When Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed the law requiring welfare recipients to pass annual drug tests to collect benefits, he justified the likely unconstitutional law by saying it would save the state money by keeping drug users from using public money to subsidize their drug habits. Drug use, Scott claimed, was higher among welfare recipients than among the rest of the population.
Preliminary results from the state’s first round of testing, however, has seemingly proven both of those claims false. Only 2 percent of welfare recipients failed drug tests, meaning the state must reimburse the cost of the $30 drug tests to the 96 percent of recipients who passed drug tests (two percent did not take the tests). After reimbursements, the state’s savings will be almost negligible, the Tampa Tribune reports:
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 compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 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 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
While the state will save little, if any, money on the drug testing racket, Scott’s family could stand to gain financially. A former health care executive, Scott founded Solantic Corp., a chain of walk-in health care clinics that provides, among other services, drug tests. Scott maintains that he has no involvement in the company, but he does have $62 million worth of the company’s shares contained in a blind trust under his wife’s name. Though there is no conflict under Florida law unless the company deals with the governor’s office directly, the company, and thus Scott’s investment, could benefit from the increased traffic from drug tests.
Surprised?? Im not...but I am ANGRY. Enough of this crap! Isnt this illegal?
To me that is blatant theft of taxpayer money. Unless his family's business is prohibited from servicing the welfare clients; which it should be! Must be nice to pass a law that puts money directly in your pocket!
- Posts : 33
Join date : 2011-06-03
Nobody should ever pay for a drug test that is forced on them! Especially, if they have past many drug tests in past doing contract or temporary work. That is really harassment.
- Posts : 541
Join date : 2011-02-17
There is no could about it will line his pockets. Since corporations are people and get wellfare. They should be tested to.
- Posts : 2626
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 46
Yeah, that'll be the day when a CEO has to pee in a cup. I so resent having to do it for the privelege of being pimped out by a temp agency. And I'd certainly resent having my taxes go to harassing people down on their luck, and to enriching that meat stick down in Florida!
- Posts : 485
Join date : 2011-03-01
Location : Pittsburgh, PA
The Bush crime family were notorious for this crap - one of them, I believe it was Neil, owns or has a substantial interest in the stock of the No Child's Behind Left testing apparatus.Scott’s family could stand to gain financially. A former health care executive, Scott founded Solantic Corp., a chain of walk-in health care clinics that provides, among other services, drug tests.
Rumsfeld made a fortune in the 70s working with FDA to promote swine flu vaccinations - he later became CEO for the firm that manufactured the drug. He had the brass ones to try and pull it off again - remember Tamiflu? Hell, look what the wonder boy Perry did for his interests in Merck by trying to legislate mandatory Gardisil immunizations? Merck's stock had tanked after the Vioxx scandal so I always referred to this as Merck's bailout although people are lining their children up...
I was taking an evening course in the 80s when the idea was suggested that corporations may begin drug testing. EVERY person in the classroom said, "no way this will never fly." You can imagine my surprise when in 1987 I was required to go pee in a cup. What infuriates me is that there are so many ways that abusers can cover up, and I really resent being treated like a criminal. (I had to tell the woman that the door had to be closed or I couldn't go, then I flushed the toilet and recognized the sign overhead "DO NOT FLUSH" - luckily, MY attitude flared and she backed down and accepted my sample. god, I could pee on THEM today - that's how much I've changed.)
- Posts : 94
Join date : 2011-02-20
gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:There is no could about it will line his pockets. Since corporations are people and get wellfare. They should be tested to.
Good idea and if they fail they pay full tax no breaks
- Posts : 663
Join date : 2011-02-24
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum