Drug Testing for welfare recipients

[AGDee]

You can't really make any money at all if you're single and need to be on Medicaid. The reason having kids helps is because you can make more money if you have dependents. The financial requirements for medicaid are really tough. Your friend is the perfect example of the working uninsured.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Here she is, a working law-abiding individual affected by the economy, and she can't get any help. You're almost better off going and having a kid out of wedlock so you can get help.

Pretty much. That's one of the reasons we have generations of families living in housing projects and on welfare.

[nikki1920]

Medicaid, by definition, is a program for children under 19, pregnant women (ends 60 days after birth for mom unless she meets the income requirements) and FAMILIES with low or no income AND for adults over age 65, legally blind or legally disabled (i.e, disability determined by Social Security Administration). There is also a program that helps those who have Breast, Cerivcal and Ovarian cancer. There maybe programs that are available for people who aren't qualified for Medicaid. Again, I can only go by what we do here in my county in Va. Your friend should start at the health department and ask if there are any insurance programs for people who can't get Medicaid.

The reasons you have generations of families in housing projects and on welfare are a lot more varied than that, munchkin.

ADC doesn't exist anymore, the name of that program has been changed to TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

The reasons you have generations of families in housing projects and on welfare are a lot more varied than that, munchkin.

That's why I said:

"That's one of the reasons we have generations of families living in housing projects and on welfare,"

and not

"That's the reason we have generations of families living in housing projects and on welfare."

[nikki1920]

I meant to say that it's not as simplistic as you are making it out to be.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

Medicaid, by definition, is a program for children under 19, pregnant women (ends 60 days after birth for mom unless she meets the income requirements) and FAMILIES with low or no income AND for adults over age 65, legally blind or legally disabled (i.e, disability determined by Social Security Administration). There is also a program that helps those who have Breast, Cerivcal and Ovarian cancer. There maybe programs that are available for people who aren't qualified for Medicaid. Again, I can only go by what we do here in my county in Va. Your friend should start at the health department and ask if there are any insurance programs for people who can't get Medicaid.

The reasons you have generations of families in housing projects and on welfare are a lot more varied than that, munchkin.

ADC doesn't exist anymore, the name of that program has been changed to TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)

Maybe I'm thinking of Medicare?

[nikki1920]

Medicare is for people over 65.

I know, its all confusing. Add to that all the acronyms and policies and ages and it's a wonder that I haven't needed more professional help!! lol.

[AGDee]

I know of single people with no dependents who are on Medicaid but they have nothing.. no house, no savings, no car, etc. Since Medicaid is administered by the state, I imagine the rules change from state to state with it.

The other people who can get Medicare are people on Social Security Disability.

[madmax]

AGDee
Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,197

I know of single people with no dependents who are on Medicaid but they have nothing.. no house, no savings, no car, etc. Since Medicaid is administered by the state, I imagine the rules change from state to state with it.

The other people who can get Medicare are people on Social Security Disability.
__________________
AGD
Inspire the Woman. Impact the World.

I bet they have a cell phone, rims, HD TV and an X-box.

[AGDee]

No, they don't have any of those things

[nikki1920]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I know of single people with no dependents who are on Medicaid but they have nothing.. no house, no savings, no car, etc. Since Medicaid is administered by the state, I imagine the rules change from state to state with it.

The other people who can get Medicare are people on Social Security Disability.

Medicare is for people aged 65 and older. The rules for Medicaid don't change from state to state.

[AGDee]

Both of my parents had Medicare before age 65 because they were disabled and on SSD so I know that sometimes happens prior to age 65. From the Social Security site: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10029.html#part10 You will get Medicare coverage automatically after you have received disability benefits for two years.

Michigan's Medicaid website says this: Aged, Blind, Disabled

Medicaid is available to persons who are aged, blind, or disabled. There are income and asset tests. If the income is over the income limit, persons may incur medical expenses that equal or exceed the deductible and still qualify for this program. Most beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicaid health plan and receive a comprehensive package of health care benefits including vision, dental, and mental health services. Contact the local MDHS office in your county to apply for this program.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,...00.html#Adults

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I never said it wasnt acceptable to consider both. In this situation only one is being considered (testing). In my opinion the one that should be the priority is efficiency. I believe that drug testing will not increase efficeincy thus it will be counter productive and should be avoided.

"RSI" requires the "rational" part to apply. Clearly the self-interest involved isn't always rational (as a term of art) so let's just ignore that part and consider this a social system rather than an economic system.

Also, my question is simply why you think this will decrease efficiency? Simply due to the cost involved?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Progress, to me, is not only determined by getting a job. And in this recession there are going to be plenty of people who cant get one. I think the goal of training and education is not only to make workers more employable, but to also help them better themselves and take steps toward a career and not just a job. The job market isn't like it used to be. It used to be that a person could get a job with one company and work for that same company until they retire (My gdad worked for GM for years after the airforce). That doesnt happen any more so people have to look for more than just a job because those come and go quickly.

If there are no jobs available then the person should be taking steps toward building a career. There isnt much any person can do if no one is hiring. If it is quite evident that jobs arent available (as it is now) then progress would be determined by what the person is doing to better themselves via education and training. If a person hasn't found a job in three months, but has enrolled in a GED course and is investigating educational programs (post GED) then that is progress. If the person is taking the courses that are mandatory and performing well in them then that is progress. Another exhibition of progress is volunteering. If a person is giving their time to community service and are having a positive impact then that is progress. A person also could volunteer to do a job for no pay to gain experience. That is progress.

Progress to me is that person taking steps to make themselves better and to plan and prepare for the future. When that person takes steps job or no job in the right direction then I have no problem with them getting assistance.

So what does the person with an MBA, or an engineering degree, or masters degree, and 10-15 years experience in their field do? Not all unemployed people are uneducated or inexperienced or non-professionals - in fact, in my state, which is the most educated in the country, I'd say the vast majority are not. I will never forget going to the unemployment office for a mandatory "audit" and class and being surrounded by people with graduate degrees (including PhDs) who were all being told that they needed to check out getting their GED or an associates degree from the local community college. WTF? The "teacher" of the course was embarassed giving that kind of lecture to people who were mostly more educated than he was! There is nothing they can do for people who already have an education and vast job skills; they just haven't been set up for that.

Also, if people don't have jobs, and banks aren't loaning money for student loans as freely as they used to, how are people supposed to pay for more college and training?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, if people think it's bad now, just wait til six months from now, when people's unemployment runs out! You ain't seen nothin yet!

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

"RSI" requires the "rational" part to apply. Clearly the self-interest involved isn't always rational (as a term of art) so let's just ignore that part and consider this a social system rather than an economic system. It is a social system. I am not saying it is an economic system I am saying that the people are making economic decisions (ie: to keep welfare or not)

Also, my question is simply why you think this will decrease efficiency? Simply due to the cost involved?

I think that this will decrease efficiency in many ways. The cost will be huge and I think that the number of drug users will turn out to be insignificant (as in the amount wouldnt be enough to warrent all the testing). I'd say less than 20 percent of people on welfare are on drugs so that means that you'll be paying for 80% of the people to take tests (an inconviencing them) when they really dont need them. If you're going to test you'd have to do so randomly and multiple times in the year (because if you just scheduled it then people would be able to "beat" the test). And if these are tests where the person goes into a closed room and is not monitored then they could cheat the test as well. Then there is the issue of what you're going to do after a person has failed the test. Are you going to simply kick them off of welfare and let them fend for themselves? That doesnt seem likely because most of the people on welfare have children (or are in some way or another incapable of caring for themselves) and it is defeating the purpose to make more children homeless because of their parents drug use. If you do just completely cut them off then you have to spend money to increase law enforcement and place more stress and need for money on the court system because crime will surely go up. These children will end up in foster care which is already streched to its limits and thus that will need more funding. If you don't outright kick them off of welfare then it would make lawmakers look like idiots for having known drug users on welfare taking up tax dollars and not do anything about it. This means that they'd have to put more money into rehab programs (that druggies may or may not want to get into and that may or may not be successful). If rehab doesnt work out then you're back to the original point where you either kick them off of welfare and place the burden elsewhere or keep them on welfare and look like a complete idiot. And the big kicker is that all of this will be over only 1/5 of the people actually on welfare. More of the dollars that are going into welfare are ultimately going to be used by those that deserve them the least. So that means that 1/5 of the people then are pushed to the forefront of an issue that already has a plethora of image issues. Now the image of welfare suffers damage and even fewer tax payers will want to pay for it while it needs more tax payer dollars.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

So what does the person with an MBA, or an engineering degree, or masters degree, and 10-15 years experience in their field do? Not all unemployed people are uneducated or inexperienced or non-professionals - in fact, in my state, which is the most educated in the country, I'd say the vast majority are not. I will never forget going to the unemployment office for a mandatory "audit" and class and being surrounded by people with graduate degrees (including PhDs) who were all being told that they needed to check out getting their GED or an associates degree from the local community college. WTF? The "teacher" of the course was embarassed giving that kind of lecture to people who were mostly more educated than he was! There is nothing they can do for people who already have an education and vast job skills; they just haven't been set up for that.

Also, if people don't have jobs, and banks aren't loaning money for student loans as freely as they used to, how are people supposed to pay for more college and training?
The government would be paying for that training. Im not talking the government paying for your BA or BS but maybe medical assistant program or something.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, if people think it's bad now, just wait til six months from now, when people's unemployment runs out! You ain't seen nothin yet!

@bolded:
Im willing to bet that the education level on average of welfare recipients is a high school diploma (though that is changing now with the economy where it is). So, the people on welfare being highly educated is probably specific to your state or very few states.

Welfare was not designed for highly educated highly capable people. Unemployment can only go so far and it can only help so much. This program wasnt made to help everyone out. If you have a PhD my expectations of what you should be doing for yourself without the government are much higher. Our schools are in desperate need of teachers and our military needs people as well. If you have a PhD then it is my opinion that you have far more options than a person with no education does. There are plenty of foreign countries and companies that need educated people. They need doctors and lawyers and professors. Your opportunities are so much more vast with a masters or a PhD that honestly I am much less concerned about you than I am about someone who is uneducated. The military wont take you if you dont at least have a highschool diploma or the equivilant. If you have a PhD and you cant get ANY other job then the military is always in need of people and you'll make much more than you can on unemployment. You wont make what you're worth, but you'll make enough to survive.