Drug Test for Welfare

[Medic624]

First of all... I have said this FOR YEARS It is an amazing and awesome idea... I had to take a urinalysis to get my job! When I was in the Military I had a secret and a Top Secret clearance and had to take many many pee tests.

Unfortunately, due to the political backlash and blockage by the left because these people are their bread and butter, an idea is all it will be until many many other pieces fall into place. But, even IF it passes it will be tied up in the courts for quite a while... After all isn't this discrimination to those who are the "deserving class". Haven't they suffered enough? (insert sarcastic tone)

Unfortunately the majority of the people who are on the dole feel they ARE deserving of these benefits and it has now become a cultural issue. they culturally feel they are deserving of all free handouts! Social justice baby... U get what I work hard for well... Just because you SHOULD?!?

In the early 90s a teacher in Michigan took a survey of her class and 85% were on assistance. When asked what they wanted to be when they grew up 70% said they wanted to be on welfare AS A PROFESSION!!! She took them and educated them on how to go to college and what options are out there... At the end only 30% still wanted to be a useless leech on society.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're an able bodied adult and you won't work or submit to a urinalysis you get whatever is given by charitable contribution and possibly left after we feed the old, sick and disabled who are on a fixed income.

[Hoi Polloi]

Medicaid is handled at a state level with a federal backbone for coordination and funding, isn't it? Each state sets its own rules on who and how, right? In TX, the requirements are pretty stringent and onerous (as TAM described for unemployment). There's a maximum consecutive time frame as well as a maximum lifetime timeframe which are both pretty short, too.

We're talking about several different welfare programs which each run independently and a person must meet all the requirements for each program he receives benefits from. WIC, as an example, has a strict requirement for who is eligible. Once eligible, they require proof of ongoing well child check-ups and immunizations as well as quarterly education on subjects such as breastfeeding, cooking, choosing produce in the grocery store, and nutrition. Then the person must go to an appointment with the children every quarter and fill out forms, be weighed and measured, have the child's finger stuck to test iron levels, and have a face-to-face nutrition counseling session where they are re-qualified and their eligibility verified before they get the very small ration of food. If they breastfeed a baby, the baby gets little to no food but the mom gets some potted salmon or tuna that moms who get formula don't get. The food must be the cheapest available and includes no frivolties. There is a small amount of room for modification (tofu instead of cheese, for example) at the local level and a small amount of change allowed after a physician and a nutritionist order it (specialty formula, for example), but after that they say they are just a supplemental food source and unable to help further.

For a 2-5 year old child, this is the food they receive:
Milk (fat-free, 1/2%, 1%, or 2%): 3 gallons & 1 quart
Cheese: 1 pound
Cereal: 36 ounces
Juice (64 ounces fluid or 16 ounces frozen): 2 containers
Eggs: 1 dozen
Beans or Peanut Butter: 1 pound or 18 ounces
Fruits & Vegetables: $6.00
Whole Grains: 2 pounds

That's a lot of trouble to go through to get such little food.

[karder]

Times are hard and I can sympathize with the folks who have lost their jobs. Still, I think it is very bad to give people money, whether it is unemployment or welfare/wic or whatever, for nothing in return. It creates an mindset of entitlement. I believe that the government should create public works projects and anyone who is receiving welfare should have to earn the benefits by working in a government assigned job. It would not be perfect, but at least the taxpayer would be getting some kind of return on their investments. People who have hit hard times would not starve and would be able to take care of their families, but would also be motivated to find a suitable career rather than spend their day cleaning city hall, washing busses, or cleaning storm drains. If I pay you $80 to sit at home, you are not likely to jump at $100 to work an eight hour day.
Oh...and yes, I support drug testing.

[snatchel]

Karder hit the nail on the head if you ask me. Instead of having "unemployment" or welfare, have an employment program. If the government is going to give this money to someone, lets make the person earn it. You create jobs (sort of) and put money back into the economy. I'm not saying that we should go so far as to take jobs away from regular employees such as bus washers, janitors at city hall, etc.... but I can relate this to something we are all familiar with. It takes about 2 months to get your CHL these days, right? The background checks take a while....but the other part of it is that it takes forever to sort all the applications, enter the information, and get it all logged because the state is swamped. Why not mail recipients of welfare paperwork and access to some type of data entry program? It's not stringent labor... and other than those extremely handicapped can do something like that. And DRUG TEST.

I don't want to make a generalization and sum everyone who has received some type benefit into the worthless, wasted category. Like TAM pointed out, sometimes these programs are used for their intended purposes....but then again, if we can all think of someone or some story that we are familiar with this being abused than it's obvious we need to fix the system. I'm sure we could never completely do away with all of the riffraff in the system, but I think that every single penny counts. Consider this, one person who is abusing the system is using money that could have been put elsewhere. The money that said abuser is using could be put to another month of work for a teacher who has been notified he/she would be losing their job. 3,000 dollars is a whole months pay for a teacher, right? Anyone know how much welfare/unemployment pays?

I'm getting frustrated thinking about this. Grr.

[i8godzilla]

This is the only part of the story in OPs link I have a problem:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fl ... ecipients/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.

So, what happens if you are 'clean' and cannot afford the ~$100 test?

[The Mad Moderate]

Times are hard and I can sympathize with the folks who have lost their jobs. Still, I think it is very bad to give people money, whether it is unemployment or welfare/wic or whatever, for nothing in return. It creates an mindset of entitlement. I believe that the government should create public works projects and anyone who is receiving welfare should have to earn the benefits by working in a government assigned job. It would not be perfect, but at least the taxpayer would be getting some kind of return on their investments. People who have hit hard times would not starve and would be able to take care of their families, but would also be motivated to find a suitable career rather than spend their day cleaning city hall, washing busses, or cleaning storm drains. If I pay you $80 to sit at home, you are not likely to jump at $100 to work an eight hour day.
Oh...and yes, I support drug testing.

First let me say I support the drug testing, if you can't get a job because of a failed drug test then you should not be getting benefits from the rest of us. But I do not think your approach would work, noble as it may be. The problem would be that for every one dollar in the pockets of someone who needs it would require five dollars in overhead if your "public work" idea was to happen. Mandatory community service, sure send them to a soup kitchen to work where they can see where that "entitlement attitude" will eventually get them when the faucet of other peoples money runs out. There are many who milk the system for all they can but I think there are many more who are grateful for the benefits they receive and are motivated to get off of them as fast as possible. Not everyone on welfare is a leach, yes there are some but to deny the basics of survival to people because of few bad apples would be irresponsible.

[RockingRook]

I doubt they'd be smart enough to pass the test.

Easy, they can practice for it by smoking some weed just prior to the test.

Seriously, welfare, food stamps or any other "free" money has been abused in this country to the point that many think
it is now an entitlement that is written in the Constitution and therefore a "right".

I say that anyone getting any sort of govt. "giveaway" should be tested prior to and randomly after receiving their first
$$$.

Chuck

[texanron]

Times are hard and I can sympathize with the folks who have lost their jobs. Still, I think it is very bad to give people money, whether it is unemployment or welfare/wic or whatever, for nothing in return. It creates an mindset of entitlement. I believe that the government should create public works projects and anyone who is receiving welfare should have to earn the benefits by working in a government assigned job. It would not be perfect, but at least the taxpayer would be getting some kind of return on their investments. People who have hit hard times would not starve and would be able to take care of their families, but would also be motivated to find a suitable career rather than spend their day cleaning city hall, washing busses, or cleaning storm drains. If I pay you $80 to sit at home, you are not likely to jump at $100 to work an eight hour day.
Oh...and yes, I support drug testing.

First let me say I support the drug testing, if you can't get a job because of a failed drug test then you should not be getting benefits from the rest of us. But I do not think your approach would work, noble as it may be. The problem would be that for every one dollar in the pockets of someone who needs it would require five dollars in overhead if your "public work" idea was to happen. Mandatory community service, sure send them to a soup kitchen to work where they can see where that "entitlement attitude" will eventually get them when the faucet of other peoples money runs out. There are many who milk the system for all they can but I think there are many more who are grateful for the benefits they receive and are motivated to get off of them as fast as possible. Not everyone on welfare is a leach, yes there are some but to deny the basics of survival to people because of few bad apples would be irresponsible.

[Medic624]

This is the only part of the story in OPs link I have a problem:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fl ... ecipients/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.

So, what happens if you are 'clean' and cannot afford the ~$100 test?

Look we all understand "life happens" and we may find ourselves in a place we never expected or anticipated we may be... But, the programs should be used (if needed) as a stop gap and a place where you can get your feet under you and move on (if able-bodied) with being a PRODUCTIVE member of society. It's not that I have any heart ache with people using the programs it's the ones who get on, stay on and use it as an entitlement and a career that should be re-evaluated and given an opportunity to get a skill and an end date of their free ride.

[RockingRook]

This is the only part of the story in OPs link I have a problem:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/fl ... ecipients/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.

So, what happens if you are 'clean' and cannot afford the ~$100 test?

Look we all understand "life happens" and we may find ourselves in a place we never expected or anticipated we may be... But, the programs should be used (if needed) as a stop gap and a place where you can get your feet under you and move on (if able-bodied) with being a PRODUCTIVE member of society. It's not that I have any heart ache with people using the programs it's the ones who get on, stay on and use it as an entitlement and a career that should be re-evaluated and given an opportunity to get a skill and an end date of their free ride.

True but that will never be. Those programs are now viewed by many to be a Constitutional Right. The Constitution is read many different ways by different people.

Asa side note, many years ago my son wore a tank top to school Tank tops were not allowed in school. When he was called into the Vice Principal's office he told
the principal that he had the right by the Constitution to "bare arms". This is true I am not making this up.

[blackmesa]

How many drugs do they have to be taking to get a passing score?

[fulano]

I doubt they'd be smart enough to pass the test.

Easy, they can practice for it by smoking some weed just prior to the test.

Seriously, welfare, food stamps or any other "free" money has been abused in this country to the point that many think
it is now an entitlement that is written in the Constitution and therefore a "right".

I say that anyone getting any sort of govt. "giveaway" should be tested prior to and randomly after receiving their first
$$$.

Chuck

[blackmesa]

My wife told me something last night that made me really annoyed - she was reviewing resumes and noticed that a lot of folks are applying for one of the positions in her dept and that they're asking for an 80k salary in what's a 45k position.

When I (perhaps naively) asked why on earth someone would deliberately do something that silly, she told me that it's so they can keep receiving Unemployment. Apparently folks have to prove that they have applied for a certain number of jobs each week in order to keep getting benefits - but demanding a stupidly high salary is a surefire way of not getting the job and therefore they're free to sit on their fat behind and collect free money.

That sounds like a good story but I don't think it would work in practice. TWC knows what UI claimants previously earned and they will cut them off if they turn down a job that pays at least X% of your previous earnings, with the X% declining as time goes on. Unless they were making big bucks before they lost their job, they can't turn down a $45k offer and keep getting their UI check.

Offer them the job at $40k and see what happens.

[suthdj]

Interesting, Now many of you are all for drug testing, how many of you demand every Gov't employee get a drug test also including the ones we vote into office. If they are not willing to take one then nobody in the US should be required to take one for any reason even private employment.

[blackmesa]

Interesting, Now many of you are all for drug testing, how many of you demand every Gov't employee get a drug test also including the ones we vote into office. If they are not willing to take one then nobody in the US should be required to take one for any reason even private employment.

Private employers don't force you to take a drug test. It's voluntary, like their decision to hire you or not.