No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

And all that article said was that it didn't save money.....It didn't say that it wasted more money. So keep doing it, IMO.

Are we reading the same article?


"Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said."


JC

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Agreed.

And all that article said was that it didn't save money.....It didn't say that it wasted more money. So keep doing it, IMO.

Really? I must have been imagining this then:

Originally Posted by Article

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

Then there's the extra work involved in the process, which undoubtedly resulted in the hiring of more government personnel.

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Really? I must have been imagining this then:



Then there's the extra work involved in the process, which undoubtedly resulted in the hiring of more government personnel.

Most likely government contractors, that money is going into some private company's profits.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

Most likely government contractors, that money is going into some private company's profits.

So instead of wasting money on extra employees, it's wasting extra money on external contractors

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Are we reading the same article?

JC

Yeah we're reading the same article. I just chose to ignore the patent ridiculousness of a "journalist" mentioning a mere $45,000 in the scope of a state government's budget.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Yeah we're reading the same article. I just chose to ignore the patent ridiculousness of a "journalist" mentioning a mere $45,000 in the scope of a state government's budget.

Ignore it if you want, but it's that sort of attitude that rapidly makes a few thousand dollars, here and there, turn into millions. A real conservative should consider if an action is fiscally responsible, rather than making decisions based on some sort of ideological imperative.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Ignore it if you want, but it's that sort of attitude that rapidly makes a few thousand dollars, here and there, turn into millions. A real conservative should consider if an action is fiscally responsible, rather than making decisions based on some sort of ideological imperative.

If you let people think they can get away with abusing the system without any reprecussions, they'll lose respect for rules in general. Seems to me that would end up costing us much more.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

If you let people think they can get away with abusing the system without any reprecussions, they'll lose respect for rules in general. Seems to me that would end up costing us much more.

So you do something to monitor the situation, perhaps by doing a survey style set of tests every few years, then act IF it is found to be fiscally responsible. You don't just jump all over something because it sounds like a good idea.

For example up here, in the Vancouver area, they have done safe injection sites and needle exchanges for IV drug users. Sure, the use of such drugs is illegal, but the reality of the situation is that people do use them, become sick, and then become a burden on the health care system. Just keeping something like two people from getting hepatitis or AIDS, in the long run, pays for such an injection site for a year.