EPTPeople should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves.
Florida to drug test for welfare - Page 35
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
People should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 18 2014 08:09 Wolfstan wrote: I hate that the defense budget being that big as well. I have been identified by websites as having libertarian views, yes. People should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves. what if you were in an unfortunate accident and ended up disabled? would you rather die than accept welfare if that was the only option? thoughts? | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
| ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
On January 18 2014 08:09 Wolfstan wrote: I hate that the defense budget being that big as well. I have been identified by websites as having libertarian views, yes. People should be free to give money to charities or churches or whatever if they have a bleeding heart for these people. You shouldn't be forced to enable people who are to stupid, disabled or lazy. Just like it's not illegal to cut off a family member when they use your "help" to do terrible things to themselves. Libertarian is a nice idea. It works well when we're talking about small populations. Very Old West style and attractive from a long distant view. Dying from an infected toe because you broke the skin walking around the house and stepped on a nail isn't fun though (because lack of funding to build a hospital nearby). I'm not going to say what's best because I don't know. Maybe the best way for our society to develop is for all the weak and disabled to die off and stupid people should stop being healed up so they can procreate later down the line. I would like to think that a world where people are all given a chance to succeed and kept around is the better choice though. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 18 2014 08:22 Wolfstan wrote: I am a very proud person, I would not subject my own child or others children to take care of me when I cannot take care of myself. so you're indirectly telling me you would rather die then, did I get that right? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a proud person, I think most people are but I don't see a reason to say someone disabled through no fault of their own should have to die for that. Anyways, hopefully the point I was trying to make made sense lol. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
I'm fine with peoples views who think welfare is part of infrastructure or polititians legislating welfare in bipartisan talks to keep government running, just a matter of scale. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On January 18 2014 08:28 BigFan wrote: so you're indirectly telling me you would rather die then, did I get that right? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a proud person, I think most people are but I don't see a reason to say someone disabled through no fault of their own should have to die for that. Anyways, hopefully the point I was trying to make made sense lol. Yes you made a point I can understand thank you, I just accept my empathy is limited by time and space.  | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On January 18 2014 04:07 PanN wrote: AA is a horrible program. The success rate of it is less than 10% almost everywhere its involved, ontop of that, it forces you to turn to religion in order to solve your problem. It's so incredibly sad that AA is forced on so many people that need actual help. Not nonsense. I don't know what the basis of that "10%" figure is, or what relation it bears to recidivism statistics for people who don't participate in AA, but I think it's a fantastic program. It's saved 3 people in my family from alcoholism. All of them struggled and relapsed at some point, as almost everyone does, but they've all been dry for a very long time now. Also, the fact that some degree of spiritualism is part of AA does not reduce it's effectiveness, IMO (personally, I am an atheist). I know several atheists, including my own father, who were either past or present AA participants, and all agree that it is at least helpful for getting started after they got over the physical addiction. Some continue to go, and others either cut back or stopped going for various reasons including the religious aspect, but structure, community and empathy are all invaluable assets that AA provides to someone who is just starting the lifelong struggle with addiction. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 18 2014 08:35 Wolfstan wrote: Yes you made a point I can understand thank you, I just accept my empathy is limited by time and space. oh ok fair enough I just wasn't sure if my phrasing was right or not lol | ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
On January 18 2014 08:37 PanzerKing wrote: I don't know what the basis of that "10%" figure is, or what relation it bears to recidivism statistics for people who don't participate in AA, but I think it's a fantastic program. It's saved 3 people in my family from alcoholism. All of them struggled and relapsed at some point, as almost everyone does, but they've all been dry for a very long time now. Also, the fact that some degree of spiritualism is part of AA does not reduce it's effectiveness, IMO (personally, I am an atheist). I know several atheists, including my own father, who were either past or present AA participants, and all agree that it is at least helpful for getting started after they got over the physical addiction. Some continue to go, and others either cut back or stopped going for various reasons including the religious aspect, but structure, community and empathy are all invaluable assets that AA provides to someone who is just starting the lifelong struggle with addiction. You can't really generalize of how great a program AA is based off a few individual stories. That's absolutely great that it worked for your family members. AA programs are highly variable in nature despite the attempt at standardizing it. It could be that particular one was doing really well but on the whole, there's not too much support for the efficacy of AA. On January 18 2014 05:26 BlackJack wrote: That's incorrect as per your first source: Solantic is more of a walk-in clinic for basic medical treatment and not the best choice for contracting something like this. In 2011, they started to provide drug screening and BAC testing. However, I imagine part of the reason they didn't apply was because of the negative publicity this brought them (despite it being illegal elsewhere, this type of maneuver remains legal in Florida). I still feel its unethical because his family can still profit off Solantic through other policy changes in Florida. He already has a history of fraud with the companies he's worked for (Columbia/HCA hospital for example) On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point. Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities. Because denying them these services, they're more likely to cost the government a greater amount in the long-run (health and criminal justice costs). It's similar to the success of 'wet apartments' for the homeless. They're not required to stop drinking but many of them are able to get their lives back on track. For a quick article on that, check out this NPR piece. There are plenty of journal articles that have studied this as well. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
Although AA's emphasis on anonymity makes it difficult for outside researchers to determine its success rates, some have tried. What they have found doesn't inspire much confidence in AA's approach. A recent review by the Cochrane Library, a health-care research group, of studies on alcohol treatment conducted between 1966 and 2005 states its results plainly: "No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF [12-step facilitation] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems." AA itself has released success rates at times, but these numbers are based only on voluntary self-reports by alcoholics who maintain their ties to AA -- not exactly a representative sample. Even taken at face value, the numbers are not impressive. In a 1990 summary of five membership surveys from 1977 through 1989, AA reported that 81 percent of alcoholics who began attending meetings stopped within one month. At any one time, only 5 percent of those still attending had been doing so for a year. Many health conditions resolve themselves through what's known as spontaneous remission -- that is, they improve on their own. In the case of the common cold, for example, nearly everyone gets over the virus without medical intervention. In a 2005 article in the journal Addiction, Deborah A. Dawson and her colleagues calculated a natural recovery rate for alcoholism of 24.4 percent -- that is, over the course of a year, 24.4 percent of the alcoholics studied simply wised up, got sick and tired of being sick and tired, and quit. Without treatment and without meetings. When AA's retention numbers are compared with alcoholism's rate of spontaneous remission, they look even worse. Many proponents of AA cite Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity), a study completed in 1996 by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism that seemed to find that 12-step treatment works. The study randomly assigned alcoholics to one of three behaviorally based treatments with marked differences in philosophy and practice: a 12-step therapy based on the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous, cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy. After eight years and $27 million, the study concluded that the techniques were equally effective. More to the point, a 2005 article in the journal BMC Public Health that reanalyzed the data from Project MATCH reported that almost all of the effect of treatment was achieved after attending a single session. In other words, it was the initial decision to try to get better that determined a person's chances of succeeding; what followed made little difference. Although AA doubtless helps some people, it is not magic. I have seen, in my work with alcoholics, how its philosophy can be harmful to patients who chronically relapse: AA holds that, once a person starts to slip, he or she is powerless to stop. The stronger an alcoholic's belief in this perspective, the longer and more damaging relapses can be. An evening of drinking turns into a month-long bender. Equally troubling, AA maintains that when an alcoholic fails, it is his fault, not the program's. As outlined in the organization's namesake bible, "Alcoholics Anonymous" (also known as "The Big Book"): "Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates . . . they seem to have been born that way." This message can be devastating. Addicted to Rehab Sorry Panzerking, but anecdotes can only take you so far. | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
On January 18 2014 06:45 hunts wrote: I'm actually surprised there is so much arguing about this when the idea is simple. Drugs are illegal, why should government give people money to spend on things that they themselves outlaw? We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was "government denies welfare money to men who buy prostitutes." Now would we? Well, probably would as people would go "why shouldn't the government give them money just because they indulge in illegal activities? that's cruel!" But you get the point. Now of course the other issue is as has been stated that doing this ends up costing a lot more money in drug tests then it saves so in practicality it's not a good idea, but as far as in theory and if it could be done cost effectively, I don't see how people can argue for the government giving money for spending on illegal expensive activities. This is not about punishing those who break the law, it is about preemptively screening people. It's more akin to saying since men are more likely to use prostitutes, then men applying for government assistance need to be monitored by cops for awhile before they qualify. I'm pretty sure that if someone gets arrested for doing drugs their welfare will be cut. | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
1. 1/3 people living below the poverty line actually work. Of the households below the poverty line 84% of them have someone in them that are working. 2/3 poor children are from households with people working in them. That should tell you right there how utterly insulting it is to instigate this sort of policy as a knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as wide scale welfare abuse. I am sure there are some people on welfare that are abusing the system just as I am sure there are people who abuse the fuck out of disability benefits but that is the minority. 2. 91% of government benefits go to the disabled, elderly or working households. 3. 47% of the impoverished between the ages of 18 and 26 have been to college. Not all graduated sure, but it is hard to fathom someone who had the motivation and presence of mind to go to college who didn't have the desire to do something/ anything with their lives. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable. 4. "If you have enough money to be able to buy drugs, then you don't need the public assistance. I don't want tax dollars spent on drugs." - Jerry Sonnenberg In Arizona, out of 87,000 people they subjected to the test, exactly one person tested positive. Florida had just as embarrassing results: 21 people tested positive out of 51,000. of course, that didn't hurt their feelings much since the program not only didn't save the state any money, but it actually put them almost $46,000 in the hole, even when you factor in the money they saved by denying applicants. So basically kicking the very few abusers they found in the system out of the system cost them more money then leaving it how it was? This is nothing but political grand standing making an issue out of something that isn't really that big of an issue. 5. To receive assistance with housing you have to have an address for the cheque to be mailed to. If you do not have a place to live the state does not pay out its shelter portion of the benefit. Further if your homeless it is very hard to prove residency in the state which you are applying for benefits in. If you can't prove residency well you don't get to apply for benefits. When people think of welfare abusers they think of heroine addicts in back alleys. That assessment doesn't mesh with reality. Alot of the homeless people you see begging are begging because they cannot get benefits, and cannot get employment because it is impossible to hold a job without a mailing address and almost impossible to maintain hygiene at a level that would be appropriate to be presentable to be employed. Once your homeless or in poverty it is almost impossible to get yourself out of that situation. And sadly stories of people ascending out of poverty and achieving the american dream is the exception not the norm. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On January 20 2014 08:24 B_Type13X2 wrote: My issue with the drug testing is I think it might actually cost more money then it saves. I'm going to go ahead and list all the reasons why this is a bad Idea knowing full well that some people will immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in with their world view.: (Also I am going to give credit to John Cheese who wrote an article about this here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/ Below will be TLDNR version.) Also the bolded will address the original post directly. 1. 1/3 people living below the poverty line actually work. Of the households below the poverty line 84% of them have someone in them that are working. 2/3 poor children are from households with people working in them. That should tell you right there how utterly insulting it is to instigate this sort of policy as a knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as wide scale welfare abuse. I am sure there are some people on welfare that are abusing the system just as I am sure there are people who abuse the fuck out of disability benefits but that is the minority. 2. 91% of government benefits go to the disabled, elderly or working households. 3. 47% of the impoverished between the ages of 18 and 26 have been to college. Not all graduated sure, but it is hard to fathom someone who had the motivation and presence of mind to go to college who didn't have the desire to do something/ anything with their lives. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable. 4. "If you have enough money to be able to buy drugs, then you don't need the public assistance. I don't want tax dollars spent on drugs." - Jerry Sonnenberg In Arizona, out of 87,000 people they subjected to the test, exactly one person tested positive. Florida had just as embarrassing results: 21 people tested positive out of 51,000. of course, that didn't hurt their feelings much since the program not only didn't save the state any money, but it actually put them almost $46,000 in the hole, even when you factor in the money they saved by denying applicants. So basically kicking the very few abusers they found in the system out of the system cost them more money then leaving it how it was? This is nothing but political grand standing making an issue out of something that isn't really that big of an issue. 5. To receive assistance with housing you have to have an address for the cheque to be mailed to. If you do not have a place to live the state does not pay out its shelter portion of the benefit. Further if your homeless it is very hard to prove residency in the state which you are applying for benefits in. If you can't prove residency well you don't get to apply for benefits. When people think of welfare abusers they think of heroine addicts in back alleys. That assessment doesn't mesh with reality. Alot of the homeless people you see begging are begging because they cannot get benefits, and cannot get employment because it is impossible to hold a job without a mailing address and almost impossible to maintain hygiene at a level that would be appropriate to be presentable to be employed. Once your homeless or in poverty it is almost impossible to get yourself out of that situation. And sadly stories of people ascending out of poverty and achieving the american dream is the exception not the norm. Maybe whoever implemented the policy thought that there would be a much higher number of drug abusers. Now that we know the facts though, you'd have to be outright stupid to implement the policy, ethical or not. I think the democrats were silly to bring in the ethical debate because it just polarizes people. Much more people will agree if you just say it costs more to implement than what we will get back, thus completely defeating the purpose. The law makes a lot of logical sense but it also shows that politicians will try and implement a law with zero research, which is absolutely insane. There's nothing wrong with the idea, but the fact that the law was trying to be brought on a PRESUMPTION and not FACT is the real problem here. Gonna bump your link in plain sight http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people_p2/ | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On January 20 2014 10:14 sluggaslamoo wrote: Maybe the mayor or whoever implemented the policy thought that there would be a much higher number of drug abusers. Now that we know the facts though, you'd have to be outright stupid to implement the policy, ethical or not. I think the democrats were silly to bring in the ethical debate because it just polarizes people. Much more people will agree if you just say it costs more to implement than what we will get back, thus completely defeating the purpose. I agree; I think it was stupid to partisianize the issue and make it an ethical debate when they could have most likely gotten Republicans to vote against it with a financial argument. | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
| ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A bill that would require screening for possible drug use welfare recipients is moving forward in the Indiana Legislature. A House committee voted 8-4 on Wednesday to advance the bill. The bill would require Indiana residents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families be screened through a questionnaire and drug tested if they show a likelihood of addiction. Benefits would continue if they test positive as long as they enter treatment. An amendment removed a mandate for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to show photo identification. Committee chairwoman Rebecca Kubacki of Syracuse says photo identification is impractical because of the cost and inevitable battle with the federal government. And Mississippi... | ||
| ||
