You Want to Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

[Speaker to Animals]

{citation needed}

It's from the article I cited like two posts before to which you replied!

Took me all of 10 seconds to spot the problem. They required the welfare applicants to pay $25-35 for a fucking drug test. (extreme facepalm)

Maybe if you spent about 1 second longer, you'd see that people who cannot afford the test get reimbursed.

The Florida law requires applicants to be responsible for the cost of the screening. They can recover the costs if they qualify for assistance. Under the law, applicants who fail the drug screen can designate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children. That person must also undergo drug testing.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's from the article I cited like two posts before to which you replied!

Took me all of 10 seconds to spot the problem. They required the welfare applicants to pay $25-35 for a fucking drug test. (extreme facepalm)

Maybe if you spent about 1 second longer, you'd see that people who cannot afford the test get reimbursed.

The Florida law requires applicants to be responsible for the cost of the screening. They can recover the costs if they qualify for assistance. Under the law, applicants who fail the drug screen can designate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children. That person must also undergo drug testing.

You can't 'reimburse' a homeless guy, and you certainly can't 'reimburse' somebody for $35 they don't have. It's absurd.

[Speaker to Animals]

A homeless gut needs more than an EBT card, and almost guaranteed needs rehab.

[Okeefenokee]

Blind... you guys refuse to see. These tests are all over the place. I have yet to see a single study that shows the state saves money by doing this testing.

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states ... .kndm2gb2h



You think 48 people being cut from welfare saves the state more than $336,297?

The ROI just doesn't exist. So, yes, we have the right wing proposing huge spending increases to save almost no money.

That's $583.85 per person per month. Now if you want to claim the ROI isn't there, you need to show your work and produce the number each person was receiving per month. Without doing that, you're acting like Oliver, pointing at a number without context, and giving a shitty grin.

[Okeefenokee]

Just 65 of 39,121 people applying for a cash assistance program known as Families First in Tennessee tested positive for illegal substances or drugs for which they had no prescription since the law was implemented July 1, 2014, according to data provided by the Department of Human Services to The Tennessean.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/po ... /79776756/

$23,592/62 people/17 months at time of printing = $22 per person caught per month. If those 62 people were receiving more than $22 dollars per month, and you know they were, that's a savings.

[Okeefenokee]

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services told Vox that they screened 7,600 applicants to the Work First Program between August 3 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 150 were referred for drug testing and 21 tested positive — that's "0.3 percent of the approximate 7,600 applicants and recipients screened for drug abuse," the DHHS confirmed to Vox via email on Tuesday (though that number is not necessarily reflective of the total aid population).

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11021826/n ... gs-welfare

More misleading numbers right there. Shamefully dishonest. 21 out of the 150 people tested positive, not 21 out of the 7600.

That's 14%, not .3%

[Okeefenokee]

Please attend a math class, Dand.

48 is not 10% of 38,970.

You are not giving me enough credit . I read your linked article and it said only 446 of the 38,970 applicants were tested. 48 of 446 tested were positive.

edit: I've taken many math classes

Bingo. All three of her stories were blatantly dishonest and misleading.

[Okeefenokee]

I wouldn't call it a right, per se, but if you leave the poorest of the poor without any vices, the rest of us will quickly wish we had not taken that away.

Not a right, but a liberty. Forcing someone else to pay for it at the end of a gun is neither. It's violence of the state to appease the mob at the expense of the working class. You people are crying about what damage would be done to the poor if you took away their drug money, completely ignoring the damage you are doing to working families when you tax them to fund someone else's lazy ass sitting on the couch.

[Okeefenokee]

{citation needed}

It's from the article I cited like two posts before to which you replied!

Took me all of 10 seconds to spot the problem. They required the welfare applicants to pay $25-35 for a fucking drug test. (extreme facepalm)

But this is also part of the problem with these, "experiments." They appear to be intentionally over priced.

Missouri, $336,297 to drug test 446 people. That's $754.03 per person tested.

Tennessee, $23,592 to test an unknown number of people. Kath's article doesn't say how many of the 39,121 people were tested.

And this from North Carolina,

So far, 89 drug tests have been administered at $55 each. The state has contracted Oregon-based Fortes Laboratories to examine the samples. The state has paid $4,895 for the program.

Why does it cost 13 times more to do a drug test in Missouri than in NC? I think you're shooting yourselves with these stats. Better go back to emotional pleading. The numbers aren't on your side.

[Ex-California]

A homeless gut needs more than an EBT card, and almost guaranteed needs rehab.

So I guess he better pull himself up by his bootstraps so he can afford that rehab, right?