Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

PS.....do you really believe that FL will cancel the program if it doesn't save money? Well maybe, if they vote democrats into office. Once conservatives have found a way to punish the poor I seriously doubt they will care if it saves money or not.

jmc wrote: Great deflection, bud, Still no answer on why I should pay for your "private" enterprise?

I appreciate how highly you think of me but the welfare system is not my private enterprise. I know this is difficult for you to wrap your mind around, but this topic is about the entire welfare system and has nothing to do with my apartments. It is so easy to distract some of you Libs. Didn't mean to confuse you with one example. I knew you couldn't answer my question so I will stop asking you. There are others on here who can actually carry on a conversation about this subject.

Kate wrote: This sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives.

Should everyone that receives any kind of assistance or payment from the government be drug tested? What about social security? Medicare? Tax refunds? Remember, there are those who get refunds from the government even though they do not pay any tax (Earned Income Tax), so of course we should drug test them, right? What about people that receive disaster aid? They should be drug tested, because it's the taxpayers money that is being given to them and they just might spend it on drugs rather than rebuilding their homes, right?

This is just bigger government with more intrusion into our lives. I cannot believe that some of the conservatives here are for bigger government.

Well I CAN believe that some Liberals are fine with wasting money and not trying to figure out how to do things right. They all want to complain about the debt and the wasteful spending but when some is pointed out, they don't want to do anything about it.

I'm thinking more of the (positive) economic impact it is having on the company that the governor has a financial interest in that will make $millions off of the required drug tests... Oh, wait... We're dealing with Scott, whose company got sued for $1.7 BILLION in Medicare fraud... Well, duh.... How conveeeeeenient.

Among the companies that stand to benefit from the bill is Solantic, a chain of urgent-care clinics aimed at providing emergency services to walk-in customers. The Florida governor founded Solantic in 2001, only a few years after he resigned as the CEO of hospital giant Columbia/HCA amid a massive Medicare fraud scandal. In January, according to the Palm Beach Post, he transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic to his wife, Ann Scott.

Among the services that Solantic offers: drug testing.

Scott's office dismiss ethics questions over the governor's Solantic ties without further elaboration. "The claims of a conflict of interest are incorrect and baseless," Brian Hughes, Scott's deputy communications director, responds in an email. When pressed by local reporters, Scott also glosses over the issue. "I believe in the principle that if you have more competition it will drive down the prices," Scott told the St. Petersburg Times last week when asked about his wife's shares in Solantic. "If you give more choices, it's better for the consumer also to help drive down price…and that's exactly what I'm going to do as governor."

Uh-huh.... How conveeeeeenient....

The Viking wrote:

jmc wrote: Great deflection, bud, Still no answer on why I should pay for your "private" enterprise?

I appreciate how highly you think of me but the welfare system is not my private enterprise. I know this is difficult for you to wrap your mind around, but this topic is about the entire welfare system and has nothing to do with my apartments. It is so easy to distract some of you Libs. Didn't mean to confuse you with one example. I knew you couldn't answer my question so I will stop asking you. There are others on here who can actually carry on a conversation about this subject.

You know that I like you Viking, you just are too easy of a target sometimes. You brought up your wanting the govt. to subsidize your business , not me.

The Viking wrote:

Kate wrote: This sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives.

Should everyone that receives any kind of assistance or payment from the government be drug tested? What about social security? Medicare? Tax refunds? Remember, there are those who get refunds from the government even though they do not pay any tax (Earned Income Tax), so of course we should drug test them, right? What about people that receive disaster aid? They should be drug tested, because it's the taxpayers money that is being given to them and they just might spend it on drugs rather than rebuilding their homes, right?

This is just bigger government with more intrusion into our lives. I cannot believe that some of the conservatives here are for bigger government.

Well I CAN believe that some Liberals are fine with wasting money and not trying to figure out how to do things right. They all want to complain about the debt and the wasteful spending but when some is pointed out, they don't want to do anything about it.

Do you think that this will lead to more government intrusion and bureaucracy? Why will this not spread to other government programs?

Want a drivers license? Then get a drug test. Want to incorporate your business? Then get a drug test. Want to receive your tax refund? Then get a drug test. Want your Medicare claim paid? Then get a drug test.

archer wrote: PS.....do you really believe that FL will cancel the program if it doesn't save money? Well maybe, if they vote democrats into office. Once conservatives have found a way to punish the poor I seriously doubt they will care if it saves money or not.

If they vote Democrats into power they will cancel the program even if it is saving money.

As to the rest, Benjamin Franklin said it much more eloquently than I ever could.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Requiring someone do something in exchange for receiving money is not punishment archer. If you work for someone else, you have to do something in exchange for your wages. If you work for yourself, you have to provide a good or service in exchange for the money you are paid. If you are poor, you should be required to do something in exchange for the charity that tax revenues provide for you. You should have to obtain an education consistent with the secondary one that you earlier rejected when you left school. An uneducated person will remain forever poor after all. That is not a punishment, it is a condition imposed in order to obtain the charity. Most addicts and drug abusers also remain forever in need of assistance. By requiring that you get treatment and demonstrate that you are living a clean life, your chances of being able to emerge from your current condition is enhanced. If you prefer to live in a drug induced haze, then perhaps you are not deserving of the charity that you are receiving. That is not a punishment, it is simply recognizing that you have demonstrated you are not interested in helping yourself and a refusal to do for you what you will not do for yourself.

archer wrote: It amazes me too kate.....how willing conservatives are to spend our tax dollars on stuff they approve of, yet how stingy they are with stuff they don't like.

""Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Millions_for_ ... z1O4Dx9WbH

Of course that was back in the day. Now we have trouble shooting pirates.

I say lets drug test all children in public school, I pay and I sure as hell don't want to pay to educate other folks drug addicted kids. Works for me.

Kate wrote: This sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives.

Should everyone that receives any kind of assistance or payment from the government be drug tested? What about social security? Medicare? Tax refunds? Remember, there are those who get refunds from the government even though they do not pay any tax (Earned Income Tax), so of course we should drug test them, right? What about people that receive disaster aid? They should be drug tested, because it's the taxpayers money that is being given to them and they just might spend it on drugs rather than rebuilding their homes, right?

This is just bigger government with more intrusion into our lives. I cannot believe that some of the conservatives here are for bigger government.

Tax refunds? Since when is that a form of government assistance? That is returning to the citizen the amount of money the government collected from them in excess of what they owed it. The tax code is also used to give incentive to engage in certain activities. The deduction granted for charitable contributions as an example. The more private charity there is, the less government charity is needed, so the government encourages you to donate to charity by allowing you to deduct that money from the income that is taxed. Same for mortgage interest. They want the people to buy rather than rent, so they allow you to deduct the money you paid in interest on your loan from the income that is subject to tax. Social Security? In theory at least that is money that the government saved for you by levying a privilege to be employed/have employees tax on your earnings. What we are talking about here is money that is collected from others and given to you because they want to provide you with a safety net in case through no fault of your own you find yourself in need. Drug use is not through no fault of your own, in fact it is all through your own faults that you abuse drugs. No one is forcing you to purchase the substances, no one is forcing it into your body, it is entirely your own doing. That is true regardless of whether we are talking about alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or any other illicit substance.