The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Florida: Gotta pee to get paid, gotta pay to pee
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
(CNN) -- A controversial law requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening has gone into effect in Florida.
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott signed the legislation in June.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."
And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.
This is one of those times my left-leaning sensibilities just don't jibe with what the apparent liberal party-line position is supposed to be. I don't really see anything wrong with this policy, and certainly not the point where I'd advocate suing the State on grounds of unconstitutionality.
My perspective on this is that just about every field today maintains some sort of limited drug policy for pre-employment, and many extend those policies into their everyday practice. I personally have to pass a urine screening for every single interview I take in my field.
As well, my father operates a government housing project, and it's depressing how many of his tenants abuse street drugs or, if on medical disability, sell their prescription drugs to drug dealers.
The conflict comes from the fact that I actually advocate the legalization of most drugs. But I can't see where mandating unemployment aid go to drug-free recipients is some kind of Constitutional violation, even under 4th Amendment Search-and-Seizure protections.
So, let's hear it.
Atomika on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
They can often not get a job due to their addiction.
They need money to live.
Them dying is a bad thing.
Welfare assistance is a very small amount of money, just barely enough to get by on.
Without it they are likely to take extreme measures to provide for themselves and their children.
That is just off the top of my head.
Welfare, for the most part, does not just help the ones who apply for it. Denying a family foodstamps or welfare because one of the parents is on drugs does not help the kids in the family.
Yeah yeah, I know "think of the children" but in some cases, that actually works.
Do I think that welfare should subsidize drug habits? No. Do I think that kids of whatever age should be punished because their parents can't get their own heads out of their asses? No.
Sadly the alternative is to do something for the kids and not the parents, but kids have no rights in this country since they are minors and the foster system is so much of a joke that it's probably more damaging to society than people on welfare buying drugs.
In the long run (and again I have no stats or anything, just visceral reaction), society is better with welfare on the books than without. For everybody.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
This is the Medicare fraud guy, right?
From the article:
They are treating symptoms and not the disease.
I could see this making sense if failing the drug screening meant you had to attend mandatory addiction classes or something like that, as a condition of you receiving benefits. Or, as the law states, as a condition of your designee receiving benefits on behalf of your children.
Requiring people to pay for the screening is going to prevent a lot of people from applying, because they can't afford the screening. The problem there isn't the addicts, as we can arguably determine that they're bad at making financial decisions, due to their drug habit. People who are just straight up poor, though, may not have the money to pay for the screening (even $10 or $20), and will therefore be denied needed help through no real fault of their own.
The entire idea behind this is to make it harder for people who need it to get assistance, while lining Rick Scott's pockets with even more money.
I mean, even if it never becomes a policy, I could see it becoming a paranoid fear that pushes more people away, with the result being their children suffer even more than they would otherwise.
Oh yeah, that the GOP members championing this policy are total hacks and opportunists somewhat goes without saying. That doesn't mean the idea holds no merit.
We should help the poor. Giving money to someone without condition is not always the best way to help them. Some people just need a new pair of straps for their proverbial boots (I consider myself an example of this). Others, they need more precise help, and I don't completely have a problem with the concept of conditional assistance, in theory.
This just happens to be a bad application of that theory.
On the topic: it can be destructive to view welfare policy as a morality play. Two points -
- ultimately one does, yes, want to achieve 'fairness' in the sense that recipients of redistribution should be in some way deserving (and, conversely, that the sources of said redistribution are less deserving); the problem is that the process of determining just deserts is itself a costly one. Resources that are spent on drug testing are spent, even if the recipients pass said test. In this case the state pays the cost for the drug test for qualifying welfare recipients; presumably a careful government would have weighed the costs to judge that this change really creates savings - due to "most skeevy thing" above, I have my doubts. The rhetoric does not suggest pragmatism; it suggests moral outrage, a la: oh no, someone somewhere is a drug-addicted layabout/state employee! We must flush them out and punish them.
- on moral deserts: in the philosophy of modern welfare of social insurance, one pays for the cover while employed in order to mitigate the consequences of unemployment. In this sense the moral purpose of the benefits are already spoken for and the benefits are fully deserved by their recipients; this is not state charity, which the governor seems to think it is. To be straightforward, the change is a punishment for drug use (by taxing you anyway to fund the insurance, despite not permitting you to access its funds). Perhaps a punishment for drug use is necessary for whatever reason; perhaps political conditions prohibit straightforwardly characterizing the legislation as an anti-drug-abuse program instead of a punish-some-welfare-seekers program in rhetoric and so the latter is the regrettable result - but, again, I have my doubts. There is a case to be made for placing such conditions on welfare eligibility; this is not it.
Drug tests suck. This is a fact. That they are unconstitutional feels a bit like goosery.
I agree with all of this.
They're poor in the first place. You don't make them invest money to get benefits.
i had to go on welfare for a little while and there would be times i would literally have to panhandle for bus fare in order to go downtown to get a basket from the food bank so i would not starve to death
for people who actually need welfare, not just drug addicts, even asking them to cough up $10-$20 for a drug test upfront can actually be prohibitively expensive and screw them from even being able to apply
brilliant
And possibly unconstitutional.
i'm on welfare right now (food stamps, medical coverage, and cash benefits). when i went to apply i thought- boy, this isn't so bad. there's a lot of paperwork, which can be intimidating, but it's doable! and then i ran into my first problem: apparently my doctor forgot to write a certain identifier on my medical form. i got a call, angry in tone. not urgent to help me, or resolve this mistake- but angry.
YOUR DOCTOR DIDN'T WRITE HER PROVIDER NUMBER, YOUR APPLICATION IS ALREADY 24 DAYS OLD, IF THIS ISN'T RESOLVED BY WEDNESDAY YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE DENIED.
i responded 'well... their official letterhead is on there. can't you call them and get the number?'
her: NO, THAT'S NOT MY JOB.
me: um... can i get the number from my physician, and then call you or fax you?
her: NO IT HAS TO BE BROUGHT IN PERSON.
so i, a person who is poor enough to apply for welfare and so lacking a consistent means of transportation, had to revisit my doctor and then revisit the welfare office, and almost had my application denied by default. all this because my doctor mistakenly didn't write a 6 digit code on a part of the form that i'm not supposed to touch.
then when i finally got approved, my caseworker told me "yeah, you need to renew your application in november... but come in october"
me: ?
her: each case worker at this office has over 2,000 clients. we aren't able to process stuff on time.
then she mentions 'also when you fill out your application next time, don't say you have a bank account'
me: but i do have a bank account
her: yeah but you had to give us a few recent statements. it's more work. just say you don't have one.
---
tax dollars are limited, sure. i don't think we should throw them in the air for fun. but with the current state of governmental assistance in this country, i don't think there is any reasonable way to frame more restrictions as 'responsible vetting'. everyone in pennsylvania has to go through an in-person interview; how about the caseworkers actually pay attention during those, and flag suspiciously behaving candidates for further investigation. that way you can direct most of the fraud prevention resources more efficiently.
and more importantly, focus on the alleviation of poverty overall. unless we're going to embrace laissez-faire capitalism, the more we excoriate and obstruct the social mobility of the lower class, the more resources it takes to help them in the half ass way we intend. either leave the poor in the gutter (no thanks!) or relieve poverty aggressively, such that the fiscal situation can't be painted so direly as to allow classist, fear mongering legislation like this.
Do SC justices submit to drug tests?
When in actuality I'd wager the losses on drug-addicted entitlement awardees is probably a very small (very, very small) sub-set of all questionable uses of spending (entitlement, taxpayer, or otherwise) in the areas of welfare and medical coverage.
Using welfare payments as a means of getting folks into treatment for addiction (and other issues) is a good idea, especially since those issues are probably a large part of the reason they wound up on welfare in the first place.
But that doesn't seem to actually be what this law does; it just makes a negative drug test a precondition for successful application. All that does is make the at-risk people who are the proper targets of state aid less likely to be able to actually receive it, which I suspect is the real objective of the law.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
* Poor non-addicts lives are made worse
* Poor addicts lives are made worse.
* The lives of victims of starving poor are made worse.
* The population, fearful of becoming a victim, votes in TUFF ON CRYME folks and gives them more power, resulting in greater abuse and corruption, and so everyone who isn't in power has their life made worse.
* Fences, back ally gun dealers, and drug dealers happy to accept $500 of stuff for $50 of product, get richer.
Also, how much is this going to cost? I mean, I'd love to say "let's track this EBT cash people are getting and audit their receipts," but that would be extremely expensive. I can't imagine this testing will be cheap, either. And if the cost is high (which it will be, particularly if those ties to the governor are true), then you're quite possibly taking a loss by running this. I'd love to see a cost-benefit, but I know we'll never see one with honest numbers.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
but they should be able to drink?
No, I don't think people on welfare should be able to buy alcohol, cigs, junk food or food from restaurants.