Florida Gov Scott signs bill forcing welfare drug tests

[Siddhartha]

Lets be honest, this law is meant to punish people who are on welfare.

 

[senseamp]

Nice spin. Because $1,140 < $240, clearly this is a failed program, right? But you're conveniently skipping over the words "per month" as if they have no consequence. Let's do the math. $1,140 is a one-time cost. Less than $240 a month - let's call it $230 - is a savings of $1,150 in 5 months and a savings of $2,760 in a year. So how does the program cost more than it saves?

Better yet, it might just motivate those 2 individuals to get off drugs and deter others from starting in the first place. And if it doesn't... then at least Florida's taxpayers won't be paying for their habit.

One can certainly argue that drug testing welfare recipients is an invasion of their privacy (though I'd disagree, since they can choose to not apply for welfare benefits, just like they can choose to not apply for a job that requires drug testing). But to argue that the program costs more than it will save is disingenuine at best.

How much does the drug treatment program cost?
How much would it cost if one of these druggies with no money ends up breaking the law and put in jail.
There is no such thing as free lunch.

 

[brencat]

Lets be honest, this law is meant to punish people who are on welfare.

...only if they are on drugs.

If not they have nothing to worry about.

 

[zinfamous]

Um, no. He resigned to run for governor. He handed control to his wife to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He (meaning Scott and his wife) sold their stake because the appearance of impropriety was not avoided. (Not over this, but over his opposition to Obamacare.) THEN he signed the drug testing bill because he believes in it. Claiming personal gain is merely dishonest.

Look, you are free to argue that drug addicts deserve welfare, that financially supporting and enabling addicts is morally superior to cutting them off. Just support your argument honestly rather than with dishonest conspiracy theory smears.

I certainly don't think drug addicts deserve welfare, but they do need access to treatment. That, alone, assuming they take proper advantage of the service, is economically beneficial to the beloved, benevolent taxpayer.

Look--I don't see anything wrong with the idea. If it saves 10 dollars/month, fine. If it limits access to spending cash to those on drugs, fine.

The point is that this is yet another boogey man issue used to inject fear and ignorance, exploiting the conceits of voters that simply have no clue about the realities of the others. With all the problems surrounding the culture of welfare, the "ever-present" drug addict is a minor, perhaps insignificant issue.

Again, if it saves money, fine; and no one likes the idea of federal handouts feeding a drug addiction. But this is used as another conservative boogeyman to portray the evils of welfare in a reality that simply does not exist. There is no reason to not save money, but why not spend some time focusing on problems that really do exist in the welfare community?


....and as for Scott, whom so few in FL seem to like (much like Mr Perry in TX), he presided over massive medicare fraud. He quit to run for governor.

OK....he presided over massive medicare fraud.

someone who seems so keen in saving some taxpayer coin would be better off not being associated with stealing far, FAR more of the taxpayer's dime than his phantom boogeymen will ever be responsible for.

"No, I'm a successful businessman! I can't possibly be stealing your money! It's that off-color individual over there without any money. See? They're poor drug addicts, I don't need money!"

If a man's reputation is above reproach, then they would not deserve their character to be smeared. This is not the case with Mr Scott.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Oh, so if 'friends of the governor' just make a ton of money by owning a share of the drug-testing market, rather than all of it, there's no problem, no conflict of interest.

'Why, governor, your new farm policy will triple the profits of your family's farms!'

Governor answers, 'But other farmers will also benefit, so there's no conflict of interest!'

Same conflict of interest.

Do you have any proof that would be the case?

No? Didn't think so.

 

[werepossum]

I certainly don't think drug addicts deserve welfare, but they do need access to treatment. That, alone, assuming they take proper advantage of the service, is economically beneficial to the beloved, benevolent taxpayer.

Look--I don't see anything wrong with the idea. If it saves 10 dollars/month, fine. If it limits access to spending cash to those on drugs, fine.

The point is that this is yet another boogey man issue used to inject fear and ignorance, exploiting the conceits of voters that simply have no clue about the realities of the others. With all the problems surrounding the culture of welfare, the "ever-present" drug addict is a minor, perhaps insignificant issue.

Again, if it saves money, fine; and no one likes the idea of federal handouts feeding a drug addiction. But this is used as another conservative boogeyman to portray the evils of welfare in a reality that simply does not exist. There is no reason to not save money, but why not spend some time focusing on problems that really do exist in the welfare community?


....and as for Scott, whom so few in FL seem to like (much like Mr Perry in TX), he presided over massive medicare fraud. He quit to run for governor.

OK....he presided over massive medicare fraud.

someone who seems so keen in saving some taxpayer coin would be better off not being associated with stealing far, FAR more of the taxpayer's dime than his phantom boogeymen will ever be responsible for.

"No, I'm a successful businessman! I can't possibly be stealing your money! It's that off-color individual over there without any money. See? They're poor drug addicts, I don't need money!"

If a man's reputation is above reproach, then they would not deserve their character to be smeared. This is not the case with Mr Scott.

I disagree that addicts deserve cost-free access to treatment. Very few addicts actually want to get off drugs. People largely take drugs because they want to take drugs. For those who honestly want to get off drugs, private charities should pick up the bill. Making treatment an entitlement mostly funds addicts who have been caught and need to check off a box to avoid consequences. Requiring drug screening for welfare benefits forces addicts to either go elsewhere to support themselves, or give up the drugs. In the long run that's good for the system, the taxpayer, and the addicts too.

I largely agree with you on Mr. Scott and the Medicare fraud, based on a cursory reading. It seems a pretty systematic practice in HCA, and if he didn't know, he should have known. (By the way, several people became multimillionaires from bringing whistleblower lawsuits; that should go a LONG way toward ending these abuses.) If your company cannot make it with what Medicare pays, the correct thing to do is to stop accepting Medicare patients, NOT to make up imaginary charges to pad the bills. That it's a fairly common practice does not excuse anyone doing it. I suspect Mr. Scott did not know because he did not want to know. It's not atypical to simply demand that someone make something profitable knowing that it probably can't be done without some shenanigans. If a sizable portion of your business such as Medicare patients goes from being a serious drain to not being a serious drain or even being a source of profit, a good CEO is going to want to know how that was accomplished - unless he suspects he's better off not knowing.

However no one deserves being smeared for something of which he is innocent.

 

[nick1985]

Lets be honest, this law is meant to punish people who are on drugs.

ftfy

 

[zinfamous]

I disagree that addicts deserve cost-free access to treatment. Very few addicts actually want to get off drugs. People largely take drugs because they want to take drugs. For those who honestly want to get off drugs, private charities should pick up the bill. Making treatment an entitlement mostly funds addicts who have been caught and need to check off a box to avoid consequences. Requiring drug screening for welfare benefits forces addicts to either go elsewhere to support themselves, or give up the drugs. In the long run that's good for the system, the taxpayer, and the addicts too.

I largely agree with you on Mr. Scott and the Medicare fraud, based on a cursory reading. It seems a pretty systematic practice in HCA, and if he didn't know, he should have known. (By the way, several people became multimillionaires from bringing whistleblower lawsuits; that should go a LONG way toward ending these abuses.) If your company cannot make it with what Medicare pays, the correct thing to do is to stop accepting Medicare patients, NOT to make up imaginary charges to pad the bills. That it's a fairly common practice does not excuse anyone doing it. I suspect Mr. Scott did not know because he did not want to know. It's not atypical to simply demand that someone make something profitable knowing that it probably can't be done without some shenanigans. If a sizable portion of your business such as Medicare patients goes from being a serious drain to not being a serious drain or even being a source of profit, a good CEO is going to want to know how that was accomplished - unless he suspects he's better off not knowing.

However no one deserves being smeared for something of which he is innocent.

addicts already get cost-free access to ridiculously expensive ER treatment, which never does anything for them.

This represents ridiculous healthcare costs, on top of societal costs related to their general shenanigans out in the streets, at the home, and their void in the workforce and as taxpayers.

providing them effective treatment to restore at least some of them as healthy, adjusted individuals is a no-brainer.

bottom line: they already receive free treatment, and will always receive free treatment. the cost is far greater to them and to everyone else by patering along with the status quo. simply denying them from any kind of access is likely a far greater true cost than whatever pennies of savings the criminal governor of FL thinks he is seeing.

 

[OutHouse]

sounds like unreasonable search to me and unconstitutional.

 

[Zargon]

sounds like unreasonable search to me and unconstitutional.

technically on drugs = being a criminal, and we shouldnt give welfare out to people breaking the law

I'd rather take a drug test than go through a TSA screening, and I have to pay for that, not being given money