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.
It might make some sense to test for the purpose of screening applicants into harm-reduction and/or other medical therapies where appropriate. Beyond that, I don't see any reason, purpose, or benefit to it...
"Your statement above is one of the reasons I'm happy that I withdrew from Social Security years ago. Starting from day one after I withdrew, if I because disabled, I had a private policy that would / will pay me 100% of my monthly income - for life if need be. I did not have to wait to qualify."
Well, I hope that works out for you. My experience with private supplemental insurance was less-than-stellar. I have a cancer and dread disease policy that happens to cover the disease I have. It took me 10 months of fighting for them to pay out and I had to threaten the heck out of them. The paper-pushers even tried to re-diagnose me from the comfort of their cubicles to a disease they don't cover. It was ridiculous. My specialists wrote several letters on my behalf and were shocked by the crap the insurance co. was trying to pull. Meanwhile, Social Security approved me in 10 weeks because my disabilities are so obvious.
Sorry, off-topic, I know! Just wanted to warn folks to be careful!
Well, I hope that works out for you. My experience with private supplemental insurance was less-than-stellar. I have a cancer and dread disease policy that happens to cover the disease I have. It took me 10 months of fighting for them to pay out and I had to threaten the heck out of them. The paper-pushers even tried to re-diagnose me from the comfort of their cubicles to a disease they don't cover. It was ridiculous. My specialists wrote several letters on my behalf and were shocked by the crap the insurance co. was trying to pull. Meanwhile, Social Security approved me in 10 weeks because my disabilities are so obvious.
I have used mine with absolutely no difficulty. I will never miss not having social security
If we are going to test people who are applying for jobs,then,yes, I think it is a good idea to drug test those who are on welfare. I have no objection to helping those who need it, but they should not be using recreational drugs(who really"needs" meth,cocaine,etc?)
I'm oppose to drug testing in the work place, and think that drugs should be decriminalized. I realize not all welfare recipients are on drugs. But there are undeniably some that are. Drugs should be a choice, but if you make that choice and can't control. i don't think the tax-paying public should bail you out. I don't think this would be an unfair policy.
ABSOLUTELY! So, that means test all the CEOs of the airlines who received corporate welfare, people who get college loans guaranteed by the government, and anyone who attends a public school or checks a book out from a public library. :-)
ABSOLUTELY! So, that means test all the CEOs of the airlines who received corporate welfare, people who get college loans guaranteed by the government, and anyone who attends a public school or checks a book out from a public library. :-)
Those people you mentioned are all contributing to society, whereas a welfare recipient is not. If you can be a productive member of society on drugs, I don't care. If you are just a drain on society and on drugs, we have a problem.
On a sidenote, I don't believe that government should be in the business of educating our children, and I find it odd that you included "corporate welfare" here...how is a company keeping more of their money the same as someone producing nothing, yet receiving something?
I'm oppose to drug testing in the work place, and think that drugs should be decriminalized. I realize not all welfare recipients are on drugs. But there are undeniably some that are. Drugs should be a choice, but if you make that choice and can't control. i don't think the tax-paying public should bail you out. I don't think this would be an unfair policy.
I'll go you one further. Not only do I think they should be drug testing, but I think they should be testing for alcohol and cigarettes too. If you can't afford to feed your kids and I am having to fork over my taxes to do it for you, you need to cut all the unnecessaries from your life until you're on more stable financial ground.
ETA : I think they should be testing for illegal drugs, not prescription narcotics that you have a valid script for.
ABSOLUTELY! So, that means test all the CEOs of the airlines who received corporate welfare, people who get college loans guaranteed by the government, and anyone who attends a public school or checks a book out from a public library. :-)
Well, I'm oppose to corperate welfare either way. As for college loans, library, etc. That's completey different, if you going to college on gov't loans and you smoke bud but pull good grades then more power to you. In fact I think all drugs should be decriminalized. And actually if you been convicted of any drug charge, even misdeamenor pot possession, you are automatically disqualified from recieving student aid. The idea of drug testing welfare recipients is different, if you are addicted to crack, and are unable to keep a job because of it, then there is no incentive to clean up and get a job, you just continue living off of working tax payers which is unfair to taxpayers. I'm actually not sure what the library has anything to do with it.
Well, I'm oppose to corperate welfare either way. As for college loans, library, etc. That's completey different, if you going to college on gov't loans and you smoke bud but pull good grades then more power to you. In fact I think all drugs should be decriminalized. And actually if you been convicted of any drug charge, even misdeamenor pot possession, you are automatically disqualified from recieving student aid. The idea of drug testing welfare recipients is different, if you are addicted to crack, and are unable to keep a job because of it, then there is no incentive to clean up and get a job, you just continue living off of working tax payers which is unfair to taxpayers. I'm actually not sure what the library has anything to do with it.
You're opposed to companies keeping money that they earned?
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.
