It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida's urine test for poor people yields results

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by snarfbot
 


it was never really about saving the state money...it was all about getting the governor an inside deal to some easy money...he bases an argument based on ideals of tax payers paying for drugs...wins over the vote...and bam his company gets a nice check in the mail...

Anybody with half a brain could have figured it out, and many saw right through it...but it still got passed because of all the louts who actually thought the numbers would be higher...but they still spout the same BS that it was the "right" thing to do because they're not paying for other people's drug habits...

Uh news to the world...just because you're a struggling lower class citizen on welfare...doesn't mean that you do drugs...it just goes to show that people look down on poor people indefinitely and will accuse them of just about anything simply because they're poor...




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
many things like shrooms and lsd don't show up on drug tests. for those taking marijuana, if the date of the test is known, you can get it out of your system, then resume afterwards.

i knew several people who told me they would get unemployment/welfare checks and deal drugs.

people should be tested, but the tests should be random and require the person to get tested within three days or something.

as for administering the actual test, someone should have to watch them urinate to make sure they aren't using fake piss.

i worked on a powerplant, and more than half the people there did some form of drug. random tests were given every week, and most passed because no one physically watched.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Makeshift
 


Did you even see the post I was referring to? Cig's and Alcohol are just as legal...as long as you're of age...

I also take note that you actually support this type of thing...it was nothing more than a ponzy scheme to suck the state's money straight into the governor's wallet...people on welfare are on it for a good reason...there are obviously very few who are taking advantage of the system...so why make the state pay for it...which they, the people, in turn pay for through taxes just to fill some bastards bank account?
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

I dont see anywhere in the article where it says that the govenor owns the testing company or that he will benefit in any way, Does he own the company that does the drug testing? Also people that are on welfare for good reason will not test positive right? And the article states that it will save the state $100,000 a year, isn't that a good thing?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I'm not seeing a problem, If your not on drugs than your fine. If your on drugs you have no reason to be on welfare. My TAX dollars shouldn't be used to pay these people. They are Scum, not people on welfare just people on drugs. They really don't need to be living.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Makeshift

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Makeshift
 


Did you even see the post I was referring to? Cig's and Alcohol are just as legal...as long as you're of age...

I also take note that you actually support this type of thing...it was nothing more than a ponzy scheme to suck the state's money straight into the governor's wallet...people on welfare are on it for a good reason...there are obviously very few who are taking advantage of the system...so why make the state pay for it...which they, the people, in turn pay for through taxes just to fill some bastards bank account?
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

I dont see anywhere in the article where it says that the govenor owns the testing company or that he will benefit in any way, Does he own the company that does the drug testing? Also people that are on welfare for good reason will not test positive right? And the article states that it will save the state $100,000 a year, isn't that a good thing?


I see that you haven't followed this story from the get-go when it was first being talked about being passed...yes the governor and his wife own a very large portion of the company that does the drug testing...and you fail to see the numbers here...98$ thousand dollars a year saved...but $178 million total will be spent...there is no real saving until over 1000 years have passed...now that's planning for the long run I guess...

/facepalm
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Makeshift
 


here4awhile responded sufficiently, but here's an article you can read: Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion


One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling.

The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.


reply to post by Reaper2137
 


You see? I had to edit my OP to address this exact thinking.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


thank you...

I'm sure Rick Scott is sitting in his high chair while smoking a pipe and just giggling to himself at how gullible people are...

I facepalmed long long ago when I even first heard this was even being considered...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
A full 2% of Floridian welfare recipients, or about 2000 people won't be getting state benefits.

With roughly 100,000 recipients forced to pay for their screening costing $30 the companies in charge of the screening (particularly Mr. Governor's business) will rake in $3 million. He did however, manage to save the state $98,000 of the $138 million the program costs.

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

ETA: I feel the need to add that I don't support this policy in the slightest, it's absurd and the results fly in the face of those who wholeheartedly believe that those on welfare are the 'scum' of the earth just taking tax payer money and using it to buy drugs instead of food or pay their bills. Good job Rick Scott, you saved your state $100,000 a year and increased your bank account by $3 million.
edit on 28-8-2011 by links234 because: More thoughts.

Haha! Myself and other ATS members said on here months ago this would happen


Of course corrupt governor Scott wanted this useless law, it serves no other purpose than to make him and his spouse extremely wealthy. And it will cost Florida's tax-paying citizens dearly.

And many of the people who tested positive will still receive their welfare money, (the ones with children, I think) because it will be paid to them via a third party whom the recipient nominates- so in many cases the state saves nothing


I'm not one to say 'I told you so', but ...... I TOLD YOU SO!!!

Look further than the ends of your noses for once and boot the corrupt governor out before he robs you all of your hard-earned tax dollars and puts the state financially in the red.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile

Originally posted by Makeshift

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Makeshift
 


Did you even see the post I was referring to? Cig's and Alcohol are just as legal...as long as you're of age...

I also take note that you actually support this type of thing...it was nothing more than a ponzy scheme to suck the state's money straight into the governor's wallet...people on welfare are on it for a good reason...there are obviously very few who are taking advantage of the system...so why make the state pay for it...which they, the people, in turn pay for through taxes just to fill some bastards bank account?
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

I dont see anywhere in the article where it says that the govenor owns the testing company or that he will benefit in any way, Does he own the company that does the drug testing? Also people that are on welfare for good reason will not test positive right? And the article states that it will save the state $100,000 a year, isn't that a good thing?


I see that you haven't followed this story from the get-go when it was first being talked about being passed...yes the governor and his wife own a very large portion of the company that does the drug testing...and you fail to see the numbers here...98$ thousand dollars a year saved...but $178 million total will be spent...there is no real saving until over 1000 years have passed...now that's planning for the long run I guess...

/facepalm
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

I don't see how you figure no real saving for 1000 years, the article states that they will save $100,000 every year.
But that is now besides the point, if it is true that the governor owns part of this company and that they charge $30 for the test which the tax payers have to pay to reimburse people then no I do not like or agree with that at all. I do believe that there should be testing but I don't think anybody except the state should be profiting at all.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
It's all just part of the incremental prep of the American psyche for more police state domination.

In a few years (or less), you will be piss/blood or hair tested to renew drivers licenses, get insurance, obtain any certifications or licenses, any thing you need from the state to be able to exist.

Searching your bodily fluids without cause or suspicion is the same IMO as searching your home, a violation of the 4th Amendment:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Place to be searched, one's body, persons or things to be seized: bodily fluids or hair.

All the "well if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" pollyanna types will be so happy by then.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Because they have to spend 178 MILLION dollars upfront to facilitate this business...

It would actually take OVER 1700 YEARS to recoup losses, and THEN we actually start saving money.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by graphuto
Because they have to spend 178 MILLION dollars upfront to facilitate this business...

It would actually take OVER 1700 YEARS to recoup losses, and THEN we actually start saving money.

I think the article says that the state spends 178 million a year on welfare minus $100,000 now, not the business.
I have read the article and think that is some complete B.S. (his actions, not the article)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Makeshift
 


I don't think you understand at all...let me put this into perspective for you...




Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.


that accumulates about $336,000-$518,400 spent per year...this alone negates a supposed $100 thousand "saved" per year...thus more is spent than saved PERIOD




The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.


that accumulates about $32,160-$40,200 a year...they magically come up with the number $98,400 but I doubt they will see that much supposedly "saved"



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Here's my moral conflict: I would rather give to a drug user than a politician with a big conflict of interest who is using his or her power to profit.

I would also rather take my chances with terrorists than with the TSA.

This moral conflict that I have makes me FEEL like an outlaw, although I do my best to always follow the law to the best of my ability. Some of them I probably don't know. lol There's just so darn many now.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Makeshift
 


I don't think you understand at all...let me put this into perspective for you...




Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.


that accumulates about $336,000-$518,400 spent per year...this alone negates a supposed $100 thousand "saved" per year...thus more is spent than saved PERIOD




The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.


that accumulates about $32,160-$40,200 a year...they magically come up with the number $98,400 but I doubt they will see that much supposedly "saved"


You forgot this part though

since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

It says that your figures are for only 1 month when a failed test means you cant collect for 12 months.
It also plainly states a net savings of $40,000 to $98,000 for the state. Unless i am still misunderstanding.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Makeshift

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Makeshift
 


I don't think you understand at all...let me put this into perspective for you...




Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.


that accumulates about $336,000-$518,400 spent per year...this alone negates a supposed $100 thousand "saved" per year...thus more is spent than saved PERIOD




The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.


that accumulates about $32,160-$40,200 a year...they magically come up with the number $98,400 but I doubt they will see that much supposedly "saved"


You forgot this part though

since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

It says that your figures are for only 1 month when a failed test means you cant collect for 12 months.
It also plainly states a net savings of $40,000 to $98,000 for the state. Unless i am still misunderstanding.


the majority of the people who do fail their piss test are still more than likely going to get their money...just if they have kids...or another person to sign them for it or however that works...
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by starchild10
 


LOL

Making sure bob isnt banging heroin with tax payer money is not the slippery slope a drug addicted person might veiw it as.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


ha ...dont be suprised if the 2% stats come from the people whom were cut off because they could afforf the test..

peace



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile

Originally posted by Makeshift

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Makeshift
 


I don't think you understand at all...let me put this into perspective for you...




Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.


that accumulates about $336,000-$518,400 spent per year...this alone negates a supposed $100 thousand "saved" per year...thus more is spent than saved PERIOD




The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.


that accumulates about $32,160-$40,200 a year...they magically come up with the number $98,400 but I doubt they will see that much supposedly "saved"


You forgot this part though

since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

It says that your figures are for only 1 month when a failed test means you cant collect for 12 months.
It also plainly states a net savings of $40,000 to $98,000 for the state. Unless i am still misunderstanding.


the majority of the people who do fail their piss test are still more than likely going to get their money...just if they have kids...or another person to sign them for it or however that works...

and $178 million this fiscal year is a complete waste of the states money I don't care how you candy coat it with these measly figures...

178 million is the money they are giving out for welfare minus $100,000 a year now. I thought you were advocating giving these people their welfare money? Also I am not candy coating anything for you, just trying to have a discussion and making sure that all the facts from the article are being understood correctly.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Makeshift
 


sorry I'm tired and I can't seem to make myself make sense so I'm just gunna ask that you ignore that...

I don't know what part about ponzy scheme...or paying more to implement it than "saving" in the process you don't get...but I'm just gonna do one final facepalm for the night and head to bed...and it's pretty much recognized that most of these people who are supposedly not getting paid...are still going to be paid one way or another...whether it be they have kids or go to rehab or however else they'd be able to get it...only a small percent of them will be cut off until they can reapply...

/facepalm
edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join