Drug testing for Welfare payments

[JD8]

Sure.

DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

It damn sure isn't ever going to "save a ton of money". It may not cost a ton, but it's not going to save anything.


http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html

This wouldn't cut it in any scientific study due to sampling size. I would like to see larger numbers which would eliminate sampling errors and I would like to see data over a year's time. Also I'm curious to know how much the difference in payouts is a year after this program was implemented, but I think it's relatively new?

Maybe it was posted earlier and I didn't see it but do welfare payments only amount to $120 per person a month in FL?

Again, by that logic we should just not give welfare to anyone. Resposible, motivated people with good decision making skills aren't on fawking welfare in the first place. By design, welfare is for people who screw up and can't get their shitt together for whatever reason.

Maybe it's a bit harsh but yeah.... for the most part I have no problem with that. By my anecdotal experiences only, I see enabling more people than helping.

 

[vvvvvvv]

The fact that they were charging $35 per test is a red flag...testing tech has come a long way in 10 years since this program. A 10-panel dip strip that covers the entire range of the most commonly used drugs costs a whopping $3 and takes 3 minutes to administer from start to finish. Not every test needs to go to a lab.

I know from experience that those strips are not acceptable to most insurers. Perhaps the state is attempting to cover themselves against accusations of a lack of due diligence in the process by sending all tests to a lab? Or maybe it's just the usual motivation... "favors"

 

[RidgeHunter]

This wouldn't cut it in any scientific study due to sampling size. I would like to see larger numbers which would eliminate sampling errors and I would like to see data over a year's time.

And I'd like everyone to see through silly Republican bellyfeel appeals to emotion, but we can't always get what we want.

 

[justinsaneok]

It's good to see some proponents of the bigger .gov here explaining how the gubment is here to help.

Whouda thunk it?

And a guy with a don't tread on my snake coiled around the bill of rights thinks people have no rights. Whats even more funny is how some on here think the government pay for welfare, social security and everything else. Almost funny, but not really. How sad..

 

[justinsaneok]

Meh, I'd rather we just got rid of welfare. Government using money to make people act certain ways seems funny to me.

I'd say so.

 

[JD8]

And I'd like everyone to see through silly Republican bellyfeel appeals to emotion, but we can't always get what we want.

You should act on that immediately. I'm sure the ACLU will help you sue someone.

Seriously though, I don't give a crap about polarizing this issue to one side or another. I'm just requesting something comprehensive...... FWIW, if I started quoting foxnews I'm sure some people would be up in arms. Rightly so.

 

[SMS]

I know from experience that those strips are not acceptable to most insurers. Perhaps the state is attempting to cover themselves against accusations of a lack of due diligence in the process by sending all tests to a lab? Or maybe it's just the usual motivation... "favors"

I know for a fact those strips are acceptable to a judge/court of law...so going the 'lab only' route is an uneccesary extra step. I've run hundreds of them myself (and my wife has run tens of thousands) and never once has a "postive" strip that was sent to a lab for confirmation ever come back as a false positive. Of course the strips only show most recent use, but I think randomly testing a couple times a year at $3-7 a pop is more effective than one lab a year at $35+ a pop...and it's cheaper.

Again, we are looking for the 80% solution here, not the 100% one....insisting that every test goes to a lab is just setting up the program for failure, which might have been their motivation in the first place.

But hey, we are never going to see either solution; stop giving handouts, or make sure those getting handouts really need it/aren't wasting it, so this is all just an exercise in theory.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I know for a fact those strips are acceptable to a judge/court of law...so going the 'lab only' route is an uneccesary extra step.

Either way, for the .gov to do it without cause other than that the applicant is signing up for welfare is an unreasonable search.

 

[ttown]

Actually they should drug test them right before they assign them their schedule to pick up trash in the parks, on the streets, clean state and federal office buildings. People with other skills can babysit for those working or picking up kids. Make them work for a check about 20 hours a week and see how many all of a sudden find jobs. Since we pay people good money to do this state and federal stuff we could get something for our warfare money while saving the government money.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Meh, I'd rather we just got rid of welfare. Government using money to make people act certain ways seems funny to me.

Yeah, well, that's not likely as very few here will even admit that welfare is immoral because it requires theft of your property to be transferred to others. But hey, let's forget the entire theft aspect and talk about the cost of teting strips, etc.