Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if it must exist they should be in labor camps.
Especially the elderly that live in nursing homes using Medicaid to pay for the nursing home. In some states, over half of the people in nursing homes are paid via Medicaid.
The nursing home should have a handicap accessible van and wheel those elderly people into the van and take them to the labor camps. If they need to be there all day to work in the labor camp, the nursing home should send extra diapers and a nurse to give them their meds during breaktime from the hard labor.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiznluv
Big yes.
You mean like Florida's boondoggle which only had 2% of recipients fail the drug screens? A lot of money for no return, except to Rick Scott's wifes bank account
Every state that has tried this has found it a losing proposition. Most welfare recipients have been found to be clean.
That's only when you are including just those that took and failed the test. For example in a 3 or 4 month span something like 100 failed the test in Florida. 1600 refused the test.
Especially the elderly that live in nursing homes using Medicaid to pay for the nursing home. In some states, over half of the people in nursing homes are paid via Medicaid.
The nursing home should have a handicap accessible van and wheel those elderly people into the van and take them to the labor camps. If they need to be there all day to work in the labor camp, the nursing home should send extra diapers and a nurse to give them their meds during breaktime from the hard labor.
A van? Travel to and from?
Aren't we just as lavish as can be?
The home should be the camp so we save on travel expenses. Hell, most of them already depressing enough to be labor camps anyway. Think!
Exactly. They spend far more money on testing than they save by kicking the users off public assistance. It only makes sense if you prioritize punishing drug users over saving money.
To reiterate only when are including those that took and failed the test. If I recall correctly when including the 1600 that refused the test Florida saved about $30 for every dollar they spent on testing. That was only over a 3 month period and the savings would have compounded substantially had the program continued because they were ineligible for benefits for something like a year.
Why stop with welfare recipients? If we're going to test welfare recipients for drugs, I would also test anyone who has a tax break which is NOT universal.
Since everyone is entitled to the standard deduction and personal exemption, nobody would need to take a drug test to enjoy those tax breaks. But all other tax breaks would trigger a drug test.
Pretty solid cognitive dissonance as well ignoring results of States that have tried it
The results are huge savings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
