 bucks each. Multiply that by lets say 500K and you get......a big number.( i made it easy for moreluck and brett and trip)

There are plenty of "rich" people and their families and kids using DRUGS in this country and they too recieve tax payer money.

The fact is, nobody wants to find out if White people are doing drugs, just minorities.

Peace.

This would be kinda interesting if you knew what the heck you were talking about. First of all, you have no idea what I ask for than a man in the moon. Second there are more than one apple to orange in you little idiotic rant. Either keep it related of leave it out, otherwise it makes you look like a fool.
You're even implying that only minorities receive welfare which we all know dang well that is not true. That makes you look like something else.
Just try to keep it real and honest for a change.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Forgot, students get government loans... have to test them, too - before the loan is granted.

Bachmanns family farm, hillbillies thriving off of government money. Test 'em!

 

[Lue C Fur]

You and moreluck remind me of WYLE E. COYOTE..... cartoon failures.

Peace.

You remind me of bull excrement.

Piss.

 

[toonertoo]

http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/qu...983-product?V=G&ext=frgl_Google_Personal_Care
not 30 bucks. Not many have been tested. The first ones who volunteered, were the ones in need of benefits. Lets see how it goes as we get past the first wave..................

 

[wkmac]

I was reading the comments, someone said that 178 million is the cost of the entire welfare program in the state. That sounds right and I tend to believe the reporting was bad in that article as the ways they stated some things were rather vague.

It was bad reporting or bad wording. 3 days ago I posted this link in the Welfare thread to a Tampa Bay Online story about this same drug testing program for cash assistance welfare. Here is how they worded the meat and potatoes part.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.
The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.
But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.
Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

I think this story worded it better so you could understand that the entire cash assistance program costed $178 mil and then what the drug testing savings would be. Having read this previous story and then read the piece Sleeve linked too, I understood the gist but I can see where it would be easy to confuse it as well, especially being half asleep.

Bachmanns family farm, hillbillies thriving off of government money. Test 'em!

Sleeve,
Here is what I said in my post on the Welfare thread (#55) that you might appreciate in light of the comments above.

And since we are testing welfare recipients for drugs, let's test the middle level/upper level managers and boards of the big corp. welfare recipients and see what kinda results you get there. You might just find them drug users after all but the next question, could you handle that truth?

I think you'd get some real savings there!

 

[brett636]

"They" know its costing florida MORE money to run these tests, FOXED SPEWS themselves told them that today. "They" say, if someone wants state money, they should be tested, but not corporations who ask for the money in state contracts, or lawyers who ask the state for money, or school boards who ask for money, as if DRUG use doesnt exist in the upper pay grades.

Simpletons.

Only 2% tested positive, while 98% tested negative and have to be paid for those tests at around 35 bucks each. Multiply that by lets say 500K and you get......a big number.( i made it easy for moreluck and brett and trip)

There are plenty of "rich" people and their families and kids using DRUGS in this country and they too recieve tax payer money.

The fact is, nobody wants to find out if White people are doing drugs, just minorities.

Peace.

All I have heard are theories and weak explanations so far. lol Didn't expect much else. I'll be patient.[/QUOTE]

Yea, basic mathematic explanations are pretty weak aren't they. I guess when you do not understand something you just ignore it and hope it goes away. Sad really because I used to think you were a pretty level headed guy.

 

[brett636]

I was reading the comments, someone said that 178 million is the cost of the entire welfare program in the state. That sounds right and I tend to believe the reporting was bad in that article as the ways they stated some things were rather vague.

It was bad reporting or bad wording. 3 days ago I posted this link in the Welfare thread to a Tampa Bay Online story about this same drug testing program for cash assistance welfare. Here is how they worded the meat and potatoes part.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.
The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.
But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.
Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

I think this story worded it better so you could understand that the entire cash assistance program costed $178 mil and then what the drug testing savings would be. Having read this previous story and then read the piece Sleeve linked too, I understood the gist but I can see where it would be easy to confuse it as well, especially being half asleep.

Bachmanns family farm, hillbillies thriving off of government money. Test 'em!

Sleeve,
Here is what I said in my post on the Welfare thread (#55) that you might appreciate in light of the comments above.

And since we are testing welfare recipients for drugs, let's test the middle level/upper level managers and boards of the big corp. welfare recipients and see what kinda results you get there. You might just find them drug users after all but the next question, could you handle that truth?

I think you'd get some real savings there!


Personally I would like to see this taken further. I don't believe people on such assistance should be allowed to vote. I also think random inspections of them and their assets should occur and if they have too many flat screen TVs or ones over a certain size they should get denied assistance. Same goes for their car and or cars, if they own a vehicle newer than 10 years old and or have wheels on the car worth than the car then they don't need government assistance. Government assistance is to help people with meager means to keep their heads above water so they and their dependents don't starve. It's not meant as a means to live a life of luxury.

 

[wkmac]

Personally I would like to see this taken further. I don't believe people on such assistance should be allowed to vote. I also think random inspections of them and their assets should occur and if they have too many flat screen TVs or ones over a certain size they should get denied assistance. Same goes for their car and or cars, if they own a vehicle newer than 10 years old and or have wheels on the car worth than the car then they don't need government assistance. Government assistance is to help people with meager means to keep their heads above water so they and their dependents don't starve. It's not meant as a means to live a life of luxury.

I'll go you one further Brett. Any person who obtains welfare, subsidy, taxpayer assistance, tax credit, income credit or any other gov't privilege that comes at taxpayer expense should have to take a monthly drug test at the expense of the recipient. Even if the drug test comes back negative, no reimbursement, it's just a cost of getting the dollars from taxpayers via gov't. And since you brought up voting, these same people on the taxpayer nickle, should not be allowed to vote or have any say in gov't policy or direction. They can't even write a letter or in any way lobby or advocate gov't for more bennies!

Care to make that leap?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Yea, basic mathematic explanations are pretty weak aren't they. I guess when you do not understand something you just ignore it and hope it goes away. Sad really because I used to think you were a pretty level headed guy.

Feel free to revisit the question.

So what you are saying is that the drug testing saved Florida money? Let me understand this...I really do want to.

My question was: HOW IS THIS SAVING FLORIDA MONEY? Got it?

P.S. I'm setting you up here, just incase you didn't read the article. If you did the article, you will know that likely any cost savings will be negated and it MAY cost taxpayers MORE money than $178 million in the end.

I see this as very counter-intuitive overall. Rick Scott made a brash decision impinging on peoples privacy rights to bust the chops of the poor and possibly cost the state more money.

So two questions - How is this saving FL money, how is this a good decision knowing it is designed to fail, how is this appropriate when any possible savings are to be a very negligible percentage of that 178 mil?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Sleeve,
Here is what I said in my post on the Welfare thread (#55) that you might appreciate in light of the comments above.

I think you'd get some real savings there!

Sad but true.

 

[brett636]

I'll go you one further Brett. Any person who obtains welfare, subsidy, taxpayer assistance, tax credit, income credit or any other gov't privilege that comes at taxpayer expense should have to take a monthly drug test at the expense of the recipient. Even if the drug test comes back negative, no reimbursement, it's just a cost of getting the dollars from taxpayers via gov't. And since you brought up voting, these same people on the taxpayer nickle, should not be allowed to vote or have any say in gov't policy or direction. They can't even write a letter or in any way lobby or advocate gov't for more bennies!

Care to make that leap?

Absolutely! That should be implemented nation wide as government assistance should not be viewed as a way of life, but a means to keep food in someone's stomach and a roof over their head until they can do so on their own. If you encourage them to stay in the system as it is setup now they stay and try to figure out how to get yet more money from it. They attempt to vote in politicans sympathetic to their cause, and figure out what the system needs to see in order to pay out more money. In some inner city neighborhoods the amount of money the government sends you is a sign of success and that just isn't a sustainable way for government assistance to continue.

Feel free to revisit the question.



My question was: HOW IS THIS SAVING FLORIDA MONEY? Got it?

P.S. I'm setting you up here, just incase you didn't read the article. If you did the article, you will know that likely any cost savings will be negated and it MAY cost taxpayers MORE money than $178 million in the end.

I see this as very counter-intuitive overall. Rick Scott made a brash decision impinging on peoples privacy rights to bust the chops of the poor and possibly cost the state more money.

So two questions - How is this saving FL money, how is this a good decision knowing it is designed to fail, how is this appropriate when any possible savings are to be a very negligible percentage of that 178 mil?

Sleeve, I will try to explain this to you another way. The $178 million is not the cost of the drug testing alone. That is the total cost of the government assistance in the state of Florida. As per your own article for the drug testing to cost nearly $178 million by itself the state of FL would have to drug test nearly 6 million people, and according to your own source the number is actually 1500 max per month. The savings comes from booting out those who fail the drug test as its better to spend $30 now rather than spend thousands assisting someone with their drug habit with taxpayer dollars later. Lets not also forget the disincentive created by having the drug testing program in place. Some drug users would rather the state not know they use drugs and will fore go asking for assistance so that they can avoid being tested. I know some hub workers that want into the feeder department, but choose not to go in simply because they would have to subject themselves to a drug test and they do not want that kind of attention so they pass on any opportunities to go into feeders.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Sleeve, I will try to explain this to you another way. The $178 million is not the cost of the drug testing alone. That is the total cost of the government assistance in the state of Florida. As per your own article for the drug testing to cost nearly $178 million by itself the state of FL would have to drug test nearly 6 million people, and according to your own source the number is actually 1500 max per month. The savings comes from booting out those who fail the drug test as its better to spend $30 now rather than spend thousands assisting someone with their drug habit with taxpayer dollars later. Lets not also forget the disincentive created by having the drug testing program in place. Some drug users would rather the state not know they use drugs and will fore go asking for assistance so that they can avoid being tested. I know some hub workers that want into the feeder department, but choose not to go in simply because they would have to subject themselves to a drug test and they do not want that kind of attention so they pass on any opportunities to go into feeders.

Brett,
Three times now, we aren't doing too well, are we?
You are not showing any cost savings at all. It is fully understood that the cost of the ENTIRE PROGRAM is 178 mil.

Again, the savings from 2% of failures (anticipated) was only ~45-~95k FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Off of 178 million.

And again, any type of legal action or extra costs(which are sure to arise) will likely completely offset those savings and probably cost taxpayers more.

I'm asking again; for anyone; where are the savings?

Notice no one is biting, Brett.... Because it's a bunk program by bunk politician. The monetary value is going to be NIL....the only boost is big brother watching a little more closely..

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Forgot, students get government loans... have to test them, too - before the loan is granted.

There are restrictions in place before a student loan is approved.

 

[menotyou]

Jefferson County, NY would see a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the assistance it provides. Just sayin'.
They shouldn't be just testing new applicants. Everyone who receives cash assistance when they are up for their annual review.

Or, for the people who don't like this. How about you guys pay for the generational welfare recipients that reside here and teach their children how to work the system, instead of just trying to go to school or get a job.