Skip to content

2% of Welfare Recipients Failed Rick Scott’s Welfare Drug Tests: Tests to Cost State Millions

The highly unfavorable governor of Florida, Rick Scott, whose self interests outweigh his constituents just got owned. Scott initiated a new drug test for the welfare program where the recipient of benefits would have to go through a drug test before getting aid. The results are in on the first batch of tests.

 

98% passed which debunks much of the Republican rhetoric of welfare being largely for drug addicts. Governor Scott is also an avid critic of the health care bill but the multimillionaire and former hospital chain executive enjoys a taxpayer subsidized health insurance plan offered by the state of Florida. (Yes, he’s a socialist!) He pays $400 per year to cover health insurance for his wife and himself. We should all be so fortunate, but especially those in need who he denies while he benefits.

 

Tea Party backed Scott’s past stereotypical statements include,  publicly stating many times that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. Scott then prompted a legislature implemented policy requiring all temporary cash assistance applicants pass a drug test before getting any help — almost all of them passed.

 

Only 2% are failing the tests.

The Tampa Tribune did some research to discover how much Scott’s stereotyping will cost the state:

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.

Rick Scott on the other hand stood to gain financially if he hadn’t been publicly outed for his involvement in a drug testing company. Two weeks later, Scott finalized a deal to sell Solantic Inc.

It gets worse:

Scott had appeared to satisfy state law when he transferred his shares of the company a few days before he took office to a fund in his wife’s name, the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. But political pressure from Solantic has weighed on Scott since last year, when his Republican primary opponent made the company a campaign issue.

 

Soctt should be drug tested, instead of the needy,  considering his own criminal background and his wife who owns/owned a large portion of the drug testing company can foot the bill for the state. Now, that would be fiscally Conservative of him.

Posted in tea party.

Tagged with , , , .

108 comments

By Anomaly – August 28, 2011

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • http://lifelinks835.blobspot.com Darrell Turner

    Dope Fiends think everybody gets high. If one doesn’t use illegal drugs then he must drink alcohol or something. Dope fiends cannot conceive of a life without being high; or else how could one deal with life? With dope fiend thinking, one can have as much as advance notice as possible and still wait 2 hours before the test to stop.
    The fact is that most people don’t use any sort of illegal drugs. I found this out after I stopped using them!

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Darrell Turner, 2 hours notice would not change a positive result in a drug test. A few days, maybe, depending on the illicit chemical.

    • http://www.chefbob50-inmyhumbleopinion.blogspot.com chefbob50

      @Darrell Turner, In the case of pot it takes 30 days to clear your system after you stop, Coke slightly longer. That’s the limit of my drug knowledge except a hair sample can show positive for up to a year…

  • http://none Jerry

    I think you all failed to notice that the only real reason he was requiring these drug tests was because he benefits from the company that administered the tests meaning he is part owner of it or he is a partner in it or owns a large portion of their stock, whichever is the case, and unfortunatly that is the driving factors of almost every single politician up to and including every president we have ever had, and theirs nothing wrong with that, its the way our country has always been and its not just america its the way every single country in the world is.

  • Geo

    Test his wife….she’s got to be doing something to be with him……..

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Geo, You thought of that too, eh?

    • http://www.chefbob50-inmyhumbleopinion.blogspot.com chefbob50

      @Geo, Definitely some form of hallucinogenic and lots of it…

  • Dean

    @Anomaly100, I agree about the hair samples going back too far.

    As far as costs are concerned, what’s more expensive? A lifetime welfare recipient, or a one time swab test?

    I know families that are at least 3 generations of welfare receivers, it’s a cycle. These drug tests could break that cycle.

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Dean, Admittedly, the welfare system needs to be reformed. 3 generations of welfare recipients is a tell – there needs to be a better training system enacted. Get them to work and they pay taxes, then your burden is lessened.

      But, as far as the one time swab test, well that would have to be given to the entire welfare population, which would be costly. It wouldn’t be one-time either. It would have to be repeated before each check.

      • Dean

        @Anomaly100, I like the programs that Clinton put in place, but welfare people have learned how to work around the system.

        Is Rick Scott suggesting that a drug test be administered each month to the same people? That would anti cost effective for sure.

        If it is not cost effective to test the current welfare recipients, testing new comers would be a good idea.

        I’ve always had the idea of welfare drug tests, and glad to see at least a move in that direction.

        Now if someone with power would enact a “controlled child birth program”. This is where all children at birth (either male or female, whichever is easiest) be fixed. And at the age of 18 or older, will need to fill out an application to be approved for parenthood. Can you imagine the drop in poverty, crime, welfare and all things poor cycles produce?

        • http://www.chefbob50-inmyhumbleopinion.blogspot.com chefbob50

          @Dean, WOW Dean all I can say is you’re a man out of time you should’ve been born in Nazi Germany with those insane ideas, in other words you are one crazy mother fucker…

    • http://www.momsformarijuana.org Theresa Knox

      @Dean, These days the only ‘lifetime’ welfare recipient is the disabled one… should we just cut them off?

      • Dean

        @Theresa Knox, If they are using gov funds to buy illegal drugs, absolutely!

        • http://www.momsformarijuana.org Theresa Knox

          @Dean, Why does this affect you so much? How does this affect you at all? You have no say in how tax money is spent anyway… why so up-in-arms if ppl use drugs? Really, how does it affect you?

        • Dean

          @Dean, Welfare people spending tax dollars meant to feed their children effects the entire country in many ways. Those funds could be used in positive ways. You seem really offended? Do you use welfare/social security money to get high? If so i at least hope that you don’t have children.

  • Dean

    What type of test was this? Urine test? Should have been a mouth swab, you can’t drink chemicals or cheat in other ways with a mouth swab test. Even more extreme could be a hair test. just like stupid politicians to have a great idea but then screw up the results by using an in-effective test.

    I hope other states will follow suit and administer swab tests before letting people on welfare. Brilliant idea, poor choice of procedure.

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Dean, Hair samples could work, but they go back as far as 6 months I believe, so if someone sobered up 3 months prior, their hair sample would still come back with traces of drug use. I don’t think any of the tests would be inexpensive to administer, swab tests included. I could be wrong, since I’m certainly not an expert.

  • Adam

    It’s a documented fact that many welfare recipients use illegal drugs. If you can’t say it out loud, then there’s no hope for you.

    I think that you should watch the welfare roles of Florida closely over the next few months, and see how many people drop off the government dole as a result of this policy. As an aside, when liberals like you talk to me about wasting money I just chuckle. If you’re going to force me to support a nanny-state life-style, I see nothing wrong with ensuring that my money is going to people who at the very least don’t do drugs.

    Since many of you probably get all your taxes refunded, please don’t talk to me about government spending until you put some skin in the game.

    Idiot liberals.

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Adam, If it’s a ‘documented fact’ then cite your source. And make it a credible one.

      • Adam

        @Anomaly100, I would assume that a university paper would suffice. Strangely enough, this was the #1 Google result for “Welfare recipients use drugs.” I can only assume intellectual laziness on your part.
        This paper cites anywhere between 6.6% and 35%, so we could split the difference and call it 20%. Though the paper is intended to refute the cause-effect relationship of drugs and welfare, it does adequately state that welfare recipients use drugs. If we agree to split the difference, it’s 1-in-5 who do.
        “Due to differing definitions and data sources, published prevalence estimates of use vary widely, from 6.6 to 37 percent of those receiving public aid” – http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/

        • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

          @Adam, 6.6% is hardly “many”. That would be considered, ‘few’. Do not assume laziness with me. You are projecting. You left the poorly worded comment saying many welfare recipients are on drugs, thus stereotyping the poor with a broad and undeserving paintbrush.

    • http://www.momsformarijuana.org Theresa Knox

      @Adam, Plenty of CEOs, teachers, law enforcement, astronauts,and clergy use drugs too. If you’re going to drug test one group of ppl, you must test all the other groups too. The list above covers some ppl I would seriously worry about if they were doing drugs… welfare recipients aren’t responsible for the safety or education of my children, the safety of my community, or the safety of the church-going masses. Is everyone’s life so small they have to pick on poor folks?? Go online and read some world news if you want something to bitch about…hell, read about your own president spending tax dollars on war with Libya without our consent, or the consent of Congress. What have welfare recipients ever done to you? Collected welfare?? That’s not their fault, the government runs the program.

      • Adam

        @Theresa Knox, I beg to differ with your comment. You seem to take the position that welfare recipients are entitled to their money without any work on their part. How can asking them for something (a drug test) in order to take part in a program be wrong?

        Your comments about other ‘groups of people’ isn’t germane to this argument. It is precisely BECAUSE the government runs the program that we can require a drug test.

        My position is simple: If the welfare recipients want to get their money, then we should require something from them in turn. In this case, we are requiring they NOT do drugs.

        I have nothing against welfare recipients, I had to take public assistance at one time. I am against subsidizing drug habits with the welfare money. If this is picking on ‘poor folks’ then I’m guilty.

        • http://www.momsformarijuana.org Theresa Knox

          @Adam, Without any work on their part?? Unless disabled, welfare recipients are required to either work or participate in job training programs that are usually scheduled during normal working hours. Once they ‘graduate’ from the program, if they don’t apply for and get work, they will be dropped from the program. This is no longer an opportunity to get something for nothing.

  • Pingback: Andrew A. Sailer

  • http://www.moralintelligence.net/ Abdel Irada

    Paul, this is what happens if you spend too long hanging around comment boards: You lose all control of your punctuation.

    We commenters are, on the whole, a terrible influence. :-S

  • Paul Frank

    popurls.com??? Yay! Your a rock star!

  • Pingback: Drug Testing Of Welfare Recepients So Far, Not Worth The Trouble by ICFire - TribalWar Forums

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
« »