Finally, Florida Drug Test People On Welfare

[syrenn]

As far as i am concerned if they fail the test.... no one gets a check.

 

[dblack]

They may be illegal but why should the government subsidize the illegal behavior.

That's a ruse. No one is saying they (we) should subsidize illegal behavior. Anyone caught breaking the law should be prosecuted and, if they were using welfare benefits to aid them in that effort, be rejected from any future benefits. That's not the issue.

The question is, what rules of evidence and criminal prosecution should apply. For normal citizens, there has to be some evidence, some reasonable suspicion that a specific person is breaking the law before we can search them, detain them or make them take body chemical tests. But Florida has decided that anyone who applies for welfare forfeits these protections. They are second-class citizens and must prove their innocence before they can receive benefits.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Do you praise Jesus with that mouth? Or do you dress up like him for your drag balls.



So now you're telling me that it would be illegal to wax my body before a drug test.

Awesome!

No, XXXX, it's not illegal to be unable to give a sample. It just disqualifies you automatically from whatever you were applying for. So your oh-so-brilliant plan to "beat" the drug test just beat YOU out of the job - or, in this case, welfare - that you wanted in the first place. Congratulations. I guess that shows us all how intelligent illegal drug use makes you.

If Jesus has a problem with how I talk, I feel certain that He can find a better spokesperson than a brain-damaged, hypocritical liberal twat to tell me about it. Hell, the traditional jawbone of an ass would be more credible. So please don't flatter yourself that you speak for God, OR that you have any moral credibility with which to speak to me on your own.

Like how the champions of "tolerance and diversity" can't wait to trot out people's personal lives and criticize them every chance they get, though. Must make the gays feel really good to have such an openminded person as you on their side.

I never championed tolerance and diversity. You're welcome to hate anyone you like, you adulterous skank.

Those ideas are nothing when you truly look at the world from the outside looking in..

You speak all these ideas - well get general with them.

 

[Mr.Nick]

They may be illegal but why should the government subsidize the illegal behavior.

That's a ruse. No one is saying they (we) should subsidize illegal behavior. Anyone caught breaking the law should be prosecuted and, if they were using welfare benefits to aid them in that effort, be rejected from any future benefits. That's not the issue.

The question is, what rules of evidence and criminal prosecution should apply. For normal citizens, there has to be some evidence, some reasonable suspicion that a specific person is breaking the law before we can search them, detain them or make them take body chemical tests. But Florida has decided that anyone who applies for welfare forfeits these protections. They are second-class citizens and must prove their innocence before they can receive benefits.

They're not "second class citizens" they just need to meet the requirements or prerequisites for social programs...

Those that want free gas, food and rent have a choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think welfare should have a maximum term of say 18 months and after that then you are done with it and I also agree with the drug testing of recepients. However I do have a problem with the governor having conections to the clinics that won the bid.

I can't link because I don't have enough post's but you can google Rick Scott Solantic and there is a lot of controversy over it. He owned Solantic at the time that the company won the bid and stood to gain over 50 million of the deal. He supposedly sold out to a N.C. investor group about 10 several months ago, but still has stock in it.

I believe cash assistance has a lifetime limit somewhere around two years. So far as I can tell, food stamps and Medicaid don't have lmits.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I think welfare should have a maximum term of say 18 months and after that then you are done with it and I also agree with the drug testing of recepients. However I do have a problem with the governor having conections to the clinics that won the bid.

I can't link because I don't have enough post's but you can google Rick Scott Solantic and there is a lot of controversy over it. He owned Solantic at the time that the company won the bid and stood to gain over 50 million of the deal. He supposedly sold out to a N.C. investor group about 10 several months ago, but still has stock in it.

I believe cash assistance has a lifetime limit somewhere around two years. So far as I can tell, food stamps and Medicaid don't have lmits.

Wow, what are your requirements for food stamp welfare?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I said "show", not "tell".

You want pictures?? I don't think there's an illustrated version of the Constitution. You'll have to do some reading.

Strike one!

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but no dice. It's the fucking Constitution. I don't "need pictures", I need you to quote the fucking text that supports your evidence, instead of trying to bluff with "just read it and you'll see where I'm right, no I won't tell you specifically what it says, but you'll see it, I'm sure". If the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments contain text that agrees with your argument, then you should be able to cite that text just as easily as you can airily toss out "the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, for starters".

This ain't the farm league, punkin. Time to bring your "A" game.

... there's no such thing as a "basic right to privacy". I dare you to find it anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution protects VERY SPECIFIC privacy rights, under VERY SPECIFIC circumstances.

Yeah. See, we're disagreeing on the fundamental way the Constitution works. You're going with the usual liberal line that we have no rights other than those specifically cited in the Constitution. The ninth amendment makes it pretty clear that's not how it's supposed to work. In any case, if that's how you see it, there's not really enough common ground for us to have a fruitful discussion on constitutional matters.

The "fundamental way the Constitution works" is that it's a bunch of words, arranged into the sentences. The words mean things, and when they're grouped together, they produce even bigger meanings. And, see, people read them. It's not exactly rocket magic.

You ever call me a liberal, even by implication, again, I'll come over there and smack you until your eyes switch sockets. I don't have to listen to that kind of nasty talk.

Anyone who thinks it's a LIBERAL line that the meaning of the Constitution is confined only to what it actually says is too fucking stupid to even warrant a reply. Ditto the idea that the Ninth Amendment can POSSIBLY guarantee something as general and vague as a "basic right to privacy" when logic demands that such a "right" is already hedged in on all sides before one even gets that far.

Strike two!

What happens if and when we get socialized health care? When we're all paying taxes to the state and dependent on state policy for our health care? Can't you see similar policies demanding that we take tests to prove we haven't been smoking? People will make similar arguments to what we're seeing here: "Why should we pay for the health care of people with unhealthy personal habits?"

Not the same thing. If, God forbid, we get stuck with socialized health care, it will be mandated onto everyone, rather than being an entitlement program for which one must meet certain qualifications. As such, it won't be as though we will have any ability to restrict who gets it or who doesn't...

Wanna bet?

Sadly, I suspect we're going to find out. And I'll be very surprised if we aren't having exactly these same kinds of arguments then: "Why should my tax dollars be spent on cancer treatment for someone who smoked their whole life?", "Why should I have to pay for aids treatment for gays?", "Why should we have to provide expensive health care to fatsos who can't be bothered to put down the twinkie and exercise?"

I wonder which side of that argument you'll be on?

Yeah, I wanna bet. Comparing a program in which participation is voluntary and strictly limited to a specific segment of society that meets set criteria, and a program (however speculative) that is mandatory for ALL members of society, no matter what, is comparing apples and oranges.

Meanwhile, any arguments regarding, "Why the fuck am I paying for this guy's cancer treatments?" or whatever from conservatives are undoubtedly going to continue to be based on the premise that socialized medicine has no business existing in the US at all, not on trying to "tweak" it into shape.

 

[yidnar]

Yes, she did. It's a matter of public record.

I can use a lot of exclamation points, too!!! I have family and friends there, too!!!

Have a nice day, bubble brain.

The night before the storms hit Bush called Blanco and begged her to sign the work for the feds to come in she refused. IF she would have done that the help would have been there on time!!! Nagin also refused help saying they could handle it and did not have a plan. The thing living in hurricane alley you never think its going to hit. You have been through so many and they always missed New Orleans. Their time was up. I have lived in hurricane country my whole adult life . You have to prepare to evacuate . We prepare every year. We have an evacuation route. If its higher then low cat 3 we leave period. If you half a brain you dont stay for the storms. You have days and days to prepare. If you leave and it doesnt happen you have a small vacation. People can sock away a few dollars a month to evacuate. It really is not all that expensive especially if you go to a shelter

don't worry the police will protect us........EEEERRRR

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does whether or not the taxpayers have a choice in paying have to do with anything[?]

Because these programs were voted on, and paid for by taxpayers under the assumption that they wouldn't have to 'pee in a cup', or be subjected to any other intrusive measures, to utilize them. It's the same reason it would be patently unfair to start means testing Social Security. It's bait and switch.

Oh, yeah, THAT was the major concern back in the 1930s when welfare was started: "As long as no one has to pee in a cup, I guess we can give away government checks."

As to "intrusive measures", you obviously have never taken a gander at the application form you have to fill out for this crap, or the amount of supplementary paperwork they demand you bring in to them.

I have to tell you that the word "unfair" means nothing to me whatsoever. I consider it a kindergarten word, signifying an utterly subjective concept only believed in by children and those who haven't matured past that point yet.

By your standard, it would be "unfair" to ever change or modify ANY law after it's passed, because it's a "bait and switch" to implement one thing and then decide to modify it down the road. You'll excuse me if that argument leaves me less than impressed. Way back in the 1930s, when welfare first began, there was little problem with people deciding to become useless and potentially dangerous parasites on society via a government stipend every month. Times have changed.

they [taxpayers] have a right to put damned near any requirements they like on receiving benefits

If that's your view, then they'd have the same right to put damned near any requirements they like on receiving health care (assuming that state takes that over), right?

As a matter of fact, if they are paying for it, that is quite correct. However, one of the biggest and most objectionable points about socialized medicine is that it in no way restricts or limits itself to certain segments of the population who need help, as Medicaid and Medicare do now, but extends itself to everyone, no matter what, and whether they want it or not. This obviates any sort of "eligibility requirements", since apparently, the only eligibility required would be to be in the country.

The operative point is that the PEOPLE BEING TESTED can choose whether or not to participate, same as a job applicant can. It's completely voluntary.

Nope. Participation is a two way street. We're all forced to 'participate' in welfare by paying for it. Again, it would be like adding a bunch of new requirements preventing people from getting Social Security after they'd paid into it all their lives.

This endless blather about "the taxpayer" still has fuck-all to do with the people actually getting tested. If someone was suggesting that the taxpayers be drug-tested before paying for welfare entitlements, that would be different.

It is NOTHING like adding new requirements to Social Security (which, in fact, we have done before when we raised the retirement age), because welfare is not something you pay into with the implied guarantee that you will then have it returned to you at a later date (unless you somehow become rich before then). You don't know much about welfare if you think there are scads of people getting it who have paid bunches of money in taxes beforehand.

And if you're on welfare, you're almost certainly not "getting it back", because it's highly unlikely that you've contributed much of anything to "get back". ...

You have any stats on that? I'm sure there are 'lifers' on the welfare roles, but I've known a fair number of people who have utilized such programs and gone on to very productive lives - or lived very productive lives and then found themselves down and out and in need of such programs. In any case, I think this gets to the core of the conservative position on this issue. It's the usual self-righteous desire to lord it over people whom they disapprove of. And that's just ugly

Yes, if you're really that thick and dimwitted that you need mathematical proof that the sky is blue and water is wet, I can find you stats on it. I'd be gratified, though, if you people would bother to gain some real-world experience before shooting your mouths off about things you've never experienced and people you would never deign to associate with.

Ninety-six percent of current welfare recipients are women, to start with. Forty-four percent of current welfare recipients have never been married, while another 34% are widowed, divorced, or separated. In other words, something like just over three-quarters of all welfare recipients are single women.

Furthermore, 70% of welfare recipients - who we've just established are almost certainly single women - are 18 to 35 years old. And, of course, they have children, since IF you can even get welfare without children, you'd have to be so disabled as to be unable to work, which would obviate paying any taxes, now wouldn't it? But back to the children. Twenty-five percent of welfare recipients have one child, 33% have two, and 41% have three or more. And the age of the youngest child in the family breaks down to almost 40% under 3, and another 31% between 3 and 6.

While we're at it, 40% of welfare recipients never graduated high school. Another 35% or so have a high school diploma or GED, and that's it.

So you tell me. How likely are a gaggle of single mothers in their twenties(ish) with little or no education and at least one child under the age of six to have paid a whole bunch of money in taxes before they hit the welfare rolls? Murphy Brown and "Friends" notwithstanding, single mothers are known to be THE biggest demographic below the poverty line by a wide margin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think welfare should have a maximum term of say 18 months and after that then you are done with it and I also agree with the drug testing of recepients. However I do have a problem with the governor having conections to the clinics that won the bid.

I can't link because I don't have enough post's but you can google Rick Scott Solantic and there is a lot of controversy over it. He owned Solantic at the time that the company won the bid and stood to gain over 50 million of the deal. He supposedly sold out to a N.C. investor group about 10 several months ago, but still has stock in it.

I believe cash assistance has a lifetime limit somewhere around two years. So far as I can tell, food stamps and Medicaid don't have lmits.

Wow, what are your requirements for food stamp welfare?

Well, for starters, there's the financial eligibility, which is based on the family's gross and net income. For a single person household, the income cap is at $1,174 gross monthly and $903 net. A two person family cannot gross more than $1,579 and still receive benefits, a three-person family must make below $1,984 gross each month; this amount rises by $406 for each family member and the net income guidelines rise by $312 for each family member.

There are also a lot of requirements about the types and value of certain assets and resources you can own, like your cars.

And if you're an immigrant, you have to have lived here for at least five years before you're eligible for Food Stamps.

 

[Ravi]

Military pay checks are government issued also. They are pissed tested regularly for obvious reasons.......You got a problem with that also?

You're confusing an employer/employee relationship with a taxpayer supported service. If you choose not to become an employee, you don't have to meet any employer's demands. But with a state service, we can't choose not to participate. Taxes aren't voluntary and we're required to pay into the welfare state whether we use it or not. You can choose not to apply for welfare when eligible, but you can't choose not to pay for it. What you're advocating is the usual state strategy of taking money from us by force (in the form of taxes) and then making us jump through hoops to get it back.

I'm going to keep bringing up the health care example as long as you all keep ignoring it. Because it's very likely to be the next step in the growth of state power. When the state takes over health care, will you be as excited about a list of intrusive requirements in order to see a doctor? Will it be ok for the state to require you to prove that you don't smoke, that you eat a healthy diet, that you exercise as they tell you, as prerequisites to receiving state health care that your taxes have already paid for?

You are absolutely right except that the state isn't taking over health care. A requirement to have insurance isn't the state taking over health care.

 

[strollingbones]

am i the only one seeing the irony of florida doing this while at the same time having the most 'cash only' pain management clinics.....

seems to me...they dont want to bother the cash only clinics.....why is that....follow the money

 

[Ravi]

You DO realize that no one is entitled to an entitlement program, right??

It is completely voluntary.

Sorry about the "the assumption that they wouldn't have to 'pee in a cup'" argument.
Laws change all the time.
The crack-smoking leaches should have elected a more scum-sympathetic representative.
They're no different than the rest of us. If they don't like the law, elect someone to change it.

Meanwhile, you don't get to use my money to buy your drugs.

It isn't completely voluntary if we are forced to pay taxes to fund it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Use of illegal drugs is far different from ABUSE of illegal drugs. The problem is that drug use is often a big reason WHY someone is on welfare, not because they are just using, but because the use of the drugs affects thier ability to be functioning members of society.

A person who holds down a steady job and contributes to society can inject/snort/smoke/drink whatever they want, and pay whatever legal consequences happen. Once you become a ward of the state, then the state should have the ability to control what you do with the money, and what you need to do to keep getting the money.

Bring PROOF of your slime ball beliefs.

All i did was point out that the study you referenced was based on ANY drug use, not abuse. It is not a belief that poorer people often have greater drug abuse problems and consequences from those drug abuse problems, it is reality.

The difference is again not in the use of drugs, but in the fact that these people are wards of the state by thier use of state funds without providing a meaningful service in return. The state should then be able to set the conditions of said use.

As for the personal attacks....

I didn't ask for you to rephrase your ignorance and bias; I asked for PROOF.

 

[Douger]

If you live in Floridastan and don't have guns and a concealed carry permit, I suggest you get on it.
Wait until they start testing the people on SS disability !
Ever see Mad Max ?

 

[dblack]

You ever call me a liberal, even by implication, again, I'll come over there and smack you until your eyes switch sockets. I don't have to listen to that kind of nasty talk.

Heh.. touched a nerve, eh? Fwiw, I didn't 'call' you a liberal. I said you're using the same line Democrats use to defend overreaching government - which you are.

Yeah, I wanna bet. Comparing a program in which participation is voluntary and strictly limited to a specific segment of society that meets set criteria, and a program (however speculative) that is mandatory for ALL members of society, no matter what, is comparing apples and oranges.

Meanwhile, any arguments regarding, "Why the fuck am I paying for this guy's cancer treatments?" or whatever from conservatives are undoubtedly going to continue to be based on the premise that socialized medicine has no business existing in the US at all, not on trying to "tweak" it into shape.

The bet isn't over the comparison. The bet is whether the state will attempt to do the same kind of arm twisting when taxpayers are paying for health care. It will be the same dynamic. The Dems will push us into dependency on the state, and the Rethugs will happily use that dependency to bully people around. You'all make a good tag team.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is exactly what I'm talking about as far as owning you.
A hair follicle test shows all the drugs you have taken...the longer the hair the more data it would show. Can't cheat on that test, son.
Nice playing with ya bfd...got some yardwork to do and some volunteer work at the church. Just so you don't think I'm cutting and running after I owned you.

Let's go back to my original true statement:

"They are not going to catch people using hard core drugs. Your body assimilates them within a day or two. They are only going to catch people who smoke marijuana, because it stays in your system for a month."

As the chart clearly shows, the body does assimilate the destructive drugs rapidly. Testing the body's waste substances, i.e. urine or hair, reveals what WAS in your system. Do you understand?

NOW, what form of testing is Florida using? Do you know? I would give you a hint, but it might PISS you off...LOL

BTW, do they have any Bibles at your church? Because nothing in the Bible or what Jesus taught would fit with your scum bag bias, ignorance or love of punishment of the poor. As a matter of FACT, the Bible and Jesus preached the OPPOSITE.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[chanel]

You ever call me a liberal, even by implication, again, I'll come over there and smack you until your eyes switch sockets. I don't have to listen to that kind of nasty talk.

Heh.. touched a nerve, eh? Fwiw, I didn't 'call' you a liberal. I said you're using the same line Democrats use to defend overreaching government - which you are.

Yeah, I wanna bet. Comparing a program in which participation is voluntary and strictly limited to a specific segment of society that meets set criteria, and a program (however speculative) that is mandatory for ALL members of society, no matter what, is comparing apples and oranges.

Meanwhile, any arguments regarding, "Why the fuck am I paying for this guy's cancer treatments?" or whatever from conservatives are undoubtedly going to continue to be based on the premise that socialized medicine has no business existing in the US at all, not on trying to "tweak" it into shape.

The bet isn't over the comparison. The bet is whether the state will attempt to do the same kind of arm twisting when taxpayers are paying for health care. It will be the same dynamic. The Dems will push us into dependency on the state, and the Rethugs will happily use that dependency to bully people around. You'all make a good tag team.

I think you both made excellent points and counter-points. Kudos.

It just never ceases to amaze me that the nanny-staters (mostly D's) have no problem with smoking bans, food restrictions, elimination of playgrounds, etc. all in the name of the "children". But when it comes to kids with crackhead parents, it's no one else's business.

 

[Bfgrn]

These threads always strike me as funny, the wolves are stealing the chickens while the chickens fight among themselves over bits of corn. When did America change from a land that went after the big criminals to a land that only goes after the needy? One would think welfare was riches, Reagan's Cadillac mom was fiction but remains the deepest thought the wingnuts can harbor in that empty space between their ears.

Professor George Lakoff hits the nail right on the head. Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.



What conservatives really want

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.

The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse."
Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."
Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Bfgrn]

So notorious Medicaid fraudster Governor Scott has found a new way to enrich his pockets with a local boondoggle.

He has personal and financial ties to the companies being brought in to test the welfare recipients. For a state which is short on cash, this plan represents a major expansion of government bureaucracy and costs.

Legal costs alone for the various lawsuits and administrative hearings involved will bankrupt the state.
-Since welfare benefits are a right protected by due process, you will flood the courts with people disputing the benefits being cut-off.
-The mailing of the notices of the tests and monitoring of compliance with them will require major increases in administrative staff alone
-Legal staff for the state will need to be beefed up just to handle the class action suits against the state as a violation of 14th Amendment due process and equal protection rights.


"Once you become a ward of the state, then the state should have the ability to control what you do with the money"

So when you draw a paycheck, does your boss have a right to examine your bank statements?

Scott is a slime ball...

Bureaucrats to Tell Employees Which HMO to Use

Florida Governor Scott Reduces Choice and Competition in Health Care

So much for choice and competition, which opponents of the Democrats' vision of reform, including Scott, claimed would vanish if "Obamacare" were enacted. It seems as if one of the leaders of the anti-reform crowd wasn't a true believer in the value of choice and competition after all.