Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfare

[jmotivator]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

...and the interviewees were told that if they admitted to drug use, then they would lose their benefits for six months... "Oh no ma'am, I have never used drugs in my entire life."

Well, sort of. It appears that the if their answers to the 50 question test gave the screener reason to believe they used drugs then they would get an actual drug test.

These left wing "news" organization are playing dumb with the statistics, though. They argue that only 11 out of 2,783 applicants tested positive for drugs but mysteriously leave out how many of the 2,783 screened out of having to take a drug test after taking the questionnaire, and how many weren't even given the questionnaire to begin with (as the pilot program was at the discretion of the health department officials to even implement).

They draw phony conclusions from too little presented evidence.

 

[Groogrux]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Fascinating. What data backs up that assertion?

My work with Medicaid recipients in Philly.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

My work with Medicaid recipients in Philly.

Ah, so personal anecdotes. Got it. Thanks.

 

[chuckiechan]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

It's really not about the drugs. That just pisses people off.

It's about getting your ass out of bed, out the door and finding a job. Drugs help you cope with being unemployed, yet inhibit your efforts to find work.

People who work are getting pretty hostile toward those who don't.

 

[Groogrux]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Ah, so personal anecdotes. Got it. Thanks.

Nope. It's true because when I report them, they get investigated and lose their benefits. That's all the proof I need.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

I'm skeptical of those numbers. Don't get me wrong. I am 100% against drug testing welfare applicants. But 303 people tested with zero hits? I can't think of ANY group of people in which if you tested 303 of them you would expect to get zero hits.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Nope. It's true because when I report them, they get investigated and lose their benefits. That's all the proof I need.

Again, you're relying on your own personal anecdotes to support your claim of a (as yet undefined) "large portion of women with children who collect welfare also have live-in boyfriends who work."

No need to keep repeating yourself. I got it the first time

 

[Groogrux]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Again, you're relying on your own personal anecdotes to support your claim of a (as yet undefined) "large portion of women with children who collect welfare also have live-in boyfriends who work."

No need to keep repeating yourself. I got it the first time

I guess we'll just wait around for better metrics when people start volunteering that they are illegally gaming the system :roll:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

I guess we'll just wait around for better metrics when people start volunteering that they are illegally gaming the system :roll:

Indeed. I prefer to have actual quantifiable data from large sample bases to make observations and come to conclusions on.

Glad you do to.

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

This wasn't drug screening, this an interview. Drug screening involves doing actual medical tests for drugs, not "Have you used drugs in the last 30 days? Keep in mind that if you answer 'Yes', you will lose your welfare benefits)"

Really? I thought there was a drug test involved. It was just an interview? :doh

WTH?

It wasn't even a chemical test, it was a 50 question "drug test".

You could have fooled me! I thought these people were telling the truth.

Ok, so I guess we can't trust drug abusers, either. They'll do anything to stay on drugs.

Wait, we're talking about welfare recipients. Your conclusion is that people who are on welfare should be forced to undergo medical treatment, because they can't be trusted? The reason why they can't be trusted: they are poor people. Back to the circular reasoning and state overreach because you don't like the methodology. Ok, but where is your control group? What about people who lie before they become poor, in order to remain rich? I guess we should start testing people who have jobs to see if they ever lie about drug use. But then the state would control private industry. Just trying to be fair and balanced.

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Yes, do you believe there is any drug that makes people wealthy? I can guarantee there are a lot that keep people poor. If you have an alcoholic friend who asks you for $200 do you give it to them knowing they'll just buy alcohol with it?

I find this line of reasoning to be flawed because I do not drug test my friends because they are my friends. If I associated with drug abusers and alcoholics, then I wouldn't lend money, period. What you are describing is plausible culpability, the idea that it's worth testing welfare recipients if you have a reason to believe they are guilty of drug use.

Because the population at large isn't on welfare. I think any effort to keep welfare recipients from using tax dollars to support their destructive habit is a good thing.

Circular reasoning: The population at large isn't on welfare. Drug users will be disqualified from receiving welfare benefits. Welfare recipients are members of the population at large.

When you have let yourself go far enough that you are essentially a ward of the state you have to expect the state to intrude into your life.

Noble words they would be for a tyrant or a socialist. I don't have to expect the state to intrude into my life, and I feel bad for citizens of a free country that do. Incidentally, I recently watched The Girl With the Dragon tattoo. The main character in that movie was 24 and yet, she was somehow in the custody of an abusive social worker. I wonder if minors are included in your intrusive policy. Is this a matter of a failure to succeed, or just a mechanism of the state to orchestrate success among members of impoverished communities?

Nope, it is that drugs are expensive and debilitating which makes them extra harmful for low income communities as it saps them of the money they need to live while robbing them of the drive and motivation to get and keep a job.

I was no less harsh as a social worker on my clients with a smoking habit or a drinking habit for the very same reason, only many drugs are more exaggerated in their effects on a persons finances and drive.

What you are describing is addiction, not drug use. The two are not the same.

Not that either. We are trying to ensure the money that the state gives them is used for food and rent and other responsible expenditures as intended rather than on their drug habit.

In other words, you are "protecting your investment" by using the power of the state to control people. In other words, it's in the interest of the state to use financial control in people's private lives for public use.

Well, since your assumption of my premise was entirely fabricated by you it should be no surprise that it reminds of something...

Unless you are hell bent on being disrespectful, the motivation for the use of redundancy is unclear. Yes, my assumption is my own fabrication due to an omission in your posts. I wouldn't assume, otherwise. My entire argument is not based on a single assumption.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

You could have fooled me! I thought these people were telling the truth.

Ok, so I guess we can't trust drug abusers, either. They'll do anything to stay on drugs.

Wait, we're talking about welfare recipients. Your conclusion is that people who are on welfare should be forced to undergo medical treatment, because they can't be trusted? The reason why they can't be trusted: they are poor people. Back to the circular reasoning and state overreach because you don't like the methodology. Ok, but where is your control group? What about people who lie before they become poor, in order to remain rich? I guess we should start testing people who have jobs to see if they ever lie about drug use. But then the state would control private industry. Just trying to be fair and balanced.

Mandatory drug testing, involving a urine sample, is a staple of modern employment. If everyone were required to simply answer a questionnaire, I'm fairly certain not a single person would "test" positive.

The comments made about "no drug" problems with welfare recipients based on the 303 people, have no basis in realty, and give only a mild nod to reality.

Nothing of real value can be determined from the study.

At least the claim it was a waste of money can be said to be true.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Money is fungible.

In California you buy groceries with your ebt card for the guy next door who pays you for them.

Or you to to a liquor store that takes EBT cards, most are run my foreigners, and they ring up liquor as food and take a cut. (assuming they know you).

Most have a "program" going - child care, laundry, house cleaning, things I won't mention, all to supplement the welfare income. The man is working cash for a gardener, roofer, etc.

We are the world's biggest suckers.

http://www.unm.edu/~coughlin/links/Publications/Welfare_Myths_and_Stereotypes.pdf

" In fact, SNAP has a strong record of efficiency. It has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program. SNAP error rates (benefit overpayments and underpayments) are at an all-time low; just 3 percent of benefits went to ineligible households or exceeded the allowable benefit for eligible households. Moreover, honest mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks or computer programmers – not fraud – account for an overwhelming majority of such overpayments. " Facts Show Little SNAP Food Stamp Fraud or Abuse | US News Opinion

"Relatively few payment errors reflect dishonesty or fraud. The overwhelming majority result from honest mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers. States report that almost 60 percent of the dollar value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value of underpayments were their fault, not recipients’. Much of the rest of the overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households that had trouble navigating SNAP’s complex rules." The Facts on SNAP, Part 3: SNAP Is Efficient | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

"As it turns out, the majority of welfare fraud is committed not by the poor people who receive the benefits, but by managers and government officials misappropriating welfare funds. Even so, welfare fraud only accounts for an estimated two percent of the budget -- significantly less than virtually any private sector business. And it's a hell of a lot harder to scam the government out of free money than it is to scam, say, a private charity or a food bank" 5 Surprising Insider Facts About Welfare

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

You could have fooled me! I thought these people were telling the truth.

Ok, so I guess we can't trust drug abusers, either. They'll do anything to stay on drugs.[/QUOTE]

That's been my experience.

Wait, we're talking about welfare recipients. Your conclusion is that people who are on welfare should be forced to undergo medical treatment, because they can't be trusted?

What the hell are you talking about? What medical treatment?

The reason why they can't be trusted: they are poor people.

False. I also knew a lot of very truthful, good people who happened to be on welfare. I also knew several lying, manipulative drug users on welfare that didn't get their life turned around until they decided to accept the truth of why they were where they were.

Back to the circular reasoning and state overreach because you don't like the methodology. Ok, but where is your control group?

This isn't a statistical study, it's statistics drawn from a complete set. There is no need for a "control group". I am arguing that there are far too many unknowns in the statistics in the story to draw the conclusion that the lefties want to believe. How many of the 2,783 applicants were excused from the test all together? Of the ones who did take the test how many were referred for a drug screening? You need to know this information to draw any conclusions about the "11 out of 2,783" statistic... and the lefties are conspicuously incurious regarding that crucial bit of data. If health services only subjected 100 of the applicants to the questionnaire, and only referred 22 (and we assume the drug test was 100% accurate) then we can conclude that the questionnaire was 50% accurate for the sample selected, but you can't conclude that the results mean that only 11 out of 2,783 used drugs anymore than you can claim that 11 out of 22 means that 50% of welfare recipients use drugs.

What about people who lie before they become poor, in order to remain rich?

What of them?

I guess we should start testing people who have jobs to see if they ever lie about drug use.

Why?

But then the state would control private industry. Just trying to be fair and balanced.

You are through the looking glass. :roll:

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

The comments made about "no drug" problems with welfare recipients based on the 303 people, have no basis in realty, and give only a mild nod to reality.

Then lets look at more studies with a bigger sample size!

"The seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent." What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients | ThinkProgress

"But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved" Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Is a Waste of Taxpayer Money

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Um. There are over 100,000,000 receiving government assistance. While it's good to see 303 of them did not test positive for drugs, your claim, in light of the sample set size, is not supportable.

It's true, most senior citizens are on some kind of mind-altering drug.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

http://www.unm.edu/~coughlin/links/Publications/Welfare_Myths_and_Stereotypes.pdf

" In fact, SNAP has a strong record of efficiency. It has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program. SNAP error rates (benefit overpayments and underpayments) are at an all-time low; just 3 percent of benefits went to ineligible households or exceeded the allowable benefit for eligible households. Moreover, honest mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks or computer programmers – not fraud – account for an overwhelming majority of such overpayments. " Facts Show Little SNAP Food Stamp Fraud or Abuse | US News Opinion

"Relatively few payment errors reflect dishonesty or fraud. The overwhelming majority result from honest mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers. States report that almost 60 percent of the dollar value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value of underpayments were their fault, not recipients’. Much of the rest of the overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households that had trouble navigating SNAP’s complex rules." The Facts on SNAP, Part 3: SNAP Is Efficient | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

"As it turns out, the majority of welfare fraud is committed not by the poor people who receive the benefits, but by managers and government officials misappropriating welfare funds. Even so, welfare fraud only accounts for an estimated two percent of the budget -- significantly less than virtually any private sector business. And it's a hell of a lot harder to scam the government out of free money than it is to scam, say, a private charity or a food bank" 5 Surprising Insider Facts About Welfare

The arguments made above are half straw man, and half statistical slight of hand.

The two major issues that I encounter while administering these programs was that many collected these benefits on what was called "small d" disability which amounted to a form filled out by a doctor that said you can't work. This form of disability qualification could be received for a maximum of 3 months without re-interview, and straight cash benefits could only be received for 3 out of every 9 months. Due to these rules there was a cottage industry for a few doctors in my area who would fill out these forms, give everyone 3 months disability, and charge the county $40 for the service.

These people would generally stay in our jurisdiction for three months and them move to another state and start over. In may area there were several states in close proximity who didn't share welfare data, so they could remain on these benefits all year round.

"Big D" disability was for clients who had successfully navigated the Social Security administration and received a government sanctioned long term disability diagnosis. Most of that is legitimate, but a good deal of it isn't. Many people also skirt eligibility criteria here by creative reporting of their home life. The fraud here is not unlike the foreign nationals I worked with whose kids always seemed to get younger on their 18th birthday. Many foreign consulates were more than willing to "find" long lost reletives to vouch for 18 year old children that they distinctly remember that this distant cousin was actually 16. Likewise, when people received their "Big D" disability they would suddenly get older and be eligible for more benefits.

One of my favorite stories from my time as a Social Worker was the time I met a girl at a bar and during the small talk on the drive back to my apartment I found out she was receiving SSI, using the money to pay for her brand new jeep wrangle (her parents were supporting here), and she was my client. Good times.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

It wasn't a test, it was an interview...

Was I the only person here who clicked on the link and saw that part right in the middle in big block letters that described the nature of the "test?

Perhaps you are the only one who misread the part right in the middle in big block letters?

It wasn't even a chemical test, it was a 50 question "drug test".

Really? I thought there was a drug test involved. It was just an interview?

For the rest of you?

Here it is:

The program allows health department officials to require applicants to go through a drug test based on the results of the 50-question screening process.

They answer a 50 question interview. Based on the results of the interview they are directed to take an actual drug test. :coffeepap:

 

[ocean515]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Perhaps you are the only one who misread the part right in the middle in big block letters?



For the rest of you?

Here it is:



They answer a 50 question interview. Based on the results of the interview they are directed to take an actual drug test. :coffeepap:

Ok. Now that this has been established, how does this change anything? IMO, the whole process was a waste of time.

NOT because it didn't identify any drug use, but because it wasn't designed to in the first place.

 

[polgara]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Ok. Now that this has been established, how does this change anything? IMO, the whole process was a waste of time.

NOT because it didn't identify any drug use, but because it wasn't designed to in the first place.

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

:agree: I wish I could give you more than one "like" on this post! :thumbs:

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Things like this is why I find it nearly impossible to vote GOP, no matter how much I dislike Mrs. Clinton.

There's this constant intrusive testing for their conformity standards: Drugs, sex, religion, party, etc!

We all have to be cookie-cutter to their standards.

It's like this party never heard of "Live & let Live"!

I'll stop before I Godwin here ...

How I'd love to start a thread to discuss those GOP conformity standards (aka, "white nationalist assimilation" or "conservative values"), but I'm afraid all I'd get are rants about how superior one race is over another. Anyway...

I think drug testing for welfare recipients is a total waste of time. You may have a few people who abuse the system that way, but the vast majority of welfare recipients are just ordinary people trying to get by as best they can. Most don't want to be on welfare, but their economic situation gives them no choice. In any case, what this "experiment" showed was that most people use welfare funds for their intended purpose - to buy food!

Granted, it bugs me that a welfare recipient could easily purchase T-Bone steaks on their EBT card, but in the grand scheme of things it's money - circulating capital. And since food is a consumer item, I'd rather they buy steaks than drugs or alcohol. :shrug:

 

[JumpinJack]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Incorrect. A large portion of women with children who collect welfare also have live-in boyfriends who work. They don't disclose that income coming into the household. Many of them would no longer qualify if they were to declare that income.

That's false. You're letting your prejudices dictate your paying attention to facts.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Perhaps you are the only one who misread the part right in the middle in big block letters?





For the rest of you?

Here it is:

They answer a 50 question interview. Based on the results of the interview they are directed to take an actual drug test. :coffeepap:

It would help your case if you didn't misrepresent what the quote said in the process of accusing othere of misrepresenting the story. There is no indication how many applicants the health service subjected to the screening test or how many of those were subject to a drug test. All we know is that of an untold number of drug tests 11 were positive. We can't conclude anything from that, certainly not the conclusions drawn in the OP.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

It would help your case if you didn't misrepresent what the quote said in the process of accusing othere of misrepresenting the story. There is no indication how many applicants the health service subjected to the screening test or how many of those were subject to a drug test. All we know is that of an untold number of drug tests 11 were positive. We can't conclude anything from that, certainly not the conclusions drawn in the OP.

Read the article:

Out of the 303 people tested by the “Family Independence Program,” exactly zero tested positive.

The experimental program is set to end on September 30 and has received $300,000 in state funding. A state spokesperson, however, said that only $300 of the funding has been spent so far.

That is where my figures came from.

YOUR figures come from another State, Kansas... :shrug:

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Here’s how many people tested positive under Rick Snyder’s program to test welfar

Read the article:



That is where my figures came from.

YOUR figures come from another State, Kansas... :shrug:

Yes, there are two separate programs mentioned in the OP. Neither have sufficient information to draw any conclusions about the validity of the findings.