Medicaid Drug Testing

EdsonNascimento

So, the judge in Florida put a temporary kill on this. Why?

My employer is allowed to drug test me (As long as they let me know). So, why shouldn't medicaid recipients be required (with notice) to take one to get payment?

Privacy? Really? You're taking money from other people. You don't feel you owe something?

I'm not against Medicaid. I think it's a common good that any civil society should have. But, why can't there be duties to get payment? They have a choice - don't take the money. Or, don't do the drugs that are being tested for. Note - they are not challenging WHAT is being tested for (which might actually have some validity based on certain illnesses). They are challenging the entire concept because someone might find out they have an illness or other private matters. As if we care.

I don't want the gov't in our lives any more than we need them to be. But, why is this so objectionable? Don't do drugs, or you don't get payments. Seems logical and reasonable.

JonnyPistachio

I'm kinda torn on this one.

I heard on the radio this morning that something like over 7,000 people have passed so far and 32 have failed it.
And they have to reimburse each person $35.

So the 32 people that were receiving $250 = $8000 (this is per month though)
7000 tests @ $35 = $245,000 (not sure the time span)

If these numbers are correct or somewhat accurate, this testing system is a sham and a HUGE waste of money.

Also, governor Rick Scott transferred his part of Solantic ownership to his wife just before all this went down. hmmm...

blackredyellow

A policy like this sounds great in theory (and on a bumper sticker or campaign commercial), but makes no sense practically.

Here are my issues:

1) Either you test everyone when they first enroll (which would be affordable), but really doesn't tell you anything. Anyone can pass a drug test that they know is coming. They can then do drugs after that with no recourse.

2) You test everyone randomly and more often - Much more costly... sure it can weed some people out, but at what cost? $35 a pop for thousands of people for multiple tests can really add up.

3) Does it test for alcohol? Alcoholism & cigarettes probably take more of a toll as far as healthcare (and it's costs) than illegal drugs.

4) Say someone fails a drug test... then what? If they go to an ER, the will still get treated and we'd be on the hook for it anyway. If anything it will probably costs taxpayers more in the end, because without medicare, they wouldn't get any preventative care and lead to more costly procedures down the road.

Go Beavers

It doesn't sound great to me, both in theory and practicality. It's unconstitutional and mean-spirited. It costs more than it saves. If it's about saving money, why don't we have police randomly pull people over and the driver does a pee-test and a breathalyzer right on the spot. If they fail, they lose their license for a year or two. Actually, we should also have to go to the DMV for testing every so often, too. This would save money by reducing accidents and wear and tear on the roads that my tax money and insurance premiums pay for.

P.S. Edson, Medicaid isn't getting money, it's getting health insurance.

EdsonNascimento

blackredyellow wrote:

A policy like this sounds great in theory (and on a bumper sticker or campaign commercial), but makes no sense practically.

Here are my issues:

1) Either you test everyone when they first enroll (which would be affordable), but really doesn't tell you anything. Anyone can pass a drug test that they know is coming. They can then do drugs after that with no recourse.

2) You test everyone randomly and more often - Much more costly... sure it can weed some people out, but at what cost? $35 a pop for thousands of people for multiple tests can really add up.

3) Does it test for alcohol? Alcoholism & cigarettes probably take more of a toll as far as healthcare (and it's costs) than illegal drugs.

4) Say someone fails a drug test... then what? If they go to an ER, the will still get treated and we'd be on the hook for it anyway. If anything it will probably costs taxpayers more in the end, because without medicare, they wouldn't get any preventative care and lead to more costly procedures down the road.

These are all solvable problems - it's really not 1 or 2. You can do 2. Randomness will be a deterrant. That's part of the idea. You are right that alcohol is tough to check for. And if you want to test for cigarettes, that's fine by me. But, neither of those precludes you from testing what you CAN test for. Specious argument. They go to the ER, and we're on the hook now. So, that's no more money. Medicaid recipients already get Medicaid health coverage. I can cover their health and not give them money. So, number 4 isn't even applicable.

So, you really haven't raised any valid issues not to do this.

EDIT: To point 4 - you are right, as Beavers pointed out about Medicaid. I really should have said Welfare, so I am incorrect on that point as it relates to Welfare, but not Medicaid.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

It doesn't sound great to me, both in theory and practicality. It's unconstitutional and mean-spirited. It costs more than it saves. If it's about saving money, why don't we have police randomly pull people over and the driver does a pee-test and a breathalyzer right on the spot. If they fail, they lose their license for a year or two. Actually, we should also have to go to the DMV for testing every so often, too. This would save money by reducing accidents and wear and tear on the roads that my tax money and insurance premiums pay for.

P.S. Edson, Medicaid isn't getting money, it's getting health insurance.

YOu are correct. This is Medicaid, and I misused the term. It should apply to Welfare. And I used that incorrectly.

But, why is it mean spirited? If you give your kids allowance, don't you hold them to certain requirements? Or do they get it regardless of what they do?

keeponrockin

The Governor used to own the company doing the testing. Does this not sound slightly fishy?

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

It doesn't sound great to me, both in theory and practicality. It's unconstitutional and mean-spirited. It costs more than it saves. If it's about saving money, why don't we have police randomly pull people over and the driver does a pee-test and a breathalyzer right on the spot. If they fail, they lose their license for a year or two. Actually, we should also have to go to the DMV for testing every so often, too. This would save money by reducing accidents and wear and tear on the roads that my tax money and insurance premiums pay for.

P.S. Edson, Medicaid isn't getting money, it's getting health insurance.

YOu are correct. This is Medicaid, and I misused the term. It should apply to Welfare. And I used that incorrectly.

But, why is it mean spirited? If you give your kids allowance, don't you hold them to certain requirements? Or do they get it regardless of what they do?

Your parent child analogy isn't correct, but supports my claim that it's mean-spirited. So welfare recipients are being childlike in some manner, and the government is the parent? Your analogy is demeaning by equating someone on welfare to a child. The whole plan is also mean-spirited because it's inspired by the stereotype that the welfare recipient is a drug abuser, when in fact drug abuse increases with income. The plan also implies that the person has done something wrong. The government drug tests people who have done something wrong (on probation, convicted of a crime, etc), this plan is basically saying that the person on public assistance has now done something wrong and should relinquish constitutional rights as a result.

VINNY GOOMBA

blackredyellow wrote:

A policy like this sounds great in theory (and on a bumper sticker or campaign commercial), but makes no sense practically.

Here are my issues:

1) Either you test everyone when they first enroll (which would be affordable), but really doesn't tell you anything. Anyone can pass a drug test that they know is coming. They can then do drugs after that with no recourse.

2) You test everyone randomly and more often - Much more costly... sure it can weed some people out, but at what cost? $35 a pop for thousands of people for multiple tests can really add up.

3) Does it test for alcohol? Alcoholism & cigarettes probably take more of a toll as far as healthcare (and it's costs) than illegal drugs.

4) Say someone fails a drug test... then what? If they go to an ER, the will still get treated and we'd be on the hook for it anyway. If anything it will probably costs taxpayers more in the end, because without medicare, they wouldn't get any preventative care and lead to more costly procedures down the road.

These are all great points.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

Your parent child analogy isn't correct, but supports my claim that it's mean-spirited. So welfare recipients are being childlike in some manner, and the government is the parent? Your analogy is demeaning by equating someone on welfare to a child. The whole plan is also mean-spirited because it's inspired by the stereotype that the welfare recipient is a drug abuser, when in fact drug abuse increases with income. The plan also implies that the person has done something wrong. The government drug tests people who have done something wrong (on probation, convicted of a crime, etc), this plan is basically saying that the person on public assistance has now done something wrong and should relinquish constitutional rights as a result.

You've said that in other threads when someone brings up the allowance thing. No it does not mean I am saying they are childlike, and I would certainly not want a parental government. All the analogy is meant to say is - when something is taken, you lose certain expectations of rights. For example, if I give YOU something, I can say, but you can only have it if.... And you can decide if that if is worth it. So, why can't we make reasonable requirements that are meant to ensure that our (collective) money is going to someone that will do appropriate things with it.

Your analogy is the one that's off base. I am also not treating them like criminals. It comes down to the basic premise that if someone is taking my money, I have the right to demand that it be used in the appropriate manner. And, yes. If I'm giving, I get to define that within reason. The fact that higher income people use drugs more is totally besides the point. Welfare/Medicaid is meant to help folks get back on their feet and support the children that are in this situation. It is not meant to be a hand out. It is not meant to be forever, and while some folks can't help it, there's a segment that can. And there's nothing wrong with having certain expectations of ALL of them. We expect it of our children, we can expect it of grown ups (get the application now?).

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Your parent child analogy isn't correct, but supports my claim that it's mean-spirited. So welfare recipients are being childlike in some manner, and the government is the parent? Your analogy is demeaning by equating someone on welfare to a child. The whole plan is also mean-spirited because it's inspired by the stereotype that the welfare recipient is a drug abuser, when in fact drug abuse increases with income. The plan also implies that the person has done something wrong. The government drug tests people who have done something wrong (on probation, convicted of a crime, etc), this plan is basically saying that the person on public assistance has now done something wrong and should relinquish constitutional rights as a result.

You've said that in other threads when someone brings up the allowance thing. No it does not mean I am saying they are childlike, and I would certainly not want a parental government. All the analogy is meant to say is - when something is taken, you lose certain expectations of rights. For example, if I give YOU something, I can say, but you can only have it if.... And you can decide if that if is worth it. So, why can't we make reasonable requirements that are meant to ensure that our (collective) money is going to someone that will do appropriate things with it.

Your analogy is the one that's off base. I am also not treating them like criminals. It comes down to the basic premise that if someone is taking my money, I have the right to demand that it be used in the appropriate manner. And, yes. If I'm giving, I get to define that within reason. The fact that higher income people use drugs more is totally besides the point. Welfare/Medicaid is meant to help folks get back on their feet and support the children that are in this situation. It is not meant to be a hand out. It is not meant to be forever, and while some folks can't help it, there's a segment that can. And there's nothing wrong with having certain expectations of ALL of them. We expect it of our children, we can expect it of grown ups (get the application now?).

When someone uses taxpayers money, they don't lose their constitutional rights because one (or a group of) individual(s) demands it. If that was the case, then my plan for testing all drivers would also fall within those guidelines as being appropriate because drivers are using "my money" and I expect them to be appropriate with it.

My reference to government testing criminals isn't an analogy, it's what happens, and if the government is testing non-criminals, then they are treating them like they did something wrong. My reference to higher income people abusing drugs more than poor people is on target because that's the stereotype that this action comes from. There already are expectations for people on welfare, but those expectations don't violate the constitution like drug testing would.

brianlux

Make all drugs legal and I think you will have no problem with this issue. And, yes, I do believe all drugs should be made legal, but no, I do not edorse the taking of all drugs, especially prescription drugs which are often the worst kind.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

When someone uses taxpayers money, they don't lose their constitutional rights because one (or a group of) individual(s) demands it. If that was the case, then my plan for testing all drivers would also fall within those guidelines as being appropriate because drivers are using "my money" and I expect them to be appropriate with it.

My reference to government testing criminals isn't an analogy, it's what happens, and if the government is testing non-criminals, then they are treating them like they did something wrong. My reference to higher income people abusing drugs more than poor people is on target because that's the stereotype that this action comes from. There already are expectations for people on welfare, but those expectations don't violate the constitution like drug testing would.

Well, that's not my assumption. So, you're misguided. My whole intention comes from the fact that there are those that receive public assistance that are misusing the funds. I also think there should be extremely strict guidelines for what they can use these funds for. It's not because they've done anything wrong. It's because while there are some folks that are there through no fault of there own, there are many folks there because of bad choices. Now, not all bad choices rise to the level of needing further assistance. But, this is a way to guide folks into a hopefully more productive life. And if not, so what? At least we've made them take better care of themselves. What is so wrong with that? I'm the first to be against a nanny state. But, as long as you are taking my money, you shouldn't have a problem with me telling you there are certainly guidelines and restrictions you must follow. You have a choice - don't take the money. It's just like anything else - if you have nothing to hide, you have no issue. There is not constituional right being infringed. I'm not MAKING you take the test. Do what you want. But, you're not getting any money if you don't. Which constituional right has been infringed? The right to take money? I don't recall that section. Though, I'm not up on the ObamaConstitution. So, maybe it's a new clause - the others have more than me, so I have every right to their money without any questions asked clause.

As for the driving - I don't get what you're saying. How am I using your money by driving? I also pay for the roads. So, we're sharing that expense. And to reference above - at this point in my life, I don't care if you make me use a breathalizer when I go to start my car. But, in my college (read: stupid) days, I might have (get the point?).

JonnyPistachio

All the money they will waste on this drug testing should be used to help them find jobs or alternative means to support themselves. Maybe they should create a program with checkpoints and goals that aids in getting people off welfare over a period of time.

If anything, the real problem could be the amount of time some people spend on welfare without any direction.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

When someone uses taxpayers money, they don't lose their constitutional rights because one (or a group of) individual(s) demands it. If that was the case, then my plan for testing all drivers would also fall within those guidelines as being appropriate because drivers are using "my money" and I expect them to be appropriate with it.

My reference to government testing criminals isn't an analogy, it's what happens, and if the government is testing non-criminals, then they are treating them like they did something wrong. My reference to higher income people abusing drugs more than poor people is on target because that's the stereotype that this action comes from. There already are expectations for people on welfare, but those expectations don't violate the constitution like drug testing would.

Well, that's not my assumption. So, you're misguided. My whole intention comes from the fact that there are those that receive public assistance that are misusing the funds. I also think there should be extremely strict guidelines for what they can use these funds for. It's not because they've done anything wrong. It's because while there are some folks that are there through no fault of there own, there are many folks there because of bad choices. Now, not all bad choices rise to the level of needing further assistance. But, this is a way to guide folks into a hopefully more productive life. And if not, so what? At least we've made them take better care of themselves. What is so wrong with that? I'm the first to be against a nanny state. But, as long as you are taking my money, you shouldn't have a problem with me telling you there are certainly guidelines and restrictions you must follow. You have a choice - don't take the money. It's just like anything else - if you have nothing to hide, you have no issue. There is not constituional right being infringed. I'm not MAKING you take the test. Do what you want. But, you're not getting any money if you don't. Which constituional right has been infringed? The right to take money? I don't recall that section. Though, I'm not up on the ObamaConstitution. So, maybe it's a new clause - the others have more than me, so I have every right to their money without any questions asked clause.

As for the driving - I don't get what you're saying. How am I using your money by driving? I also pay for the roads. So, we're sharing that expense. And to reference above - at this point in my life, I don't care if you make me use a breathalizer when I go to start my car. But, in my college (read: stupid) days, I might have (get the point?).

It doesn't have anything to do with ObamaConstitution, it's about the fourth amendment dealing with illegal search and seizure. It's been found unconstitutional in other cases before Obama was president. My point about driving is that cops can't just pull anyone over without reason. I don't get to call the shots because I pay into something. I've paid more into the highway and road system than I use it, that doesn't mean I get to dictate whether others lose their rights. People have a choice, and they don't have to drive.

I also see a benefit and a return when we as a society take care of those in need. It seems like your take is that "some" are there by no fault of their own, but "many" are there because of bad choices. To me, this again reinforces the mean-spiritedness of the whole thing. Kind of like: 'see the bad choices you made, here's your punishment'.

I find it interesting that you're so willing to give up your rights under the guise of saving some money (even when the testing doesn't even save money in reality).

EdsonNascimento

JonnyPistachio wrote:

All the money they will waste on this drug testing should be used to help them find jobs or alternative means to support themselves. Maybe they should create a program with checkpoints and goals that aids in getting people off welfare over a period of time.

If anything, the real problem could be the amount of time some people spend on welfare without any direction.

Good points. This would be a wise direction. However, I am sure there are some that would oppose the checkpoints - which would be absolutely critical.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

It doesn't have anything to do with ObamaConstitution, it's about the fourth amendment dealing with illegal search and seizure. It's been found unconstitutional in other cases before Obama was president. My point about driving is that cops can't just pull anyone over without reason. I don't get to call the shots because I pay into something. I've paid more into the highway and road system than I use it, that doesn't mean I get to dictate whether others lose their rights. People have a choice, and they don't have to drive.

I also see a benefit and a return when we as a society take care of those in need. It seems like your take is that "some" are there by no fault of their own, but "many" are there because of bad choices. To me, this again reinforces the mean-spiritedness of the whole thing. Kind of like: 'see the bad choices you made, here's your punishment'.

I find it interesting that you're so willing to give up your rights under the guise of saving some money (even when the testing doesn't even save money in reality).

The police are allowed and do set up sobriety check points all the time - so they are in fact allowed to pull anyone over for no reason at all. And, I'm fine with that.

I am also not saying that because you pay in you get more of a say. But, if you take, you do have LESS of a say in certain things. That's how everyday life works. Except when the government's involved.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

It doesn't have anything to do with ObamaConstitution, it's about the fourth amendment dealing with illegal search and seizure. It's been found unconstitutional in other cases before Obama was president. My point about driving is that cops can't just pull anyone over without reason. I don't get to call the shots because I pay into something. I've paid more into the highway and road system than I use it, that doesn't mean I get to dictate whether others lose their rights. People have a choice, and they don't have to drive.

I also see a benefit and a return when we as a society take care of those in need. It seems like your take is that "some" are there by no fault of their own, but "many" are there because of bad choices. To me, this again reinforces the mean-spiritedness of the whole thing. Kind of like: 'see the bad choices you made, here's your punishment'.

I find it interesting that you're so willing to give up your rights under the guise of saving some money (even when the testing doesn't even save money in reality).

The police are allowed and do set up sobriety check points all the time - so they are in fact allowed to pull anyone over for no reason at all. And, I'm fine with that.

I am also not saying that because you pay in you get more of a say. But, if you take, you do have LESS of a say in certain things. That's how everyday life works. Except when the government's involved.

In several states checkpoints don't happen because they've been deemed unconstitutional. There's two layers to what we've been going back and forth about, one is thoughts and feelings about those on public assistance, and the second is constitutional rights. You seem to be willing to have others give up their rights as well as your own for a perceived gain for yourself. Would you give up rights if I wanted you to because I could gain from it?

In everyday life, we all pay in and we all take. Sometimes people don't pay attention to how they take as individuals, but are quick to identify others as takers.

Go Beavers

JonnyPistachio wrote:

All the money they will waste on this drug testing should be used to help them find jobs or alternative means to support themselves. Maybe they should create a program with checkpoints and goals that aids in getting people off welfare over a period of time.

Depending on what assistance program you're referring to, there are checkpoints and goals. Although, it's pretty common in AMT that people think cash assistance is given out to people for years and years without any requirements on the individual.

JonnyPistachio

Go Beavers wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

All the money they will waste on this drug testing should be used to help them find jobs or alternative means to support themselves. Maybe they should create a program with checkpoints and goals that aids in getting people off welfare over a period of time.

Depending on what assistance program you're referring to, there are checkpoints and goals. Although, it's pretty common in AMT that people think cash assistance is given out to people for years and years without any requirements on the individual.

That's good to know. I figured there was some kind of checks/goals on recipients.
I guess I should have been more specific though -- I saw a statistic that said something like 20% of people on welfare collect for over 5 years. Maybe they could benefit with additional help becoming self sufficient. For instance, the hundreds of thousanads of dollars spent to drug test these people should be used to create better programs to help get them off welfare.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

In several states checkpoints don't happen because they've been deemed unconstitutional. There's two layers to what we've been going back and forth about, one is thoughts and feelings about those on public assistance, and the second is constitutional rights. You seem to be willing to have others give up their rights as well as your own for a perceived gain for yourself. Would you give up rights if I wanted you to because I could gain from it?

In everyday life, we all pay in and we all take. Sometimes people don't pay attention to how they take as individuals, but are quick to identify others as takers.

I'd like to know what I'm taking. The road I drive on? Well, I helped pay for that, too. But, it's not about that.

I have to take an eye test before I get my driver's license. That's an invasion of my privacy. Someone might find out I have poor eyesight without my glasses on.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

In several states checkpoints don't happen because they've been deemed unconstitutional. There's two layers to what we've been going back and forth about, one is thoughts and feelings about those on public assistance, and the second is constitutional rights. You seem to be willing to have others give up their rights as well as your own for a perceived gain for yourself. Would you give up rights if I wanted you to because I could gain from it?

In everyday life, we all pay in and we all take. Sometimes people don't pay attention to how they take as individuals, but are quick to identify others as takers.

I'd like to know what I'm taking. The road I drive on? Well, I helped pay for that, too. But, it's not about that.

I have to take an eye test before I get my driver's license. That's an invasion of my privacy. Someone might find out I have poor eyesight without my glasses on.

There's a direct connection between seeing and driving, there isn't with public assistance and drug use.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, the judge in Florida put a temporary kill on this. Why?

My employer is allowed to drug test me (As long as they let me know). So, why shouldn't medicaid recipients be required (with notice) to take one to get payment?

Privacy? Really? You're taking money from other people. You don't feel you owe something?

I'm not against Medicaid. I think it's a common good that any civil society should have. But, why can't there be duties to get payment? They have a choice - don't take the money. Or, don't do the drugs that are being tested for. Note - they are not challenging WHAT is being tested for (which might actually have some validity based on certain illnesses). They are challenging the entire concept because someone might find out they have an illness or other private matters. As if we care.

I don't want the gov't in our lives any more than we need them to be. But, why is this so objectionable? Don't do drugs, or you don't get payments. Seems logical and reasonable.

since your criteria for being drug tested is anyone who received gov't money....do you support drug testing for everyone in the banking system who received tarp monies....? how about everyone in the companies that receive subsidies from the gov't....? just curious...

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

since your criteria for being drug tested is anyone who received gov't money....do you support drug testing for everyone in the banking system who received tarp monies....? how about everyone in the companies that receive subsidies from the gov't....? just curious...

If they are NET takers? Sure. Why not? But, my guess is those companies have paid more into the system if you include employment taxes, salaries, etc. than they've taken.

Do not take this as being pro-bail outs or pro big business. I'm just pro facts.

keeponrockin

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

since your criteria for being drug tested is anyone who received gov't money....do you support drug testing for everyone in the banking system who received tarp monies....? how about everyone in the companies that receive subsidies from the gov't....? just curious...

If they are NET takers? Sure. Why not? But, my guess is those companies have paid more into the system if you include employment taxes, salaries, etc. than they've taken.

Do not take this as being pro-bail outs or pro big business. I'm just pro facts.

I think ANYONE who receives government assistance (farm subsidies, bailouts, etc) should be tested.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

since your criteria for being drug tested is anyone who received gov't money....do you support drug testing for everyone in the banking system who received tarp monies....? how about everyone in the companies that receive subsidies from the gov't....? just curious...

If they are NET takers? Sure. Why not? But, my guess is those companies have paid more into the system if you include employment taxes, salaries, etc. than they've taken.

Do not take this as being pro-bail outs or pro big business. I'm just pro facts.

I say you're pro-changing facts to fit your narrative...

Stardog3..

I think that there needs to be mandatory check-ins, etc. for people that are receiving welfare. Who exactly are the ones that need to check in and where do they go? I'm actually interested because I have some estranged family on one side of my family that is on welfare and our family has a difficult time understanding why they (and those that are living with/around them) aren't on some kind of step by step system since they are an example of people who abuse the system. Example: I have a cousin who has received welfare and has for about 4 years. There has been many times my family has tried to take her in as we are able to support her, yet she is a runner (her parents are also on welfare, don't work, and are drug addicts). She has her nails done, a tan, smoke two packs a day, and uses the cash assistance she receives for her child to do the things she wants to do. When I do talk to her, I always bring up schooling or a job. She does not want to work, and signed up for schooling but quit once she received the loan check. Her 28-year old boyfriend who receives assistance is the same way, and has three kids. The boyfriends mother lives in their house with her boyfriend, and they also do not work, and run drugs out of their house. These are just some random examples, and obviously I am NOT saying that everybody is like this. I just want to know why we shouldn't invest our money in making mandatory check-ins to set up a plan and get the people who do fall into this category on the right track. And if there are- where are they?

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

since your criteria for being drug tested is anyone who received gov't money....do you support drug testing for everyone in the banking system who received tarp monies....? how about everyone in the companies that receive subsidies from the gov't....? just curious...

If they are NET takers? Sure. Why not? But, my guess is those companies have paid more into the system if you include employment taxes, salaries, etc. than they've taken.

Do not take this as being pro-bail outs or pro big business. I'm just pro facts.

so lets say that i have been working my whole life (therefore putting money into the system) but recently lost my job and need assistance, should i get a drug test even though i have given more money to welfare than i have taken.

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

In several states checkpoints don't happen because they've been deemed unconstitutional. There's two layers to what we've been going back and forth about, one is thoughts and feelings about those on public assistance, and the second is constitutional rights. You seem to be willing to have others give up their rights as well as your own for a perceived gain for yourself. Would you give up rights if I wanted you to because I could gain from it?

In everyday life, we all pay in and we all take. Sometimes people don't pay attention to how they take as individuals, but are quick to identify others as takers.

I'd like to know what I'm taking. The road I drive on? Well, I helped pay for that, too. But, it's not about that.

I have to take an eye test before I get my driver's license. That's an invasion of my privacy. Someone might find out I have poor eyesight without my glasses on.

you assume that people on assistance have not paid to the system too.

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

since your criteria for being drug tested is anyone who received gov't money....do you support drug testing for everyone in the banking system who received tarp monies....? how about everyone in the companies that receive subsidies from the gov't....? just curious...

If they are NET takers? Sure. Why not? But, my guess is those companies have paid more into the system if you include employment taxes, salaries, etc. than they've taken.

Do not take this as being pro-bail outs or pro big business. I'm just pro facts.

so lets say that i have been working my whole life (therefore putting money into the system) but recently lost my job and need assistance, should i get a drug test even though i have given more money to welfare than i have taken.

Are you talking unemployment insurance? Are you talking about Social Security? Then no. I am specifically talking about straight welfare. And so, what if you've put into the system? Would you be opposed to taking a drug test? And if yes, why? Perhaps, that's not something you should be spending time and money on when you're in that situation anyway.

fife

If they are NET takers? Sure. Why not? But, my guess is those companies have paid more into the system if you include employment taxes, salaries, etc. than they've taken.

Do not take this as being pro-bail outs or pro big business. I'm just pro facts.[/quote]

so lets say that i have been working my whole life (therefore putting money into the system) but recently lost my job and need assistance, should i get a drug test even though i have given more money to welfare than i have taken.[/quote]

Are you talking unemployment insurance? Are you talking about Social Security? Then no. I am specifically talking about straight welfare. And so, what if you've put into the system? Would you be opposed to taking a drug test? And if yes, why? Perhaps, that's not something you should be spending time and money on when you're in that situation anyway.[/quote]

i'm talking about welfare. you assume that people on welfare have not paid anything ever when i know that this is not true. yes i would have a problem with taking a drug test and i don't even use.

also what type of drugs are they testing for? our prescription pills tested?