If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Remember how Governor Rick Scott claimed drug testing welfare applicants would save millions? So far, only 2% have tested positive, saving $60,000 each year at total cost of $178-million annually   (www2.tbo.com) divider line 249
    More: Florida, Governor Rick Scott, state Department of Children, drug testing, total cost, mental health services, welfare, drug control, welfare applicants  
•       •       •

9456 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2011 at 7:06 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-24 02:30:56 PM  
Subby, you're hurting your case with that headline. $178 million is the budget for all of welfare in the state, not how much it costs to run the tests. They are saving $60,000 out of the $178 million by cutting off welfare to the 2% of these people, which is a joke. So it doesn't save any money and it humiliates everyone on welfare for absolutely no reason, even though they are doing less drugs than the general population already. The costs that aren't factored in for the 2% that tested positive are going to be things like increased visits to the ER, crime, etc., and will almost certainly cost more than $60,000 per year. It doesn't even factor in false positives, either. It's just cynical, sound bite politics that dehumanize a segment of the population to score political points, and it's not even based on reality. It's just disgusting.
 
2011-08-24 03:12:02 PM  

SnakeLee: It doesn't even factor in false positives, either.


I was going to say. What is the false positive rate for drug tests? Off to google.
 
2011-08-24 03:16:52 PM  
Drug tests generally produce false-positive results in 5 percent to 10 percent of cases and false negatives in 10 percent to 15 percent of cases, new research shows.
Link (new window)

My lord. They should actually be able to FALSELY identify more than 2% as users.
 
2011-08-24 03:17:03 PM  
Gosh. I seem to recall that addiction is a disease and one that qualifies you for Medicaid. I guess sick people don't deserve to eat though?

What exactly is the brilliant thinking behind this?
 
2011-08-24 03:21:19 PM  

ginandbacon: What exactly is the brilliant thinking behind this?


soshulism.
 
2011-08-24 03:21:55 PM  
But at least Republicans can rest easier at night knowing that somewhere there is someone who does not deserve help that is not getting it.

I mean, if we're not going to spend our time and money on making sure we don't help people who do not deserve it, what are we going to spend it on?
 
2011-08-24 03:29:21 PM  

ginandbacon: What exactly is the brilliant thinking behind this?


Scott owns the company doing the drug testing (although he put it in a trust or in his wife's name or something so clearly there is no conflict of interest.)

Another farking scummy Republican.
 
2011-08-24 03:33:55 PM  
For for once he did something incompetent instead of simply i23.photobucket.com.
 
2011-08-24 03:36:52 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: ginandbacon: What exactly is the brilliant thinking behind this?

Scott owns the company doing the drug testing (although he put it in a trust or in his wife's name or something so clearly there is no conflict of interest.)

Another farking scummy Republican.


Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to retain it.
 
2011-08-24 03:37:01 PM  
LoL.

You people think this had anything to do with getting people who do drugs off of welfare instead of funneling tax payer dollars to his families company.
 
2011-08-24 03:46:21 PM  

impaler: Drug tests generally produce false-positive results in 5 percent to 10 percent of cases and false negatives in 10 percent to 15 percent of cases, new research shows.
Link (new window)

My lord. They should actually be able to FALSELY identify more than 2% as users.


Wow. Think of how much money lawyers are going to make on court costs defending little old ladies with false positive test results. And think of how much money the state is going to have to spend defending against those lawsuits.
 
2011-08-24 03:47:00 PM  

Quasar: AdolfOliverPanties: ginandbacon: What exactly is the brilliant thinking behind this?

Scott owns the company doing the drug testing (although he put it in a trust or in his wife's name or something so clearly there is no conflict of interest.)

Another farking scummy Republican.

Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to retain it.


Link (new window)

He claimed the company is not contracted by the state for drug testing. Haven't found anything more recent than this though.
 
2011-08-24 03:53:48 PM  
Subbs, you are missing the point....which is that he or one of his buddies that run the testing company are making bank. I mean, come on, club business! Get your priorities straight.
 
2011-08-24 03:59:32 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: Link (new window)

He claimed the company is not contracted by the state for drug testing. Haven't found anything more recent than this though.


Hrm. I was hoping for something more seedy and definitive.
 
2011-08-24 04:05:45 PM  
So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.
 
2011-08-24 04:06:54 PM  

Quasar: AdolfOliverPanties: ginandbacon: What exactly is the brilliant thinking behind this?

Scott owns the company doing the drug testing (although he put it in a trust or in his wife's name or something so clearly there is no conflict of interest.)

Another farking scummy Republican.

Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to retain it.


Link (new window)
 
2011-08-24 04:09:15 PM  
But his stock went up 1/4 of a point
 
2011-08-24 04:09:55 PM  
img861.imageshack.us
 
2011-08-24 04:35:39 PM  

mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.


The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.
 
2011-08-24 04:37:47 PM  

mysticcat: I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.


I heard that about 100% of those tested were on welfare. Random? PSHAW!
 
2011-08-24 04:45:54 PM  

SnakeLee: The testing is random (new window).


Wow fail. That link doesn't say it, but this one does Link (new window)
 
2011-08-24 04:46:18 PM  
Right, because most people on welfare aren't on drugs and can't afford them. They're merely the ones HURT by others' drug use.
 
2011-08-24 04:50:29 PM  

downstairs: Right, because most people on welfare aren't on drugs and can't afford them. They're merely the ones HURT by others' drug use.


My wife is a social care foster worker and the majority of birth parents on her case load -- who are usually poor, often unemployed and sometimes on welfare -- routinely test positive for drugs.
 
2011-08-24 05:12:23 PM  
He also created jobs by laying off 3700 teachers, cops and construction workers.
 
2011-08-24 05:13:26 PM  

SnakeLee: The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.


Same as happened with TANF since the Clinton years, the opposition to welfare programs in general goes way down when people believe there are very few moochers.
 
2011-08-24 05:14:40 PM  
I still say every single elected and appointed official in all levels of government should be drug test as well.
 
2011-08-24 05:17:10 PM  

Aarontology: I still say every single elected and appointed official in all levels of government should be drug test as well.


I would vote for that.
 
2011-08-24 05:26:32 PM  

Aarontology: I still say every single elected and appointed official in all levels of government should be drug test as well.


Only if they want to get paid. After all, isn't that their argument for the welfare people? Don't get your money till we know you're not high?
 
2011-08-24 05:36:49 PM  

basemetal: Aarontology: I still say every single elected and appointed official in all levels of government should be drug test as well.

I would vote for that.


No reason not to. If they have nothing to hide...
 
2011-08-24 05:37:04 PM  
So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."
 
2011-08-24 05:45:25 PM  

quickdraw: So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."


6 year old kids should be more bootstrappy. It's obviously their own fault.
 
2011-08-24 05:54:12 PM  

basemetal: I would vote for that.


And not just random. Weekly as long as they hold their position.

The Onion is prophetic: Only if they want to get paid. After all, isn't that their argument for the welfare people? Don't get your money till we know you're not high?


I'd also throw in the CEO's of any company that receives major government contracts.
 
2011-08-24 06:04:28 PM  

quickdraw: So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."


Like Republican give a shiat about that.
 
2011-08-24 06:07:36 PM  
It still sickens me that this is actually happening.
 
2011-08-24 06:14:11 PM  
Considering that one of the only ways to get full Medicaid is to be in treatment for alcohol and/or drugs, I have to wonder how effective they plan to be with this testing. Admittedly, if someone in treatment is testing positive for drugs and we kick them off welfare it will indeed save money since we aren't paying for their treatment anymore.
 
2011-08-24 06:30:06 PM  

GAT_00: quickdraw: So I guess the kids of drug addicts are just completely screwed. "Tough break kid. You're dad's a meth freak so no food for you."

Like Republican give a shiat about that.


You're wrong. Republicans care: they hate that kid and hope he starves to a slow painful death and then burns in hell where he belongs.
 
2011-08-24 06:51:47 PM  
FTFA: Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

So, that's about 2-3 people they kicked out of the system? If they go to jail or rehab program you didn't save any money.
 
2011-08-24 06:58:30 PM  

Makh: FTFA: Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

So, that's about 2-3 people they kicked out of the system? If they go to jail or rehab program you didn't save any money.


That's what you save over the course of a year from one month's worth of positive tests. If you assume you will get the same rate every month, then it's $720,000 per year. The total cost of the screens seems to be around $550,000, then there are also secondary costs like what you put. So there are going to be ER costs, foster care costs, crime related costs, etc. They are going to cost more than $200,000 a year easy. This isn't saving anybody any money.
 
2011-08-24 07:09:03 PM  

shanrick: [img861.imageshack.us image 400x500]


Bravo
 
2011-08-24 07:10:21 PM  

SnakeLee: mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.

The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor are republican.


Same things, really.
 
2011-08-24 07:11:15 PM  

SnakeLee: mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.

The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.


Well duh. We're talking about Republicans here.
 
2011-08-24 07:11:50 PM  
so is the point here to make sure that anyone on drugs without a job be required to turn to crime? does the guy who pushed this through have stock with private jails?
 
2011-08-24 07:12:39 PM  

SnakeLee: mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.

The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.


Nail, head, etc.
 
2011-08-24 07:13:38 PM  

elchip: downstairs: Right, because most people on welfare aren't on drugs and can't afford them. They're merely the ones HURT by others' drug use.

My wife is a social care foster worker and the majority of birth parents on her case load -- who are usually poor, often unemployed and sometimes on welfare -- routinely test positive for drugs.


Cool story bro. But your anecdotal evidence is just that.

All the "I HAVE TO TAKE DRUG TESTS FOR MY JERB WHY SHOULDN'T WELFARE RECIPIENTS HAVE TO TAKE ONE FOR THEIR MONEY?! OMG WE'RE FUNDING THEIR ADDICTIONS" people from the last fark thread when this was being proposed hasn't shown up to eat the big steaming pile of "you were farking wrong" they should be. They also argued that we were wasting money funding the drug habits of welfare recipients. Looks like they were wrong again.
 
2011-08-24 07:13:44 PM  
Eh, let it run it's course before dropping it. I'm not against testing people who receive state funds for drugs.
 
2011-08-24 07:15:54 PM  
It was never about saving money for Republicans. It was about expressing their hate and contempt for anyone in need.
 
2011-08-24 07:16:28 PM  

basemetal: Aarontology: I still say every single elected and appointed official in all levels of government should be drug test as well.

I would vote for that.


And cops too! Don't forget to test the farking cops!
 
2011-08-24 07:16:49 PM  

SnakeLee: mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.

The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.


Well, there's this.
 
2011-08-24 07:16:54 PM  

King Something: SnakeLee: mysticcat: So far only 1000 people have taken the drug tests. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is not a random sample.

The testing will cost $360,000 to $540,000 per year, not $178,000,000.

Keep on with the wharrgarbl, though.

The testing is random (new window). The program will at best break even, probably not even that, and for what? To keep 2% of people off welfare? To humiliate tens of thousands of people a year so a company that may or may not have ties to the person who championed can make hundreds of thousands of dollars? There is no positive aspect to this, unless you hate poor people just for being poor.

Nail, head, etc.


Republicans have this belief that if you punish poor people, they will become rich people. They think all poor people just go around saying "I love being poor because I get everything I ever want!!!" and rich people all work 100% of the day and are just taxed for all their money.

I don't think the actually know many actual poor people or very rich people.
 
2011-08-24 07:18:20 PM  

Marine1: Eh, let it run it's course before dropping it. I'm not against testing people who receive state funds for drugs.


I'm only for this if this includes, you know, elected officials who draw a salary, all police officers, all judges, all prosecutors....
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report