- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
Told You So: Florida's New Drug Testing Policy Already Costing Taxpayers More
Florida is cutting programs to balance it's budget while it wastes money on this absurd one. This is what rightwing nuttery leads to
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.
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.
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
You should actually read the article. It states that Florida tried this once before, and it lost money then too.
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.
Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.
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
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?
So do the kids just starve to death on the street now? Because of what a parent did? GREAT!
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 do the kids just starve to death on the street now? Because of what a parent did? GREAT!
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?
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?
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?
Link to that, please?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?