• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Told You So: Florida's New Drug Testing Policy Already Costing Taxpayers More

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Told You So: Florida's New Drug Testing Policy Already Costing Taxpayers More

We've told you a few times about Florida's horrible new law that drug tests all families applying for cash benefit welfare applicants. The law, which went into effect July 1, makes applicants front the cost of the drug test and reimburses individuals if they test negative.
The ACLU and others predicted this program would be a failure and cost the state of Florida much more money than they would save. Guess what? In just the few weeks that the program has been in effect we have been proven right.
The Department of Children and Families' central region has tested 40 applicants since the law went into effect six weeks ago, and of those 40 applicants, 38 tested negative for drugs. The cost to the state of Florida to reimburse those 38 individuals who tested negative was at least $1,140 over the course of six weeks. Meanwhile, denying benefits to the two applicants who tested positive will save Florida less than $240 a month.


Florida is cutting programs to balance it's budget while it wastes money on this absurd one. This is what rightwing nuttery leads to

on edit: Here's a link to a different story about the same issue. I think the editor messed up the link but I'll try to retrieve it

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/05/2203328/bill-requiring-welfare-recipients.html

Ahh, here's the link to the original article that I quoted above

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...testing-policy-already-costing-taxpayers-more
 
Last edited:

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Meanwhile, DoD just announced that it has reallocated billions of dollars to other states that were once allocated to build a Florida high speed rail line. Thanks, Governor Wingnut.
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The results of a miniscule amount of cases in one department of one region of florida tells you exactly nothing. Google tells me that there are 3.1 million welfare recipients in Florida. Drawing conclusions from 40 of them is nuts.
And what the OP didn't say is that the state saved $5760 for the year by denying two families. Nor does it say how many people dropped out because they didn't want to be tested.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The results of a miniscule amount of cases in one department of one region of florida tells you exactly nothing. Google tells me that there are 3.1 million welfare recipients in Florida. Drawing conclusions from 40 of them is nuts.
You should actually read the article. It states that Florida tried this once before, and it lost money then too.

There's a word that's used to describe people who do the same thing over and over thinking it will lead to a different result
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And what the OP didn't say is that the state saved $5760 for the year by denying two families. Nor does it say how many people dropped out because they didn't want to be tested.
Didn't even notice that. The article compares the cost of the one-time drug test to the savings over a six week period, while the families will be off benefits indefinitely. That's misleading enough to border on dishonest
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Didn't even notice that. The article compares the cost of the one-time drug test to the savings over a six week period, while the families will be off benefits indefinitely. That's misleading enough to border on dishonest
that's the op for you.
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You should actually read the article. It states that Florida tried this once before, and it lost money then too.
Tough to do when you post a broken link. And if the evidence you think you're presenting is that it lost money before, why did you post the current results instead? I notice that you don't refute my post. I take it you agree that it's impossible to draw conclusions about this latest policy from the 40 cases you posted about?
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And what the OP didn't say is that the state saved $5760 for the year by denying two families. Nor does it say how many people dropped out because they didn't want to be tested.
You should actually read the article. The state won't necesarily save that $5760 because the people who fail the drug test can just designate the benefits over to someone else.

Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com

Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
how many of the 38 that passed, passed because they stopped using drugs to continue receiving benefits? and how to we cost benefit that form of improvement on society for a reduction in drug use?
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,592
Reaction score
11,202
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And what the OP didn't say is that the state saved $5760 for the year by denying two families. Nor does it say how many people dropped out because they didn't want to be tested.
So do the kids just starve to death on the street now? Because of what a parent did? GREAT!
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Didn't even notice that. The article compares the cost of the one-time drug test to the savings over a six week period, while the families will be off benefits indefinitely. That's misleading enough to border on dishonest
Failing the test doesn't mean the family loses benefits. If the test comes positive, the family can designate another adult to receive the benefits on behalf of the family
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tough to do when you post a broken link. And if the evidence you think you're presenting is that it lost money before, why did you post the current results instead? I notice that you don't refute my post. I take it you agree that it's impossible to draw conclusions about this latest policy from the 40 cases you posted about?
Thanks for point that out. I posted the link in the OP

The original article I quoted from has a link to another story that describes how the policy lost money the last time it was implemented.
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Something else the OP didn't mention is that the drug testing policy benefits Solantic, a chain of urgent care clinics that was owned in part by Gov. Wingnut when he signed the drug testing policy. Since this came to light he sold he stake in the company (which he had previously denied owning).
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Something else the OP didn't mention is that the drug testing policy benefits Solantic, a chain of urgent care clinics that was owned in part by Gov. Wingnut when he signed the drug testing policy. Since this came to light he sold he stake in the company (which he had previously denied owning).
are you ****ing kidding me? recall scott!
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
So do the kids just starve to death on the street now? Because of what a parent did? GREAT!
...no. A proxy can receive benefits for the children, but that proxy must also take a drug test and test negative.

If a parent can't take care of their child because they're on drugs, the state can always utilize CPS to place the children.
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Something else the OP didn't mention is that the drug testing policy benefits Solantic, a chain of urgent care clinics that was owned in part by Gov. Wingnut when he signed the drug testing policy. Since this came to light he sold he stake in the company (which he had previously denied owning).
So wait. When a conflict of interest came up he removed it by selling out of the company?
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So wait. When a conflict of interest came up he removed it by selling out of the company?
No, when the conflict was revealed, he cashed in by selling his stake. By then, the price had already taken into account the prospect of profits from their govt contract
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
No, when the conflict was revealed, he cashed in by selling his stake. By then, the price had already taken into account the prospect of profits from their govt contract
Link to that, please?
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Ask AdamT..
No, I'm asking you. You're the one who made an additional claim of questionable behavior on behalf of the governor. I'm asking you to provide your source.

Or is this, yet again, another example of your blatant disregard for reality in order to promote your "Republicans are all evil assholes and I hate, hate, hate, HATE them" mentality?
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, I'm asking you. You're the one who made an additional claim of questionable behavior on behalf of the governor. I'm asking you to provide your source.

Or is this, yet again, another example of your blatant disregard for reality in order to promote your "Republicans are all evil assholes and I hate, hate, hate, HATE them" mentality?
I made no additional claims.
 

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
6,983
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times

Scott co-founded a serious of private health clinics called Solantic back in 2001. Just before he took office, he moved a 64 million dollar controlling interest into a trust under his wife's name. His healthcare policies would have likely increased business for the company, including his drug testing plan. He sold the shares after coming under scrutiny, despite claiming he had no conflict of interest.
 
Top Bottom