Drug testing welfare recipients saves money.

[evil_gop_liars]

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test

 

 

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.

[Azazello1313]

so it's close to a wash on pure cost vs savings, though a slight benefit. but I'd say the true measure of the program comes in how many people refrain from using drugs knowing they'll be tested and stand to lose benefits. that, of course, doesn't come out in the above comparison.

[delusions of grandeur]

So if the cost is at the high end of the range, and the savings at the low end, then it's actually costing more than it saves...

 

But I'm not really concerned about a little bit of cost or it not being terribly effective with a 2% denial rate, as there are far more costly programs compared to their effectiveness, and moreover, I don't think anyone can deny that it serves a tremendous purpose of not paying for and enabling people's drug addictions by rewarding them with government assistance.

 

In that regard, it doesn't really have to be terribly effective to still be a great policy...

[delusions of grandeur]

so it's close to a wash on pure cost vs savings, though a slight benefit. but I'd say the true measure of the program comes in how many people refrain from using drugs knowing they'll be tested and stand to lose benefits. that, of course, doesn't come out in the above comparison.

Good point. I didn't really think of deterence as a benefit as much as not rewarding/enabling the behavior, but a 2% failure rate does seem to show that it's working pretty well... I seriously doubt the rate would be that low if they weren't being tested and denied benefits because of it.

[Azazello1313]

I didn't really think of deterence as a benefit as much as not rewarding/enabling the behavior

 

meh, 6 of one, half dozen of the other. whether you look at it as removing a positive sanction or imposing a negative sanction (and you can truly look at this either way), the net effect is the same -- fewer people using welfare to pay for drugs.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Azazello1313

[polksalet]

they need a better test

[WaterMan]

Now we just need to drug test CEOs before getting bailouts. That should save us some more money.

[Clubfoothead]

If you can still put all your food on the Lone Start card, then hand the girl at Kroger a $50.00 for the 2 cases of Bud Light, drug testing seems stupid.

[rbmcdonald]

If you can still put all your food on the Lone Start card, then hand the girl at Kroger a $50.00 for the 2 cases of Bud Light, drug testing seems stupid.

 

Ditto

[bushwacked]

so it's close to a wash on pure cost vs savings, though a slight benefit. but I'd say the true measure of the program comes in how many people refrain from using drugs knowing they'll be tested and stand to lose benefitsis illustrated by how much money the Gov personally makes by selling the tests. that, of course, doesn't come out in the above comparison.

 

 

Fixed.

 

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-ric...?printArticle=y

Edited August 26, 2011 by bushwacked

[delusions of grandeur]

Fixed.

 

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-ric...?printArticle=y

That's called a conflict of interest (big shocker I know from a politician), but aside from yet another scum bag self-interested politician, the government still reimburses people who pass the tests... So no, the "government" doesn't personally make anything off this and may actually stand to lose money. They're just paying a scum bag with a legitimate business rather than a junkie.

 

There will always be people to take advantage of anything that makes money, but would you rather the government be handing out cash to drug addicts or to a legitimate business that tries to make sure the bulk of it goes to people in real need?

Edited August 26, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[WaterMan]

The bulk of it? Is there such a business out there?

[Duchess Jack]

I love this idea. They said 2% failed, but I would think you have to include the 2% who refused as failed as well.

 

Hopefully they can get the price of the test down with bulk purchasing.

 

If there were some way to do with with alcohol as well, I'd be all for it.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Duchess Jack

[tosberg34]

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test

 

Just out of curiosity, did you pass or fail the test?

Edited August 27, 2011 by tosberg34

[Jackass]

also, keeping people off drugs lowers crime and also saves on prison costs in theory.

[bushwacked]

Let's assume at least 2% of corporations don't pay income taxes and the same percentage pollutes illegally. Why not have Al Gore set a litmus test for carbon credits because "the true measure of the program comes in how many people would refrain from illegally polluting because they'll be tested and stand to lose benefits.,"

 

[evil_gop_liars]

I'm glad a 2% "wash" justifies more government intrusion. We really need to keep the poor and elderly people in check they are the ones ruining america.

 

Less government regulation and taxes on corporations and more on the widowed mom with three kids.

[Azazello1313]

wow, the airtight logic of bush and gop is really making me rethink my position on this.

[Ursa Majoris]

wow, the airtight logic of bush and gop is really making me rethink my position on this.

They have a point. While you, WV and the rest of the right like to hammer away at people in receipt of government support because they're broke, you're fine with corporate largesse from the government. Makes me wonder if you're some naturally subservient forelock tugger.

[bushwacked]

They have a point. While you, WV and the rest of the right like to hammer away at people in receipt of government support because they're broke, you're fine with corporate largesse from the government. Makes me wonder if you're some naturally subservient forelock tugger.

 

In case we were wondering what "broaden the base" really means.

 

For the record, any qualms I have with drug testing welfare recipients are relatively minor. It is humorous, however, to watch Az pontificate towards the "noteworthy" societal benefits that result from saving a couple thousand dollars on welfare. Because GE not paying federal tax last year and lackadaisical regulations on mortgage lenders helped society and our long term economy and stuff.

[Duchess Jack]

I don't understand why anybody would be for this.

 

I am a big proponent of helping people in need out - but if folk use the money to buy drugs then they clearly don't need the money.

 

I am admittedly a bit of a pot head, but I could not justify buying if I didn't have a job or if I got assistance.

 

It would suck that I couldn't smoke my friends' herb here and there, but in that situation, I'd likely have better things to be doing with my time. Further, smoking in any circumstance would close more than half of my employment options and would keep me on assistance much longer.

[evil_gop_liars]

but if folk use the money to buy drugs then they clearly don't need the money.

 

 

98% of people on welfare agree with you.

 

But to make AZ feel better we need legislation and government intervention on 20 people.

[Azazello1313]

While you, WV and the rest of the right like to hammer away at people in receipt of government support because they're broke, you're fine with corporate largesse from the government.

 

because I think taxes should be lower? please do tell...

[Azazello1313]

guys I'm having a little trouble understanding how I'm supposed to be against "government intervention" in a government assistance program.

[Clubfoothead]

guys I'm having a little trouble understanding how I'm supposed to be against "government intervention" in a government assistance program.

 

Again, if you can still go buy beer with the cash you aren't spending on food, what does it matter?