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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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...
/facepalmedit on 28-8-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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...