BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: gnu
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 02:50 PM

Drug testing for job applicants is simply a money saving policy. If there is a great number of applicants for a job, screening out the drug users BEFORE skill testing and interviews saves resources. Also, it's based on the fact that a druggy PROBABLY can't do the job as well as the non-druggy AND, perhaps even moreso, based on the fact that a druggy MAY cost the employer grief in various ways in the future.

It is simply good business sense.

I think that applying the, "If me, then why not them?" arguement is flawed in this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 12:17 PM

////Clarify, josepp. Are you saying that if your employer did not require drug testing, you would be actively opposed to drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare benefits?////

Drug testing is bullshit. But if one group of people can legally be subject to it nonvoluntarily, then everybody should be legally subject to it nonvoluntarily. Once you rationalize it as ok for people in my case, you're allowing everybody else to rationalize it any way they want to make it apply to anybody they want. Which is precisely what is now happening and it's too late to complain now.

And don't anybody dare pull this "helpless poor" bullshit on me. I've known several people over the years on welfare and not one of them couldn't have gone out and worked but simply didn't want to. And this idea that they'll go out and commit crime if denied benefits, remember, the benefits are temporary anyway--they run out eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: kendall
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 11:29 AM

I came from abject poverty but lucky for me, we qualified for welfare so I could stay in school, get a good education and in time get a very good job. Every advantage I have had in life has come to me through the policies of the Democratic party.
I could have quit school, took a series of dead end jobs and ended up an unemployed laborer.
Anyone want to challenge that?

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 11:22 AM

Bobert -

The "flag burning amendment" and several others of similar kind have been brought back several times here in Kansas; but since they couldn't quite (by slim margins) pass in the Legislature the good people elected a bigot for governor who's been vigorously attempting to get it all done "by decree."

The only barrier seen to our instantly having a State Religion (at least for the State) seems to be his inability to select one of the dozen he's previously claimed is "the real one," although he's yet to come up with a proposal that says which one he's talking about, leaving the one imposed subject to takeover (locally?) by any lunatic fringe that happens to get a few members elected (locally?) ... wherever.

He quite probably thinks he will "obviously" be favored by one with lots of financial resources for supporting his ambitions, though.

The situation here is uncomfortably reminiscent of 1938 in a faraway land nobody was watching very closely, but nobody really noticed (or remembers) how that bit of unpleasantness all got started - - - and besides, lots of people made huge profits from it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 11:13 AM

Precious little sympathy for the elderly afraid to leave their homes, for the women who have to take buses late at night, for neighbors who have had their few prized possessions stolen, for children left to fend for themselves for days on end.

I would think it pretty certain that an idea like this can be expected to make all those things worse. Are they planning to carry out serious research to monitor the outcome so that they can slam this into reverse very quickly, if I am right? I very much doubt it, that's not the way populist politics tends to work in nay country.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 09:00 AM

Thank you, John in Kansas... It's refreshing to read a well thought out rebuttal to an emotional argument based around bumper sticker length policy positions...

This one is just a rewrite of the old "Welfare Cadillac" which was popular in the 60s and 70s and is intended to misinform so that the "believers" will go out and retell it with a hope that it will bring in more Republican votes...

I'm surprised that they haven't dusted off the ol' "Flag Burning Amendment"... lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 08:44 AM

Poor people are not all criminals, despite what (apparently most here and elsewhere) people seem to think. They're just poor.

mg et al are channelling Schrooge:

'Are there no prisons?' said Scrooge.

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

'You wish to be anonymous?'

'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.'

Its really heartening to see how far society has advanced since 1843.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: kendall
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 08:03 AM

Jeri, right on.
Josepp, if there were any jobs to start with would they be on welfare?

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 06:51 AM

I see many comments here - as is almost universally the case - that indicate that people are complaining about how thngs work with total absence of any knowledge of how the do work. (Or it might be more accurate to say how they don't work since the benefits available are poorly administerd.)

In the US, and individual can apply for Social Security disability if there is a valid reason why the individual can no longer perform income earning work.

Without disability, a person can "retire" and receive Social Security benefits at age 62 or in some cases 58, based on that persons history of payments of Social Security and Medicare withholdings while employed. The benefit is reduced so that the total amount received from the time of retirement up to the "expected life" of the person at the age of retirement is the same as would be received if the person retired at "full retirment age," and received the maximum monthly payments for which the persons work/earnings history qualified them.

If disabled and unable to work at an earlier age, the recognition of a Disability allows the person to collect the same monthly benefit for which the applicant's personal history of employment and payment of withholdings for SSA and Medicare would qualify them if they were at full retirement age. The only "cost increment" to Social Security is the few years prior to normal retirement.

If a person has NOT WORKED in an occupation covered by SSA, and has NOT PAID his/her share into the SSA program, there IS NO SSA DISABILITY BENEFIT available to them.

A person now is automatically enrolled for Medicare coverage for normal health care at age 65. This is some help for those who don't have access to any other insurance, but for persons who retire at normal age, on average Medicare pays about 20% - 30% of "ordinary" medical bills. An advantage - sometimes a disadvantage - of Medicare coverage is that Medicare specifies the amount providers can charge, pays its 20%. The patient remains responsible for the remaining (average 80%), but the providers are NOT permitted to require the patients to "make up the difference" between the providers "normal" charges and the Medicare specified allowable charge.

IF YOU DO HAVE decent other insurance, most major insurance providers have similar "agreements" with providers of medical care, requiring them to accept the "standard charges" allowed by the insurer. For the better insurers, the maximum charges are similar to what Medicare specifies.

Without Medicare or another insurance, typical charges claimed by providers run around 150% (sometimes much more) of what they accept from those who are insured by Medicare or some other good policy.

A person who is declared disabled by Social Security is automatically enrolled in Medicare two years after the award of the SSA disability benefit. (There is no choice of whether to convert from another policy to Medicare, although most people "on Medicare" require supplemental insurance.)

Medicare coverage IS NOT FREE. The Medicare Insurance payment is deducted automatically from the SSA retirement benefit you receive and it IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF YOUR SSA INCOME. You cannot be on Medicare unless you also recieve a retirement benefit.

Additionally, the misconception that some have that Social Security Retirment benefits are not taxed IS A LIE. They must be reported as income, and although there are some differences in "brackets" applied they are taxable income for most who receive them.

There is an additional "welfare" program called the SSI (Supplemental Security Income?) benefit for which any persons can qualify to receive benefits due - in essence - to "poverty." Medicaid insurance for medical care is generally considered a part of SSI, although rarely there is a technical difference.

An individual generally cannot qualify for SSI benefits.

A couple living together, married or unmarried, cannot qualify for SSI benefits unless they are the sole support of a child who lives with them.

In some cases, IF the child qualifies for an SSI benefit, after demonstrating that a specific disability of the "parent" who cares for the child who receives benefits would prevent the child from receiving care, some necessary and confirmed medical care for the "parent" may also be paid by SSI/Medicaid.

There is NO OTHER Federal support for childless persons or family groups who are "just too poor to survive."

Social Security retirement benefits are paid, and the deductions for Medicare premiums are deducted by the Federal Government. The Medicare premiums are forwarded to the states.

Medicare is administered entirely by each state. One recent survey cited THREE states as "nominally providing the Medicare benefits as provided for in Federal regulations." ALL OTHER STATES have been described as "withholding, evading, diluting, or otherwise failing to provide the full benefits to which recipients are entitled under Federal law and Federal Medicare regulations.

All SSI benefits are administered by each state. Medicare funding is intended to cover SSI benefits, and in some cases separate SSI funds, in addition to Medicare premiums, have been passed from Federal budgets to the states. The observations about state's performance of the administration of SSI are much the same as for Medicare.

Although there are Federal laws/regulations specifying some conditions that "Unemployment Insurance" must meet, all Unemployment programs are administered entirely by each individual state, from determination of the amount of premiums to be paid in and collection of the "premiums" to disbursement of funds to those who qualify. One of the very few enforceable rules in the Federal statutes is the specification of a "minimum period of unemployment" for which benefits must be paid. That one clause is the only thing permitting Congress (the Federal one) to "extend benefits in times of crisis."

Some, but not all, states have additional programs for assisting persons in need. The best that can be said about any of them is that they are "capriciously created, obstructively administered, and underfunded for what they're intended to do." No state that I've heard of has any benefit that any person qualifies to receive "because there are no jobs to be had" or because "I just can't find a job."

"Food stamps" are a Federal program and the stamps are distributed by the Fed (now in the form of debit cards), but qualifying individuals to receive them is left largely to the states. Generally, it's difficult to qualify unless one has "a child in need of feeding."

NO PROGRAMS are available that do not involve support of children, to anyone who has not previously worked productively and paid the specified contributions via taxes (including the FICA/Medicare ones). Existing programs intended to assure the the care of disadvantaged children should be adequate to detect dysfunctional familes, alcoholism, or drug use. Demanding a drug test where there is reasonable evidence of drug use is perfectly appropriate. Since the benefits available are nearly all are "in the name of the children" removing the child if the test is positive is one of several possible remedies, and in most cases "removes the benefit."

Assuming that "everyone who applies for help" is a drug addict is simple IGNORANT BIGOTRY.

Sorry if the summary above is superficial. It isn't a simple subject, and there isn't a "magic bullet" that bigots can enforce that will solve all the problems.

Poor people are not all criminals, despite what (apparently most here and elsewhere) people seem to think. They're just poor.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 12:16 AM

I don't get paralyzed in general. I say first you do the trick and then you get the banana, and if you want a public benefit, you had better be on your best behavior (or non-dysfunctional if you will), and you had better not endenture anyone's paycheck by your optional (as opposed to mental illness etc.) behavior. You had better not spit on the streets, or scare people or talk in threatening ways on the bus and since you are getting a public benefit, you will earn some of it if you are capable and screened for safety, by working in a nursing home, day care center, park etc. We ask almost nothing of people and the dysfunctional behavior spreads. We need to say this is what to do to get this..and make it attractive enough so that they will want to do it..make part-time work at minimum wage attractive enough that they will take it by not making it economically scarier for them to work than not work..subsidize efforts.

There needs to be a triage system. Some people are able to switch their behaviors fairly easily with the right incentives. Some never can, due to addiction, mental illness etc. There is a group in the middle that needs various help, especially job help, and I do think government should be employer of many in sheltered situations. We need more people in nursing homes and parks and painting schools and cleaning public buildings and for those deemed non-violent they could be earning part of their benefits.

Part of the problem is..a big huge part of the problem..is looking at the most difficult situations and thinking everything is hopeless. It is for some people and they need to have different plans and support than those who need jobs or benefits in lieux of jobs. There is a lot that can be done with a can-do attitude and people who know how to get things done.

And one thing I think is that some middle-class people are using poorer people to act out their own anti-social desires...like I want to be a bad girl but I really can't but I can encourage other young women to act in certain ways and call it support. And whenever anyone proposes something I can shoot it down. I can be a nay-sayer and come up with all sorts of reasons why nothing will ever work until a very complex and expensive system is set in place. I do not want simple, incremental improvements..I want a grand plan and I will stomp my feet until I get it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Aug 11 - 12:00 AM

The largest employer in my county is shellfish industry. The people there work shucking oysters for minimum wage and it is horrifying work to me..they work furiously fast with sharp knives and slippery oysters. Or they go out at night on the oyster beds, where they could get lost, or they could get stuck in the mud, or at least they are doing back-breaking work at minimum wage. Who should they support? The injured Iraqui veteran? Yes. The 90 year old incontinent, bedridden woman? Yes. The two-year old orphan? Yes. The drug-addled state college student who sucks up state funds and makes taking a bus a disgusting experience? I would rather they did not have to. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 11:00 PM

I wonder why we have to have this discussion every four years???

Seems that the right can't throw enough red meat to their base...

'Nuff said on my part...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:45 PM

Good question, Bruce. I expect the answer is a non-answer - an ever shifting balancing act.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:41 PM

Where we may differ, mg, is that I tend not to think in terms of "good" behavior vs "bad" behavior. I tend to think in terms of functional and dysfunctional behavior, and to be forever mindful that what is functional in the context of one person's life and resources may well be dysfunctional in the terms of another person's life and resources. I am sometimes paralyzed by the ambiguity that context provides.

I think the world needs people who think like you and people who think like me. I do not think the world needs needs people who think only of themselves, but I also think that people of means who think only of themselves historically have an uncalled for advantage over those people without means who think only of themselves. I am ever preoccupied with the dynamic balance crucial for survival of our species between the individual and the social.

Not sure where Darwin would land on that particular continuum.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:31 PM

The one thing that truly bothers me about this issue is why do we think we have proprietary rights over people. We have none over the stock market, over the people we elect, over the multinationals and big money interests who pay for politicians to be elected, but we do over the disenfranchised. WHAT are we learning here?

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:16 PM

It's weird, Janie...

Back in '68 I worked for the local CAP program as a "community organizer" (horrors) and was a assigned to "Hillside Court", a housing project in South Richmond and was told to organize a WRO (remember them??? Welfare Rights Organization) among other things...

Then about 6 years later I had to work 6 months in "eligibility" while waiting for a certain "adult service case worker" job came up that I knew was coming up and knew I'd be hired for (another story)...

But it was very weird to be on both sides...

But during my "eligibility" days, yeah, we had to make "home visits" to verify the "no man in the house" requirement...

Welfare has always been the whipping boy of the right wing...

Hey, if you look at the the entire federal budget this is a joke... We blow more money in Iraq and Afghanistan in one day then we spend on the entire welfare programs in an entire year...

Yet, we have to have the right wing use these kinds of ***red meat*** non-issues to fire up their base???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:11 PM

I am far from naive and I do not see the world in black and white terms. I am very pragmatic and like to see results and not debates and people putting in roadblocks all over the place. I think people will change if they are given both enticements to good behavior and obstacles to bad behavior..most of them..not all of them. I do not think we have to wait until 100 conditions are met before we plunge in and do something. I believe that things can be fixed, sometimes pretty intractable-seeming things, and sometimes fairly quickly. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:06 PM

For the first several months..I am not going to review their math but it should not cost much to test people..I do not think they should have to pay for it, which they can't afford..and the accounting etc. just adds expenses. I am not saying to not help them but I am saying do not give them cash. Give them hospice type care if they are single and can not function without drugs. Some drugs should never be given but some could be in supervised care. It probably won't be cheaper than welfare on a per person basis, but there would be long-term benefits that people never seem to do math on. If you remove drugs and drug seeking behavior in a neighborhood, the violence rate will go down and then small businesses will start to take root. Houses will be fixed up, parks will be kept up..there is a strong upward ripple effect. Employers will not be afraid to move in and there will be a supply of workers. Stores will not be afraid to open in certain neighborhoods. The pleasantness factor of a neighborhood without alcoholics on the street will shoot up. Why do people not want this? Philosophy is strangling people in these conditions because people won't do sensible obvious things because their philosophy gets in the way and poor people pay the price. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:01 PM

mg, you are naive. I don't mean that disrespectfully. It is rare to encounter some one who sees the world in such black and white terms who also obviously possesses bonafide compassion.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:58 PM

"We need to tighten up so that the money will stretch farther if nothing else. mg"

You seem not to have read the thread. The testing costs much more than the rewards. No offense, but your reasoning doesn't stand up to the facts. No offense meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:53 PM

Bobert, I don't know how that worked back in the early days of "welfare."

I just know the road to the "deserving poor" leads to nowhere.

Clarify, josepp. Are you saying that if your employer did not require drug testing, you would be actively opposed to drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare benefits?

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:52 PM

That would bring about Big Brother on Crack, mg... Get real... This ain't Afghanistan and our government isn't the Taliban...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:47 PM

I absolutely am for drug testing of anyone receiving public benefits, and that includes public education. If anyone wants to argue that every citizen be tested, then so be it. I am not for singling anyone out. I do think that the simple fact of testing will reduce use in the people at the edges of drug use..not the hard core but the oh my parents will kill me if they find out. It should be as noninvasive as possible, as respectful as possible, and while you don't want to stereotype the 20 year olds, you probably don't need to test their great grannies as often. There could be safe and secure places for single people to be housed if they are positive for some drugs that are more aggressive, and there could be improved, better facilities for those who do not test out positive. The problem is always what if they have children...I do not know what all the answers are but I know that we have to break into this complex of poverty-related behaviors and you can start in a number of places, but that is one that will yield quick results. We are condemning whole generations of people to live with serious drug offenders and dealers. They live their lives in terror. I have seen children so afraid to walk to school..old people afraid to leave their apartments. It is not victimless behavior...it depends on the drug and the violence it could cause. And various drugs will leave you variously impaired in terms of insuring the safety and welfare of your children..certainly including alcohol. Of course this will be answered with abusive comments, but there is not unlimited money to keep putting out. We need to tighten up so that the money will stretch farther if nothing else. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:45 PM

I had to get tested for my job (military) as well. It's not the same thing. I wasn't an addict when I got the job. If fired from that job, I could have found work elsewhere.

I suppose if these people on welfare because they can't get jobs are disqualified from receiving it because of a drug test, they can always find another way to get money. I suspect their options involve something more illegal than their drug use.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:42 PM

What Janie says...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:29 PM

Uhmmmm make that "straits."

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:26 PM

Bruce, Thanks. Yours too. The "you" in my last post was a generic "you,". Was typing and didn't see your last couple of posts, and don't want you to think my comments were in response.

North Carolina just finished with a series of legislative hearings to decide if reparations should be made to the individuals or some surviving family members of people who were sterilized by order of the North Carolina Eugenics Board. Although many states kept Eugenics laws on the books for far to long, North Carolina actually kept up the practice long after other states had discontinued the practice. Unfortunately, but perhaps practically, the budget woes of the state at the current moment are such that it is unlikely that significant reparation will be made. Not sure I can argue with that, given the financial straights the state now finds itself dealing with, and given that help for people in immediate need could be affected if the legislature approves reparations. The reality is, those reparation monies would come directly from funds that would otherwise go to disadvantaged populations without political clout, and not from funds set aside to provide for things like excellent roads or tax incentives for businesses that rarely fulfill their promises.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:23 PM

Without knowing where you are or your employment status--although knowing that would change little for right now--I have nothing to say about your specific situation. However, you imply by your writing that because you're getting screwed, your screwing is worse than that of others. The people being 'attacked' by this are much less able than you. They need your help more than you need my sympathy.

IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:12 PM

That's what I'm saying. I'M the one getting tested! Nobody is screaming bloody murder about MY rights and MY treatment. All the sudden it's a big deal because they want to test welfare applicants. Why the hell should I cry for them?? All I have to say to them is WELCOME TO THE CLUB!

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:10 PM

Sorry, Josepp, we have once again cross-posted. I can feel deep inside that we meant to say the same things.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:08 PM

Let me tell you something. An analysis of the "moral" characteristics of the poor and destitute would reveal that poor folks are no different from the rest of the population along those demographics. An analysis of "antisocial behavior" among poor people vs people who are not poor would probably not yield statistically different results. I take that back. I would not be surprised, if good research were possible, if an analysis of antisocial behavior did not reveal that antisocial behaviors are somewhat but equally higher at both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum than in the vast middle of the spectrum. It is easier to hold those at the lower end of the financial spectrum accountable at a lower thresh-hold of antisocial behavior than it is to hold those at the higher end accountable at a lower thresh-hold.

I have no objection to drug-testing welfare recipients as a condition of receiving benefit from the public coffers provided all who receive benefit from the pubic coffers (which includes each and every one of us,) must also meet the same test.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 09:07 PM

I should point out that a letter to the Red Deer paper prompted them to call me (phone) and ask if I would go for a picture and interview t/b published in their paper. (That was about 12 years ago.)

#################################################################

When I

1) found out that such a law had existed I was furious
2) found out that the repeal of the law took three years I was furiouser
3) found out that some people--one of whom said that in a letter to the editor--thought it was a just law, I was furiousest

I think when people know, they will get the law off the books. Why? Because humans just shouldn't be that way. At least, we hope so.


Good post, Janie.

B

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,Josepp
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 08:59 PM

Where I work, you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment. Nobody gives you an exemption for a party drug like pot. They find pot in your piss sample, you're not getting hired. So why should we give exemptions to people applying for welfare? And that should go for drugs and alcohol too. Hey, you want to buy booze and cigarettes? Go out and get a fucking job.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 08:55 PM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, Janie. From other sources I know the Wiki info to be true.

"In 1928, the Province of Alberta, Canada, passed legislation that enabled the government to perform involuntary sterilizations on individuals classified as mentally deficient. In order to implement the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta in 1928, a four-person Alberta Eugenics Board was created. These four individuals were responsible for approving sterilization procedures. In 1972, the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed, and the Eugenics Board dismantled. During the 43 years of the Eugenics Board, it approved nearly 5,000 individual sterilizations, and 2,832 procedures were actually performed."

Also from Wiki, but a separate article"

"It was not until 1969, under the direction of Peter Lougheed, Progressive Conservative and Leader of the Opposition, the Act was reviewed. Mr. Lougheed's party intended to introduce a provincial Bill of Rights and a review of existing legislation was directed in an effort to identify potentially conflicting legislation. Mr. Lougheed attacked the Act on legal and moral grounds and the Progressive Conservative party adopted repeal of the Act as part of their platform."

Y'ain't alone.

In 1972 David King, MLA Edmonton Highlands, was successful in introducing a Bill to repeal the Sexual Sterilization Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 08:48 PM

Wesley, if the issue is tax payer dollars, a just solution would be to require every person in the country to be drug-tested and barred from any action, activity, or benefit funded by tax dollars.

That basically means anyone with a positive drug screen is not allowed to breath.

It is a stupid, ineffective law or regulation that will serve no purpose other than to continue to foster a sense of moral superiority on the part of certain haves over the have nots.

Reminds me also of the North Carolina Eugenics board, for those who have been following the news on the North Carolina task force.

Also is another inexorable step toward Big Brother, a place to which we are already dangerously close. We might, unwittingly, already be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: gnu
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 05:24 PM

Welllll... 1140/240 = how many months? Then, after that, there is a savings. I mean, if yer gonna argue dollars on THAT basis, yer goin down the tubes.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Paul G.
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 04:37 PM

And now THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 11:46 AM

Money just makes him talk more not less. But it's a good idea. I wish it would work.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 11:23 AM

What about paying a salary to Rush Limbaugh, Wes?

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 11:14 AM

So paying welfare to someone who tests positive for drugs because they MIGHT start mugging people and invading homes sounds like protection money to me. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 10:51 AM

Good point, Kendall.

JohninKS...hugs to you both, not worth much, but glad you finally got it settled. IN the past five or so years, I was turned down, based on no recent salary history...duh, as if I could work, at the time. When I was first disabled I was told I shouldn't apply because I would not qualify. (I've since been told otherwise.) I didn't even bother trying, again. They wanted all records from way back and I gave them what I had. Most of the docs and/or hospitals no longer had my records available for copying. It was pointless to reapply. I can imagine a lot of folks getting discouraged and not bothering.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: kendall
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 08:25 AM

Ok, so, we deny anyone welfare if they test positive for drugs. Will they quit drugs to keep the welfare? or will they simply go to home invasions and muggings to feed their habit?
My money is on the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 07:31 AM

Here's the test they will administer.

Q What state do you live in?

1 I live in the state of

a) drug and/or alcohol induced inebriation
b) Florida

If your answer is a, you are well and truly fu#ked. Stop writing the test. If you answer b, proceed to the next question.

2 Name the illegal drug.

a) Excedrin
b) Marijuana aka pot, shit, dope, boo, Mary Jane, weed.

If you answered a, proceed to question 3. If you answered b, you obviously belong to a fringe element that deserves to be punished for sins you may or may not have committed, and you are well and truly fu#ked. Stop writing the test.

3) If you are handed a card that reads "The statement on the other side of this card is true" and then turn it over to read "The statement on the other side of this card is false", do you answer

a) Delaware
b) Who the hell knows?

If you answered a you are well and truly fu#ked. Stop the test now. If you answered b, proceed to question 4.

4) I need social assistance because

a) I want to buy drugs
b) I want to buy drugs

If you answered a or b, you are well and truly fu#ked. Stop writing the test and move to a state that doesn't have an idiot for a governor.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 06:12 AM

I don't need welfare, and I find this whole thread libelious. Shame on you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 12:48 AM

Recent hand-wringing over bankruptcy of Medicare/Medicaid confirms that 80% of applications for disability assistance are rejected at first application. This is a nationwide average, and it's significantly worse in some states.

1. First application for a Medicare/Medicaid disability benefit requires full reporting from ALL PHYSICIANS who have seen the applicant in the past year.

2. First application requires a complete examination of the applicant by an "independent medical practitioner" designated by the agency.

3. First application requires a psychological examination by a psychologist/psychiatrist designated by the agency.

4. First examination requires completion of an application form of about 30 pages by the applicant.

5. First application requires submission of a 12 page "questionnaire" by each of at least "3 different persons who know the applicant."

6. Any additional examination requirements "deemed necessary" by the agency MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. A "second opinion" by another medical "specialist" is usually demanded.

7. An "interview" with an agency employee is required. This interview theoretically can be done by telephone, but the telephone interview invariably results in a demand the the applicant "come to the office" to answer "additional questions."

8. ALL REPORTS are "privileged communications" between examiners and the agency, and the applicant IS NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW WHAT WAS REPORTED.

8. No rationale for the inevitable rejection is provided.

Numbers are less verifiable, but approximately 60% of those rejected apparently will file an appeal. Of those who appeal and persist, the national average is that 98% will eventually be awarded a disability benefit.

10. Those who appeal are required to re-submit the same 30 page application. (The prior submittal will be rejected)

11. New reports (approx 12 pages each) from "3 persons who know you" must be provided.

12. NEW REPORTS from all of the same of their own medical providers as in the first round, plus reports from all additional practitioners who have seen them since the original application must be submitted. (Don't forget the ones they sent you to.)

13. A new medical exam is required by one or more designated practitioners. In our personal experience the local practice is to designate "less accessible" persons for the appeal exams.

14. A new psychological/psychiatric exam by an agency designate is required. See above re "accessibility."

15. In our area, the same 80% arbitrary denial is applied to all "first appeals." Nearly all will re-file a second appeal.

16. On Second appeal, a complete new set of application forms must be submitted.

17. Three of your acquaintance must again complete the 12 page (approximately) report on their observations of you.

18. A new report is demanded from each medical provider who has seen the applicant. In this case the time is "back to one year prior to first application. (Don't forget both sets of those they sent you to in prior rounds.)

19. A new examination by a different designated "medical person" is required.

20. A new psychological/psychiatric exam by a designated person is required.

For all of the above, decreasingly accessible "designates" were chosen for us:

20.a. In our case, applying for disability in which "limited mobility" was significant, the "handicap parking" was within "legal distance" of the building, but the only entrance was 216 feet further (outside). Inside, a 184 ft long hallway led to a "sunken" lobby. The only directory to indicate examiner's office location was sunken in a display that could not be seen by a person seated in a wheelchair or mobility device. To reach the elevator required ascending 12 stair steps. (Say goodbye to the wheelchair?). The elevator exit was 184 feet from the office. When the need arose, we found that the nearest restroom was NOT ACCESSIBLE. Had she sat down on the pot there was insufficient aid available to get her off of it. The "handicap" restroom was 387 feet down the hall past the elevators.

It took the "applicant' about 75 minutes to get from the vehicle to the office on the first trip.

21. After the above, you wait for assignment of an "administrative judge" and for a "hearing date."

22. In our case, the wait was just over 2 years for the "assignment," and a further 7 months for the "hearing."

23. Since the disability had been fully confirmed at first application, no mention of the applicant was made at the "hearing." The "judge" asked if the applicant smoked and was told "No." He then asked if the applicant drank coffee. Applicant admitted to "about a cup every couple of weeks." The judge then delivered a 40 minute "lecture" on his theory that no one would be disabled if everyone stopped drinking coffee (he read up on it on the Internet), haggled briefly with the attorney about the "agreement on retroactive benefits" (required back to date of disability in the regulations, but settled for "attorney's fee" as of the hearing.)

Total time from first application SIX YEARS AND FOUR MONTHS.

Total benefit received, approx $130/month, and one year earlier eligibility for Medicare in place of existing Blue Cross.

(The "disability benefit" for those over 56 only allows payment of the benefit they would receive at "full retirement," based on their individual earnings and payment of SS taxes, rather than the reduced benefit for starting regular Social Security at the age when disabled, and Medicare 2 years after disability is awarded instead of at age 65. Unlike insurance benefits, Social Security "income" IS TAXABLE.)

And the Governor of Florida thinks one piss in a cup will "clarify everything?"

IF he agrees with my assessment that NO PRACTITIONER that the agency demanded must evaluate our applicant was qualified to treat me for a blister on my thumb, he may have something, I suppose.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 12:27 AM

The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is directly influenced by the lobbying of private prison corporations who profit when every non-violent offender is given a ridiculously long prison sentence instead of community service or some program that keeps them in the community offering restitution. Same thing with drug testing - influence creates a demand where there was none before in order to enrich a few.

Drug testing is a waste of time and money, it blames the victim (self-medication is a problem in all walks of life, but it is penalized when the drug of choice is illegal). Wasn't Florida's governor a convicted felon to do with Medicare fraud?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Aug 11 - 12:03 AM

Yes, Paul. Good to know there are some good people working there. I've read so many beautiful and eloquent descriptions of it, esp. in certain novels by James Lee Burke and a couple of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 22 Aug 11 - 10:36 PM

Here's another opinion. http://networkedblogs.com/lYmuv

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 11 - 10:20 PM

And I suspect you would intern Japanese Americans as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Drug test needed to get welfare checks
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Aug 11 - 10:03 PM

Precious little sympathy for the elderly afraid to leave their homes, for the women who have to take buses late at night, for neighbors who have had their few prized possessions stolen, for children left to fend for themselves for days on end. You can test me any time, including when I get Social Security. I believe the military does get drug tested. I am all for it. With some drugs, I think there is no way that children can be raised safely. I would set up a cashless system to care for addicts, giving them shelter and food and medical care and treatment, but almost no cash except for incidentals, and I would segregate drug users and non-drug users in housing for the sake of protecting the non-drug users.   There would have to be supervised visitation for their children mg