Medicaid Drug Testing

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?

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

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?

Your last questions are the crux of the issue. That would need to be clearly defined. I do not have the specific answer for you, but obviously you would need to consider the fact that folks do take Rx. So, right there the test will not be perfect.

When you get a job, your employer can force you to take a drug test. Are you against that, also? Or, would you simply not take the job on principle?

And if you would and take the test, why is welfare any different?

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

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?

Your last questions are the crux of the issue. That would need to be clearly defined. I do not have the specific answer for you, but obviously you would need to consider the fact that folks do take Rx. So, right there the test will not be perfect.

When you get a job, your employer can force you to take a drug test. Are you against that, also? Or, would you simply not take the job on principle?

And if you would and take the test, why is welfare any different?

actually i have turned down a job because they requested to make me take a drug test. I deal with alot of people with substance use issues in my job and most of them use due to major issues that they are trying to avoid.

secondly, i know that it is easy to say "hey if your on drugs then you don't deserve assistance" but what about children of people on welfare, should they be punished for the issues with they parents?

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

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?

And if you would and take the test, why is welfare any different?

It's different because one is the government and the other is a private entity.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

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?

And if you would and take the test, why is welfare any different?

It's different because one is the government and the other is a private entity.

:?

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

actually i have turned down a job because they requested to make me take a drug test. I deal with alot of people with substance use issues in my job and most of them use due to major issues that they are trying to avoid.

secondly, i know that it is easy to say "hey if your on drugs then you don't deserve assistance" but what about children of people on welfare, should they be punished for the issues with they parents?

Well, I give you credit then. You are a rare breed.

Yes, we would have to consider the children in these situations. But, are you now saying the children of welfare drug abusers are better off with their parents taking care of them? Not saying that can't be done, but that seems like a bad combination until the parent(s) can straighten themselves out.

And I don't get the substance abuse to get over major issues. If you are talking about folks hooked on drugs due to debilitating pain (current or prior), I hear you. And, there's no reason you could not tailor the program to that. But, if you are talking about folks using drugs because they don't like the life they have, well I have very little sympathy. And, in that case, tough love is probably the only thing that will get through.

It's not that I don't have any sympathy for addiction. It's a scary thing that some folks can't control without help. But, that's the point - let's help them get that help. Why can't this be viewed as a positive? I am not saying kill them. I am not saying throw them out. But, perhaps this can lead to intervention. They are already relying on the gov't, so in a lot of ways, all you are doing is spending the money more wisely with the hope that you save long term (And by save I mean both a life and money).