Drug Test for Unemployment Benies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/0 ... f=politics

MMJ = no unemployment? Besides that, still interesting.

Yes, all the more interesting that Rick Scott of Florida is imposing that in Florida, and paying for all of those drug tests out of Florida's budget, and it's costing millions...and Rick Scott has a financial interest in the company that is doing the testing... (And current numbers suggest that the percentage of people tested for benefits is less than the general population by a large amount...and something like 5% of the tested population...)

Also interesting that Rick Scott's approval rating is now in the low-30's... I would expect nothing less from a conservative.


Edited to correct the number to: 5%

Florida’s welfare drug testing costs more than it saves
Posted on 08.19.11[/b]

Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s plan to test welfare recipients for drugs is costing the state money, despite his claims that the program would actually save tax dollars. A WFTV investigation found that out of the 40 recipients tested by Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region, only two resulted in positive results. And one of those tests is being appealed.

Under the rules of the program, the state must reimburse recipients who receive negative test results. The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.

“We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars,” the ACLU’s Derek Brett told WFTV. “Do we want our governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work?”

The cost to taxpayers could end up being significantly higher because the state expects to have to defend the law in court.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/ ... -it-saves/

Good thinking....

That was on August 19... By August 28, they had more numbers:

Only 2% of Florida Welfare Recipients Fail Drug Test – 98% Keep Benefit Payments

Scott had argued that the savings of withholding benefits for drug users would more than pay for the cost of the drug testing program, but since only 2% of the applicants tested so far have tested positive for drugs (far less than the national average drug use rate) the expected savings aren’t likely to materialize.

Officials calculate that rejecting a full year’s benefits for the 2% that test positive may cover the of drugs test costs for the 98% that test negative but that is before any administration costs or salaries get factored in. Nor are possible legal costs yet in the equation, and the Florida ACLU has been protesting the law and is considering a lawsuit.

Derek Newton of the ACLU says the law may be unconstitutional and it’s at the very least unfair. He argues, "This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points. We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

The governor’s office did not respond to an opportunity to comment on the lower than expected drug test failure rate.

http://www.choosehelp.com/news/policy-a ... t-payments

Yes, let's never let an opportunity to make people who have lost their jobs feel more embarrassment and demeaned by applying for the Unemployment INSURANCE BENEFITS that were set aside for them. That's the "Compassionate Conservative" way, isn't it....

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, let's never let an opportunity to make people who have lost their jobs feel more embarrassment and demeaned by applying for the Unemployment INSURANCE BENEFITS that were set aside for them. That's the "Compassionate Conservative" way, isn't it....

Fine with me... I have to take a drug test to be employed... they certainly can take one if they want my money... consider it a taxpayer demanded drug test. And I don't care if it cost money. That stupid rubric never caused a lefty to complain before. I'm not a compassionate conservative and I don't give two sh*ts if they feel embarrassed or demeaned. Feeling embarrassed or demeaned isn't one of the qualifications in getting unemployment benefits. And those benefits were set aside for them, not guaranteed to them. There's a lot of other rules and regulations that can prevent them form collecting unemployment. Are those other rules and regulations embarrassing and demeaning , Unemployment benefits are not automatic or a right. Would you like to get rid of any requirements to be eligible for unemployment benefits other than being out of a job?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, let's never let an opportunity to make people who have lost their jobs feel more embarrassment and demeaned by applying for the Unemployment INSURANCE BENEFITS that were set aside for them. That's the "Compassionate Conservative" way, isn't it....

Fine with me... I have to take a drug test to be employed...

Talk about government and in your case Corporate intrusion..F-You

I thought you phoneys liked freedom..? You wave your stupid little flags, but your in other people bedrooms, womens wombs and now our bloodstreams

GF Yourselves

Facists!


When the Nazi's wanted all the Jews to register, i'm sure there were some jews that said to other jews..."Fine with me!"

Just keep giving away your freedoms and privacy america!

BEARS wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, let's never let an opportunity to make people who have lost their jobs feel more embarrassment and demeaned by applying for the Unemployment INSURANCE BENEFITS that were set aside for them. That's the "Compassionate Conservative" way, isn't it....

Fine with me... I have to take a drug test to be employed... they certainly can take one if they want my money... consider it a taxpayer demanded drug test. And I don't care if it cost money. That stupid rubric never caused a lefty to complain before. I'm not a compassionate conservative and I don't give two sh*ts if they feel embarrassed or demeaned. Feeling embarrassed or demeaned isn't one of the qualifications in getting unemployment benefits. And those benefits were set aside for them, not guaranteed to them. There's a lot of other rules and regulations that can prevent them form collecting unemployment. Are those other rules and regulations embarrassing and demeaning , Unemployment benefits are not automatic or a right. Would you like to get rid of any requirements to be eligible for unemployment benefits other than being out of a job?

Talk about government and in your case Corporate intrusion..F-You

I thought you phoneys liked freedom..? You wave your stupid little flags, but your in other people bedrooms, womens wombs and now our bloodstreams

GF Yourselves

Facists!


When the Nazi's wanted all the Jews to register, i'm sure there were some jews that said to other jews..."Fine with me!"

Just keep giving away your freedoms and privacy america!

Next time use my whole quote... talk about fascist... censoring my own text... there... I put it back in... F'U socialist.

BEARS wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, let's never let an opportunity to make people who have lost their jobs feel more embarrassment and demeaned by applying for the Unemployment INSURANCE BENEFITS that were set aside for them. That's the "Compassionate Conservative" way, isn't it....

Fine with me... I have to take a drug test to be employed...

Talk about government and in your case Corporate intrusion..F-You

I thought you phoneys liked freedom..? You wave your stupid little flags, but your in other people bedrooms, womens wombs and now our bloodstreams

GF Yourselves

Facists!

When the Nazi's wanted all the Jews to register, i'm sure there were some jews that said to other jews..."Fine with me!"

Just keep giving away your freedoms and privacy america!

Indeed - when you seek the charity of others, you should expect to sacrifice a bit of your freedom, a bit of your privacy and a bit of your dignity as part of the deal. You should be more than happy to comply with any rules and regulations imposed in exchange for the subsidy the government is providing at the expense of the rest of us. If not, then provide for yourself and don't expect others to subsidize your existence. You have no right to privacy at public expense, you have no right to freedom at the expense of your fellow citizen either. Your rights are restricted when they interfere with the rights of someone else - that is true regardless of whether you are seeking public charity subsidies or not. The more you impose on the freedom of others, the more of your own you should expect to sacrifice as a result. You are not required to seek the unemployment benefits by the state, that is a voluntary action on your part - a freely chosen course of action that you have decided to follow.

Guess what BEARS, your fellow citizens don't owe you a dime when you lose your job. They have decided, out of the goodness of their hearts, to provide a safety net for you in such an event in case you haven't been able enough, or responsible enough, to provide that safety net for yourself. You are not entitled to that safety net, you have no right to such a safety net, it is the charitable hearts of others that have decided to create it. You have no right, no claim, to the fruits of the labor of others, only a claim on the fruits of your own. You did not purchase that unemployment insurance for yourself, your employer paid all of the premiums - both to the state and to the federal governments. Nothing was withheld from your paycheck to pay for that policy, you do not own it. As with Social Security, Medicare and every other public charity program, there is no private property right held by you to any benefit from any of them. You are entitled to nothing other than what others decide to provide as a subsidy to you. If they decide to provide nothing, you are entitled to nothing - it is just that simple.

Congress could end Social Security, Medicare, SNAPS, unemployment or any other public charity program tomorrow and there is not a single recourse you would have available to you. All of these charity programs were established by an act of Congress and Congress can end them entirely simply by passing another act to take them away with absolutely no future liability to pay out one single shiny Roosevelt fiat dime. That's already been established by the Supreme Court of this union - you have no personal claim to any appropriations of Congress. What ever Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away.

PrintSmith wrote: Indeed - when you seek the charity of others, you should expect to sacrifice a bit of your freedom,

Oh really? In america you not equal when youre poor? You lose some freedoms, privacy or rights when your lose your job?

You got us heading that way Printsh**, but we ain't there yet.

BEARS wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Indeed - when you seek the charity of others, you should expect to sacrifice a bit of your freedom,

Oh really? In america you not equal when youre poor? You lose some freedoms, privacy or rights when your lose your job?

You got us heading that way Printsh**, but we ain't there yet.

You loose some freedoms when you take a job. You loose some freedoms when you work in a public position. Freedoms are relative. When you accept unemployment benefits, you're required to actively search and prove that you have actively search for 5 jobs a week. You've lost some of your freedom. You're not free to spend the whole 7 days doing nothing to advance your possibility of new employment without putting your unemployment compensation into jeopardy. So don't give me this bullcrap about being equal. Your free to make something of yourself, your not necessarily equal to someone else. Sorry... you want to be equal, work for it.

Oh... I know... BEARS wants the government to hold his wee-wee for him.

It's "lose," not "loose." Loose is something you do to a bolt, as in "I want to loosen this bolt."

While I'm playing the grammar nazi, you should also know that it is not "lier," as you've typed so many times, it's "liar."