Welfare Limit

stuwee

Well I just got a letter from the State of Arizona today, AHCCCS health care is no longer accepting new applicants as of 7/7/11, I have to have my benefits, so I can only make a small amount per year to stay under the cap. I can't afford the $3,000+ every three months for MRI's and the Dr. followup. It's a catch 22 :frown:. If I screw up and lose my coverage, well, I can't let that happen. AZ is cutting waaay back on lots of stuff. I deserve my benefits, I worked hard for a long time. Payed my dues etc...

txcoastal1

I would also like to see states incorporate a 3 strikes your out of welfare when tested for drugs program.

I travel state wide and watch people move to specific towns to get the most bang for their buck sitting on the porchs at noon drinking "40's"

Something has gotta give folks

tonyb

txcoastal1 wrote: »

I would also like to see states incorporate a 3 strikes your out of welfare when tested for drugs program.

I travel state wide and watch people move to specific towns to get the most bang for their buck sitting on the porchs at noon drinking "40's"

Something has gotta give folks

Yep, here too, and when that happens, instant slums. Heck the whole south side is like that in Chicago.

I think the 4 years is to start weening people off, but I can see it going down to 2 years down the road. Like the 3 strikes and out idea, but can a stressed state budget in reality pay for drug tests to such a large amount of people ?
Probably not.

I think you'll see more and more states come up with measures like this since they will get less and less coin from the Feds and these welfare programs will have to be funded more so from state budgets.

SDA1C

Since you'd only pay out about half the welfare if you started drug testing I dont see a problem in the cost for it. Your never going to catch everyone but those instant onsite test cups are only 10 bucks a piece so one fail would cover quite a few of them.

tonyb

Maybe so....I dunno, good idea anyway except you would then have the usual suspects crying that your racially profileing. Hence, nothing gets done.

SDA1C

I'm not sure profiling could be sited if everyone had to do it. I'm sure some would try though but when it comes to a free handout I bet there could be legal disclaimers on that angle as well. My bet is you'd only have to do it for about 3 months anyway and the list would be considerably shorter. I think Florida is on the right track. I have to piss to be able to work for mine. The least they could do is piss to get theirs for free.

tonyb

I guess, but a way around pissing in a cup is to bring in someone else's piss and pour it in the cup in the bathroom, unless they watch you from start to finish. Don't know, never had to do it.

SDA1C

I have to piss once a month for some jobsites (nuclear) and more on some depending on random tests. The temperature has to be spot on. There are ways around it but its quite expensive and generally out of financial reach for a welfare recip. Some will slip through for sure but the chances of slipping 3 or 4 months in a row is very unlikely.

steveinaz

Everything involves profiling, we're just not suppose to say it out loud.

steveinaz

cnh wrote: »

Not to be contentious, but how about a drug test and morality test for our CEO's? How many are addicted to various substances? How many cheat on their wives? How many deal with inside trader information, etc.?
cnh

Sure, punishing the successful is always beneficial to a democracy. [/sarcasm]

exalted512

tonyb wrote: »

but can a stressed state budget in reality pay for drug tests to such a large amount of people ?
Probably not.

Easy. Everyone pays $20 for the drug test. If you pass, you get reimbursed on site.

SDA1C wrote: »

I'm not sure profiling could be sited if everyone had to do it.

PLEASE. When Florida started their piss tests, people instantly screamed profiling.
-Cody

SDA1C

I didn't say they wouldn't try it...in fact I believe I said some would. But the case for it would be nill as everyone would have to take and pass the test. I guess the only profile there would be the....Lazy? Is that even a profile? Your welcome!

ysss

exalted512 wrote: »

Easy. Everyone pays $20 for the drug test. If you pass, you get reimbursed on site.

Love this.
They should do this. stat.

Polkie2009

Good idea exalted512, if they don't want to pay 20 bucks for the drug test, they don't get to stay on welfare.

steveinaz

Hand outs have nothing to do with Liberty; in fact, they are the enemy of it.

tonyb

Originally Posted by cnh
Not to be contentious, but how about a drug test and morality test for our CEO's? How many are addicted to various substances? How many cheat on their wives? How many deal with inside trader information, etc.?
cnh

Whats morals have to do with being a CEO ? Drug test ? Why ? Cheaters ?? Who cares ?
This isn't a reality TV show.
While I still believe in limited welfare to offer those down on their luck a hand up, a never ending handout is what most will disagree with. Michigan is on the right path imho.

Now, if you want to travel down that road of corporate welfare, thats a whole nutha ball game. One we have discussed around here many a times and usually results in getting a thread closed quicker than keiko can post a pic of his fav. pie.

madmax

txcoastal1 wrote: »

I travel state wide and watch people move to specific towns to get the most bang for their buck sitting on the porchs at noon drinking "40's"

So that was you. I waved but you drove right by. :biggrin:

WilliamM2

SDA1C wrote: »

Since you'd only pay out about half the welfare if you started drug testing I dont see a problem in the cost for it. Your never going to catch everyone but those instant onsite test cups are only 10 bucks a piece so one fail would cover quite a few of them.

The cups that test for several drugs are actually about $30. Still cheap, but they are known to occasionally have false positives, so if they get a positive result, it's followed up with a gas chromatography test for verification of each drug that came up positive. That's about $200 each, and can get pricey.

Keep in mind that just about all drugs, including heroin, are out of your system in 2 to 3 days. Probably only catch the pot smokers.

aviator

Fixing welfare by peeing in a cup, time limits, making them pickup trash, etc, etc is all BS; welfare is fixed by abolishing it.

Why should a man or woman have to carry the dead weight of another on their back?

SDA1C

WilliamM2 wrote: »

The cups that test for several drugs are actually about $30. Still cheap, but they are known to occasionally have false positives, so if they get a positive result, it's followed up with a gas chromatography test for verification of each drug that came up positive. That's about $200 each, and can get pricey.

Keep in mind that just about all drugs, including heroin, are out of your system in 2 to 3 days. Probably only catch the pot smokers.

Yea I get cha. Are there any tests that would work more effectively than the instacup? We had some onsite test for randoms and they were about 350 for a box of 24. I'm sure the prices have gone up some. For the most part I agree with the testing for the simple fact of Why should welfare recipients collect my tax dollars without having to at least test as thoroughly as I did to earn the tax money they are receiving? If there's nothing to hide whats the biggie I guess.

I heard an earlier argument of guilty until proven innocent. With that line of thinking I fell obligated (financially) until I can prove its not my burden. Why must I be the guilty till innocent one when I'm the one that's working for the money in the first place?

1C

treitz3

aviator wrote: »

Fixing welfare by peeing in a cup, time limits, making them pickup trash, etc, etc is all BS; welfare is fixed by abolishing it.

Why should a man or woman have to carry the dead weight of another on their back?

Because some folks actually do need the help and they can be put into a situation that they had not one ounce of control over. Helping those folks out should be a patriotic and worthwhile duty of the American people.

The lifetime, generational welfare folks are the ones that bring up topics such as this. That, I actually agree with you on. Abolish it or at the very least, limit it. Personally, I think it should only be offered to folks who pay taxes [or have paid taxes] and who are legal Americans for a lifetime limit of four years. You could use it however many times you actually needed it, but once you hit 48 months? That's it for the handouts. Get a job. Any job.

Excellent idea, exalted512. I'm in favor of the $20, instant refund to stay on policy. I swear, the minds at Club Polk could do a better job at running the country than the elected.

exalted512

treitz3 wrote: »

Excellent idea, exalted512. I'm in favor of the $20, instant refund to stay on policy. I swear, the minds at Club Polk could do a better job at running the country than the elected.

As president, I would establish helmet laws nation-wide:biggrin:
-Cody

Upstatemax

exalted512 wrote: »

As president, I would establish helmet laws nation-wide:biggrin:
-Cody

Lol, then you can tax the hell out of them to fund welfare!

treitz3

I don't want to wear a helmet when I drive my big wheel. You do not get my vote.

steveinaz

While you're at it, ask the gub'ment what the hell they are doing with all those cigarette taxes they collect from me. I could probably save social security from tanking by myself.

exalted512

Don't get me started on social security...


Vote for me. I'd legalize marijuana.


-Cody

Joe08867

exalted512 wrote: »

Don't get me started on social security...


Vote for me. I'd legalize marijuana.


-Cody

You got my vote, although I never exhaled!! :biggrin: I mean inhaled.:eek: Damn it!!!!!! :mad:

aviator

treitz3 wrote: »

Because some folks actually do need the help and they can be put into a situation that they had not one ounce of control over. /QUOTE]

So A's need of help makes B a slave to A?


Does B's life belong to B or does B's life belong to A?

steveinaz

I wonder what people did in 1865? Oh...that's right, they bucked up or they starved to death. I would guess 99% of them "bucked up."

treitz3

To "aviator"...ugh...never mind. If you can not accept that some folks legitimately need help, I'm not going to try to change your mind. Maybe American soldiers can decide for themselves whether or not Americans no longer need help enjoying their freedom. Maybe they should just all pack it up and come on home because in your eyes, no body needs or deserves help.