Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.

[dagnabit]

i failed to see you show any explination or math that supports that drug testing wale fare applicants is cost effective.

i hypothetically did the numbers guessing what percentage of applicants will fail the test and i used your assumed projected cost of $10 per test. do you really think that an ACCURATE test covering ALL drugs will be sold for $10? i dont. furthermore, i dont think that your "quantified numbers" accounted for a second drug test for all applicants that will more than likely needed to ensure due process.

show me the point of diminishing returns or explain b/c i fail to see that paying to test everyone to catch a small % will eventually be revenue neutral.

if an applicant fails and that result is confirmed by a second test then is that applicant prevented from applying for assistance indefinitely or will that applicant be at liberty to apply when they know they are clean.

hypothetical example:

44,000 applicants per month
$30 per test x 2 = $60

so the state will pay for all neg drug test as well as confirming a neg test and bearing that cost.

lets say 30% of the applicants fail, then the state pays ONLY for the confirmation test.

the state will pay for 2 drug test for 70% of the applicants and 1 test for the other 30%.

70% of 44,000 is 30,800 applicants X $60(2 test) = $1,848,000.

30% of 44,000 is 13,200 applicants X $30 (1 test) = $396,000

if 30% of the 44,000 applicants fail a drug test the state still has a base cost of $2,224,000 per month and $26,928,000 annually.

you left out one key figure...

13,200 denied benefits(your number)
X15,000 avg benefit(florida's number)
--------------
198,000,000 benefits denied
- 26,928,000 annual cost of testing(your number)
171,072,000(waaaay inflated number)

i think the "busted" proportion will be more like 10% and savings will be in 7 figs...

 

[Guest 88950]

avg benefit is $15,000 per yr. who is your source, Rush Limbaugh?

so you are telling me the an applicant getting food stamps get on avg $1,000 per month? BS!

or are you saying that for a family of 4 getting food stamps that get just over $400 mo ($4,800 yr) that there is someone getting an amount to average $1,000 per month.

gotta link to back up those average's.


EDIT:
hell, a base ssi check in fl is under $700 per month. your numbers dont assume every applicant is getting multiple benefits from the state does it b/c that is not the case.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IF

if however the net is plus .01 over the status quo then you support?

Nope. I have a fundamental problem with the crook requiring across-the-board-testing without evidence (you know, the stuff that convicted him) not to mention the fact this shit goes through his bandaid box. And he transferred the box to his wife?

But 1 red cent would cover Scott's ass that he's saving money for the tea party.

But there's still a potential problem. How much funds will be deprived from enforcement, ie fraud investigations and or prosecutions in order to make pee tests appear economically functional to the tea party?

Are you not getting tired of mimicry yet?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

yup...

[REF]
see post 108 for bullshit spin..
see post 112 for a real numbers breakdown
see post 133 for another mathematical(and linked) debunking of hyperbolic numbers
the list goes on but the point remains the same there is a point where this becomes a savings(as there is a point where it is a burden)
at maximum annual benefit for this program(15k) there is a number (1500 tests @ $10) that is equilibrium for a single denied recipient.

since 4400 will be subject to testing (44k) it will take 2.93333- to reach..

these are simplified and the links to the stats that back up these numbers are here in the thread for your perusal.

i wonder if ANYONE else actually did the research to put together a cost/benefit analysis or if it's all just knee jerk?

OOh! You've gots the low end of the per test expenditures. There's not just pee tests, dag. There's blood and hair sample tests that cost what? $25 and $35?

How exactly did you deduce bull shit spin? And how do your numbers improve the image?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

let's get on some of this perusal...

let's get on some of this perusal...

yup...

[REF]
see post 108 for bullshit spin..
see post 112 for a real numbers breakdown
see post 133 for another mathematical(and linked) debunking of hyperbolic numbers
the list goes on but the point remains the same there is a point where this becomes a savings(as there is a point where it is a burden)
at maximum annual benefit for this program(15k) there is a number (1500 tests @ $10) that is equilibrium for a single denied recipient.

since 4400 will be subject to testing (44k) it will take 2.93333- to reach..

these are simplified and the links to the stats that back up these numbers are here in the thread for your perusal.

i wonder if ANYONE else actually did the research to put together a cost/benefit analysis or if it's all just knee jerk?

Lets take a look at what you brought vs what you consider bullshit spin....

Here's post #108

Agreed.

Another dangerous assumption is that all Welfare recipients are lazy, drug addicts trying to get a free ride from the government. Where I live (in Florida) there are county workers, soldiers and single moms struggling to get by and yes, they are on Welfare. Is this the face of Welfare that most of you imagine? I'm sure there are those that scam and cheat but not the majority and this has been proven by the DCF in a study conducted from 1999 to 2001 in Duval and Putnam counties. Nearly 9000 individuals were drug screened and they only found 355 people that tested positive. This program cost the taxpayers over two million.....that's at least $5500 per positive test.

Does anyone else see the irony of Rick Scott trying to catch people who steal from the gov?

It's appears that bullshit spin comes in the form of county studies. Compared to ...what was it?

these are simplified and the links to the stats that back up these numbers are here in the thread for your perusal.

I'd agree on the simplified part, maybe even a bit oversimplified.
Here's post #112

5325000

A=355 busted recipients
B=annual costs(15,000 based on maximum benefit without admin costs)
A+B=5,325,000
5.3-2.0= 3.3 million in savings...
3.3/9000=$366 per test savings....
the -$5500 per positive test should be labeled

Here's post # 133 - talk about things that make you go hmm

where do you guys get these numbers?
florida family of two=200% FPL
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/foodstamps.shtml
200% FPL=$29,420
http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

What exactly do food stamp, medical and assistance figures have to do with the costs of peeing in a cup, spilling some blood or plucking a hair?

I'd say you've attempted to bring different elements together without exactly tying them together.

Did you happen to miss this one?

Does anyone else see the irony of Rick Scott trying to catch people who steal from the gov?

oh, the irony

im the same way..
i refused any government assistance after katrina.
the way i saw it then(and the way i see it now) when you accept their funds(even if you payed into their system)you allow them in!
kinda like never answering the door for a cop.
once you open that door everything changes.

You seem to have little problem allowing a 1.2 billion dollar fraud "in"! How about the cop at your door, would his 1.2 billion dollar fine encourage you to open the door?

I know that Florida has chain-gangs.

Wondering if you're a chain yanker?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Gov. Rick Scott wants to repeal Florida's prescription drug monitoring program

By Janet Zink and Richard Martin, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
In Print: Wednesday, February 9, 2011

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott wants to stop the state's prescription drug monitoring program before it starts.

He's calling for the Legislature to repeal a 2009 law mandating the database that proponents say would go a long way toward curbing the state's prescription drug abuse epidemic.

Scott's repeal is buried in more than 800 pages of legislation released Monday as part of his budget package slashing $4.6 billion from Florida's bottom line, even though the program relies on no state funding.

The move prompted harsh criticism from those on the front lines of the war on prescription drug abuse.

"This is a step in the wrong direction," said Capt. Robert Alfonso, head of the narcotics division of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. "We were looking forward to using it."

Alfonso said he understands the budget challenges, but wondered why something like this would be on the chopping block.

Prescription drugs are linked to seven deaths daily in Florida.
"It makes no logical or rational sense," said Paul Sloan, a Venice-based pain clinic owner and president of the Florida Society of Pain Management Providers. "It's absolutely absurd.

This is the most important weapon in the fight against prescription drug abuse. . . . This is not a budget issue. This does not involve state money, never did, and there's no reason for him to repeal it."

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, who has been a champion of efforts to fight prescription drug abuse and sponsored the drug monitoring legislation, rapped the governor for sliding his proposal into his mass of budget recommendations.

"I'm extremely, extremely disappointed with the governor and his administration for sneaking this into a . . . bill," Fasano said. "It's something that he should have talked about, should have explained, not just thrown in."

When asked directly, Scott offered little explanation.

"That program has not been working," Scott said, adding that he's working with Attorney General Pam Bondi on addressing the so-called "pill mill" issue.

Brian Hughes, a spokesman for Scott, elaborated, saying database backers have struggled to win funding and faced problems finding
a vendor. Plus, he said, it raises issues of privacy.

"This would create an all-encompassing database of largely law-abiding citizens and medical professionals in order to get to some criminal element," Hughes said. "It certainly seems like it has the potential for a massive violation of privacy if the government is keeping a database of what prescriptions people are taking and who wrote them."

Not to mention the list might help save the lives of more than 2500 Floridians, every single year.

Hughes said the governor would prefer to focus on policies that go after the people who exploit the system and threaten public safety, especially when state resources are so limited.

Apparently, limited state resources have nothing to do with across-the-board pee-tests for assistance recipients. No need to exploit the system when receiving assistance, you'll be treated like Governor Scott was... fraudulent.

The drug monitoring program, which was supposed to launch Dec. 1, 2010, has been stymied by numerous delays, including two bid protests filed by a company not selected to set up the system.

Cronies a cryin'?

Scott dealt the monitoring program a blow last month when he eliminated the Office of Drug Control, created by Gov. Jeb Bush. The office had worked with the state Department of Health to get the database going.

Gov. Charlie Crist signed the bill to create the database in the summer of 2009. The bill passed after several failed attempts, mainly because it didn't put the state on the hook to pay for it. Instead, it directed the Office of Drug Control and the Department of Health to raise money for the system. Through a foundation and grants, enough was raised to start the database and keep it running for a year. Estimates are it would cost about $500,000 annually to maintain.

It would require pharmacists and doctors to report information on anyone who has a prescription filled for such drugs as oxycodone, amphetamines, Vicodin and Xanax.

Wouldn't Rush Limbooger be off the hook since his drug-of-choice is Oxycontin? Considering that's a big killer and all. I'd hate to see anything happen to Lush Eightball.

Pharmacists and doctors would be able to check the database to see if the patient asking for pain pills recently got a month's worth down the street.

Florida is one of just a handful of states without a prescription drug monitoring system. Florida's law has also been criticized for a number of loopholes.

One is a 15-day window for doctors to enter information into the system, which law officers say is plenty of time for doctor shoppers to obtain large quantities of drugs before their actions can be detected. The second loophole is that doctors aren't required to check the database before prescribing or dispensing drugs.

Last week, Bondi unveiled a multipronged approach to fight the prescription drug abuse problem. Her response to Scott's move was measured.

"My legislative priorities to stop pill mills in Florida are focused on increased criminal penalties for pill mills and civil penalties for doctors that do not adhere to the standard of care and overprescribe," she said in an e-mail. "If properly implemented, the drug monitoring program could be an important additional tool to address prescription drug abuse."

Fasano recently filed a bill incorporating many of Bondi's recommendations and also eliminating a requirement that the monitoring database receive no state funding.

Dave Aronberg, a former state senator appointed by Bondi to focus on the pill mill problem, said he expects continued debate about the database, including its lack of state funding.

"It comes up every year. This is the beginning rather than the end of the discussion," he said.

Cindy Harney, a Sarasota mother who lost her 20-year-old son to a prescription drug overdose in 2006, lobbied Florida legislators to get the drug monitoring law in place.

This week she was in Washington, D.C., lobbying lawmakers for a national prescription drug monitoring system when she heard that Scott was pushing to repeal Florida's.

"It knocked me to my knees," said Harney, a founder of Families Against Addictive Drug Abuse. "All these years of hard work and he comes in and I'm still not sure what his reasoning is. It's appalling that we're not doing anything."

She said a prescription drug monitoring system might have helped keep OxyContin and Xanax out of the hands of her son, who first tried prescription drugs when a friend offered him his mother's pills. Later, he figured out how to get them on the street and at pain clinics.

"His last words to me were 'Mom, I can't be helped,' " Harney said.
Times staff writers Letitia Stein, Leonora LaPeter and Michael C. Bender contributed to this report.

[Last modified: Feb 08, 2011 10:57 PM]

So how in the heck does Scott plan to address over 200 prescription-drug deaths every month?

 

[Cojito]

But the challenge is that the scope of this drug testing debate extends beyond cannabis users ... And the fact remains, if you're not able to afford your daily necessities and are therefore relying on the taxpayers to float you, then I'm not sure how you justify affording LOTS of things - not just dope.

"challenge? no. its simple. its against my self interest as a cannabis user to let the gov tie to drug testing to benefits. and your personal desire to take cigarettes, booze, weed and hair curlers from the poor does not sway me in the least.

 

[Rednick]

"challenge? no. its simple. its against my self interest as a cannabis user to let the gov tie to drug testing to benefits. and your personal desire to take cigarettes, booze, weed and hair curlers from the poor does not sway me in the least.

Yeah, but what if we took away hair relaxer?

I just have known too many able bodied people do nothing but get their check, buy weed and booze, sit around doing nothing or playing video games.
I feel those that truly need it and get it are in the minority. Everyone else just says, "Well, I got 4 mos left, I'll start looking in a couple months".

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Do you use hair relaxer, rednick? That joke's about as interesting as your wash powder.

Based on people you know? Weed, booze and video games. I guess they have to live under a bridge and all, sans food and pay bills and all that.

If you were two foot tall and bald headed you could be Mini-Rick.

 

[dagnabit]

The 15,000 an. Cost is from a Florida department of children and families website
It is based on a 275 weekly max for unemployment.

I'll point out the other incongruities later when not on iPhone....

Suffice it to say neither the cited county study nor any of you choose to add the saved amount into your equations....

 

[dagnabit]

Let's also keep in mind this is not about foodstamps ssi or wic this legislation is about tca

 

[silver hawaiian]

"challenge? no. its simple. its against my self interest as a cannabis user to let the gov tie to drug testing to benefits. and your personal desire to take cigarettes, booze, weed and hair curlers from the poor does not sway me in the least.

I'd figure it's against your self-interest if you were one of these folks we're talking about drug testing. But not simply because you smoke pot.

Do you use tobacco? If so, then does that mean you support welfare assistance to be used to purchase tobacco?

I don't care what the product is - to me, it's about NON-ESSENTIAL purchases. (Which, I do realize, is a slippery slope we're headed down, if we start saying "You can ONLY purchase items x, y, and z.")

But, again, if you don't want to have to play by someone else's rules, ...

 

[Rednick]

Do you use hair relaxer, rednick?

He started it with Hair Curlers!
White women need that shit, so they can look pretty, get a man, and get off welfare.

On a side note, anyone see Chris Rock's movie "Good Hair"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m-4qxz08So

Damn, everybody's sooo sensitive.
Laugh a little DB, you'll live longer.

 

[silver hawaiian]

Suffice it to say neither the cited county study nor any of you choose to add the saved amount into your equations....

DUH we're trying to make a POINT HERE

Why use ALL OF THE FACTS, when we can use just the facts that support our point!?

DAMMIT DAGNABIT! JUST, DAGNABITALLTOHELL!

 

[Cojito]

I'd figure it's against your self-interest if you were one of these folks we're talking about drug testing. But not simply because you smoke pot.

well you'd be wrong about that. and i've already explained why. what you're proposing is a danger to all cannabis users. i told ya, i want to collect social security someday. and i don't know a cannabis user who doesn't. we all pay taxes into these programs. not just you. if they need fixing - fine. but don't tell the American taxpayer they need to be drug tested. that wasn't part of the deal.

Do you use tobacco? If so, then does that mean you support welfare assistance to be used to purchase tobacco?

no, i don't use tobacco. nor would i give cigarettes to the poor. i'm good with a gov safety net of food, shelter and help for med problems and school/training. i guess i don't share your desire to punish the poor, 'cause i really don't care what they're smoking, or how they take their pleasures. from what i can see most of them have hard lives. so, throw rocks at them if it makes you feel better. start a boot camp for the disabled if you like. but don't tell me the gov needs to tie drug testing to help.

I don't care what the product is - to me, it's about NON-ESSENTIAL purchases. (Which, I do realize, is a slippery slope we're headed down, if we start saying "You can ONLY purchase items x, y, and z.")

you fell off that slope a long time ago.

But, again, if you don't want to have to play by someone else's rules, ...

lot of bad "rules" dude. mostly because of people like you. you do get that most everyone here's breaking federal law? and if you smoke cannabis you're not following the rules either.

 

[Guest 88950]

The 15,000 an. Cost is from a Florida department of children and families website
It is based on a 275 weekly max for unemployment.

I'll point out the other incongruities later when not on iPhone....

Suffice it to say neither the cited county study nor any of you choose to add the saved amount into your equations....

isnt your extrapolated savings based on the assumption that EVERY applicant draws a yearly average in benefits of $15,000?

the proposed drug test are not just for unemployment benefits.

what am i not understanding in your links or numbers b/c the drug tests cover more than unemployment therefore the yearly savings will vary depending on the services applied for.

because you cant determine what services were denied, food stamps, unemployment etc..., and the fact that the amount awarded will vary in each case this is why i will not attempt to estimate the savings.

my argument is not that i dont think the state should not go after those cheating they system it is that i think that money could be spent more efficiently targeting the bigger fish.

the people like R Scott who defraud the system which in turns drives the price of health care up and this increase in cost is reflected in our current cost of health care services.

and those with private insurance you are paying twice. higher price for pvt insurance as well as increased taxes to cover the state/govts cost increase.

 

[Rednick]

the people like R Scott who defraud the system which in turns drives the price of health care up and this increase in cost is reflected in our current cost of health care services.

Very rarely in history have corrupt systems been 'cleaned' up by those that run them.
Usually the system has to implode, and refresh anew.
Sometimes they keep renewing and never clean up....Sorry Italia.

I am just talking about the Welfare part. All the other benefits, people should be able to get, until the well runs dry...And the well is running dry.

There is a bigger issue I take with this.
It is one of 'environment'.
All this other shit is smoke and mirrors, distracting us from the big picture. Remember, the baby boomers are dying off, my generation needs to address the structural/environmental issues that effect these 'symptoms' of our society.

I must say I am very glad that my State has embraced free-online public school education, as a possible solution to the environmental problems associated with centralized learning systems (i.e. schools). Another discussion entirely about WHY public schools are failing, but it is systemic. I mean, it's like that guy's sig. about the Lucas formula. But for schools it's "We're not in the 50's anymore".

Welfare/Entitlements are a vicious cycle. I see it in my state everyday. People learn to accept it, because there hasn't been anyone there to show them differently. Then their children and their children's children end up in the same boat.
But it does ensure votes for an un-named party.

In conclusion, drug testing has been around enmasse since the 80's, Reagan. Even expanded more in the 90's, Clinton. And our society increasingly views the children as inputs into a machine. Performance based pressure on kids is horrible these days.
Matt Stone kills it @ min 1:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dYtOOtfQtM

'All in all, you're just another brick in the wall', Pink Floyd.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker for Co-Pres, Jon Stewart for Vice Pres. 2016

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The 15,000 an. Cost is from a Florida department of children and families website
It is based on a 275 weekly max for unemployment.

I'll point out the other incongruities later when not on iPhone....

Suffice it to say neither the cited county study nor any of you choose to add the saved amount into your equations....

That's why I wondered why you offer assistance figures, rather than projected, annual testing costs. So instead of trying to grasp your cost analysis, I'll go with the assistance savings.

You have a 275 max assistance figure. One might have to assume the number of folks tossed to get anything from it. Without statistics, you've got a supposition. Alone, that doesn't win any arguements.

Let's also keep in mind this is not about foodstamps ssi or wic this legislation is about tca

Wouldn't be surprised if more governors adopt this measure. With this in mind, FL is particularly interesting because The National Fraud instituted it.

 

[Neo 420]

Fucking amazing how a obviously PRO-POT site would allow and even consider such bullshit as what Rick "The Criminal" is implementing. There is no monetary benefit with this program. Most of the data being spewed around is false. $10 for a 5 or 7 panel drug test!!! YOUR OUT OF YOUR MIND!!! More like $30 to $40 and double that if there is a positive hit for conclusiveness.

What if some of the high and mighty here happen to lose their job and have to use any of the gubment service but find themselves rejected to due to .....smoking pot.... REEFER MADNESS 2.0

Whats up with the talk of "If you get gubment services, you can't enjoy cigs, candy etc....

I am amazed how some of you want to control aspects of "THE POOR" cause thats what you see as morally and monetarily fit for the less fortunate. Heartless, condescending, Orwellian are words that pop into my mind. Combating fraud is one thing but to continue to disenfranchise the poor is another.

Fraud should be prevented and punished when found but to throw illegal assertives at all gubment services takers is not right. My family used gubment services back in the day. (I remember the big ass cheese block and butter) We were not abusing the system (my pops toked up). It helps us at a time in our lives when we needed it, and we stopped using it when we started to prosper. Classic case of success.

The system CAN USE REFORM AND CHANGES but this is not one of them........

If it has the ability to neglect and reject that one family who truly needs gubment services then it is counter productive......

 

[silver hawaiian]

Two separate issues. Whether or not reefer should be illegal in the first place is one issue.

A completely unrelated issue is the question, "Do we put some limits on what we'll allow folks on assistance to purchase with those funds?"

..And from there, the question is about enforcement..