Where Do You Guys Stand On Drug Testing For Welfare....

[VinnieKulick]

OK, I'll ask you straight out. Should your Father or Grandfather have to take a drug test to qualify for social security benefits?

No, because they paid INTO AN ACCOUNT via pay check deductions, and the government supposedly invested that money and is to pay out a return for their 'investment'.

What do you think the reaction would be if we made that law? Welfare isn't any different.

Yes, welfare is different. There are only TWO things that you pay out of your paycheck, with an expectation that the money is being held for you. Social Security, and Unemployment. Section 8, food stamps, TANF, etc are taken out of general tax dollars, and as a result, NOT the same as the other two.

How would you feel if they told you, a fine upstanding citizen I'm sure, that you had to piss in a cup like a common criminal in order to qualify for the benefits that your tax dollars have payed for all these years?

Well, I've had to piss in a cup for 12 years when I was in the Navy, and had to piss in a cup to GET my last three jobs, so I have NO problem pissing in a cup to provide evidence that I am not breaking the law 'in my own time'.

Do you still "disagree"?

Yep, I sure do!

The cop doesn't have probable cause to search your car. He needs your permission. If there is something in plain view (drug paraphernalia or a weapon) that leads him to believe you are breaking the law, then he has probable cause to search. He can't simply pull you over and search your car.

But, it happens every day, and if you say no, nine times out of ten, the officer 'notices' you slurred a word and whamo! He has probably cause. I know you're not naive enough to believe that's not how it's done.

No, it's not gray area. It's black and white letter of the law. The Supreme Court has clearly defined when the govt. can compel a citizen to take a drug test. Receiving welfare is not one of those situations.

Are you SURE about that? Because the Welfare Reform Act plainly states that states ARE authorized to make drug testing a requirement when applying for public assistance.
AND, Missouri is currently mulling the use of it.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21122

So, if a state enacted this practice and it got to the SCOTUS, the entire law would have to be overturned.

If they pass a law which gives people who meet certain conditions financial assistance, then you have a right to that assistance if you meet those criteria.

And, since the law is already there, then people should be expected to comply, right?

Probable cause doesn't mean you have probably broken the law. It means they are allowed to search you.

REALLY Matlock? I guess Google isn't your friend.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
PROBABLE CAUSE - A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime

It doesn't matter whether it's voluntary. Using a service provided by the govt. doesn't mean you have surrendered your Constitutional rights.

But, you don't HAVE to use the program, just because you qualify for it.

And, again, if the caveat is there that part of QUALIFYING for it is that you have to be FREE FROM ILLEGAL DRUGS, then not everybody qualifies.

[VinnieKulick]

Vinnie, you're probably against abortion, but you'd starve children to death because their parents do drugs? Think about it, man...

What I am for, is personal responsibility. And, like it or not, adhering to the laws of your state and your country, is a personal responsibility.

If I had kids, was dependent on public assistance, and HAD to be drug free, you can bet your sweet ass, I would piss clean every day of the week.

[lerxstcat]

Vinnie, you're probably against abortion, but you'd starve children to death because their parents do drugs? Think about it, man...

What I am for, is personal responsibility. And, like it or not, adhering to the laws of your state and your country, is a personal responsibility.

If I had kids, was dependent on public assistance, and HAD to be drug free, you can bet your sweet ass, I would piss clean every day of the week.

That's great, but it doesn't really answer my question. Would you let the kids starve because their PARENTS break the law? Because that is what you're advocating.

We are talking about whether YOU would punish INNOCENT CHILDREN for the cdrimes of their parents. So, do you think that is appripriate?

[chickenona]

Your link plainly states that even in the version that MO is looking at, the requirement could only be applied if there was "reasonable cause" to believe the applicant might be a risk for drug use.

Not that it matters. Any appeal against such a law would probably never have to make it to the SCOTUS to be declared unconstitutional. I doubt it would withstand a single appeal. It's a clear invasion of privacy.

[VinnieKulick]

That's great, but it doesn't really answer my question. Would you let the kids starve because their PARENTS break the law? Because that is what you're advocating.

We are talking about whether YOU would punish INNOCENT CHILDREN for the cdrimes of their parents. So, do you think that is appripriate?

*I* wouldn't be letting kids starve, their irresponsible parents would.

[lerxstcat]

That's great, but it doesn't really answer my question. Would you let the kids starve because their PARENTS break the law? Because that is what you're advocating.

We are talking about whether YOU would punish INNOCENT CHILDREN for the cdrimes of their parents. So, do you think that is appripriate?

*I* wouldn't be letting kids starve, their irresponsible parents would.

Yes *YOU* would, by voting to deprive their parents of their constitutional rights in order to further deprive the children of money, food and even their parents.

If the kids came begging for scraps at your door, you'd probably sic your dog on 'em too.

[VinnieKulick]

Yeah that's it, blame ME for somebody ELSE breaking the law.

Personal responsibility is dying, all because we're too busy coddling these poor unfortunate souls.

[SmokeyRamone]

what I'm seeing in this thread are a bunch of people who think the government has no right to drug test welfare recipients (which I basically agree with) because it's unconstitutional, they've committed no crime, and basically it's none of the government's business how they live their lives. But many of these same people have no problem with a health care mandate, have no problem with the government dictating how responsible, tax paying citizens should spend their money

I guess if you're a welfare recipient, the government should just butt out and keep giving you your handouts, but if you work hard, pay your taxes and live responsibly, the government should have every right to dictate how you spend your hard earned, post tax income

I don't think either one is constitutional, I just hope we never have to find out

[chickenona]

Actually this board has run pretty much across the board against a health care mandate.

[SmokeyRamone]

Actually this board has run pretty much across the board against a health care mandate.

I've gotten into arguments, actually, debates is probably a better word with a few people that were for them, or at least saw it as a necessary evil like Bane, Ugmo, EYU and Pooldude, not that they were all gung ho about it, but they've all had reasonable arguments for a mandate

[chickenona]

I don't think bane has ever been in favor of a health care mandate. By and large he's pretty conservative.

Those other guys, I admit I may have missed any of them coming out in favor of a mandate because I tend to do drive-bys on this board and don't read a lot of stuff in-depth. I do know most of us who lean left did want to see a public option, but since that's not happening anyway it's kind of a moot point.

[SmokeyRamone]

back when it was more of a hot button issue, Bane and I went back and forth quite a lot on the mandate, he saw it as a necessary evil, which, without a public option I guess it was, I was always dead set against it, he, along with EYU made some really good points about how without a public option, it would be necessary to what Obama was trying to get passed

but you're right, it's all pretty moot now, at least for the time being

[bane]

I don't think bane has ever been in favor of a health care mandate. By and large he's pretty conservative.

Smokey and I had a pretty good debate about it. While I was never really for the mandate, I did think that it was necessary to make the whole thing work without the public option.

[chickenona]

Yeah, it looks like we're gonna be stuck with it regardless, which really sucks.

[lerxstcat]

The mandate IS of dubious constitutionality, wheras a public option where the government established its own system and taxed to fund it, would be eminently constitutional. Because the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to raise taxes, wheras forcing citizens to buy something, maybe not.

Hopefully what will happen is that once the country accepts the concept that national healthcare IS needed, and passes that first bill, then subsequent fine-tuning will discover that the mandate really doesn't work, and then to fix the problem posed by that, the public option will then be accepted as more workable.

We have to remember that if the first attempts prove unworkable, that once the nation has bitten the bullet and realized that this is NEEDED both from a human rights perspective, and even from the perspective of national productivity - that THEN it will become a matter of figuring out, by trial and error as needed, HOW to make it work, once we accept that we NEED to make it work. Laws are fluid and can be changed as needed, nothing we pass is immutable for eternity.

So conservatives in particular might stop wanting to act as though they are. If people are healthier, more of us will get and keep jobs, and show up to work on more days because we aren't as sick. Seems like the rest of the civilized world has been hip to this idea for decades, let's join the party!

[bane]

I'm going to guess that the best shot right now is something like the senate bill, that has the mandate. I just don't see the votes being there for the public option right now. It's too much like the boogeyman that is "socialized medicine" for many to accept. So, something like the senate bill eventually gets passed and somebody takes it to the SCOTUS and it gets struck down, and we're right back where we started. It's a circle jerk clusterfuck but at least Obama and the sitting dems can claim they passed something.

[lerxstcat]

I'm going to guess that the best shot right now is something like the senate bill, that has the mandate. I just don't see the votes being there for the public option right now. It's too much like the boogeyman that is "socialized medicine" for many to accept. So, something like the senate bill eventually gets passed and somebody takes it to the SCOTUS and it gets struck down, and we're right back where we started. It's a circle jerk clusterfuck but at least Obama and the sitting dems can claim they passed something.

Right, but as I said, once we have accepted as a nation that SOMETHING must be done, and the mandate is struck down, then the public option will basically HAVe to be tried. Because again, Federal beaurocracies and taxation to support them ARE constitutional.

I really think we will have a more productive country down the line if people are getting some kind of preventive care from the gate. Healthier people show up to work more. More people working more days equals a more productive nation, and healthier people means less spent in chronic treatment for degenerative diseases. It might take a generation for the benefits to be fully realized, but it'll never happen if we don't start.

[bane]

I don't necessarily disagree with that Lerx, but I don't see any way for it to happen any time soon. If they couldn't do it with the super majority in place it's just going to get a whole lot harder now. Those kind of majorities don't come along very often. I think a more likely scenario is an expansion of medicare payed for by a tax hike on the wealthy. They could probably get that done with the congress we have now.

[Crazy Levi]

Drug testing is lame and this is a stupid idea. Why not test them for potato chips and install software in their TVs to make sure they aren't watching "junk."

[lerxstcat]

I don't necessarily disagree with that Lerx, but I don't see any way for it to happen any time soon. If they couldn't do it with the super majority in place it's just going to get a whole lot harder now. Those kind of majorities don't come along very often. I think a more likely scenario is an expansion of medicare payed for by a tax hike on the wealthy. They could probably get that done with the congress we have now.

That's not a bad idea at all, either. But see, you illustrate my point. Now that the issue has been forced to the point that even conservatives realize SOMETHING must be done, they are now considering alternatives that even a couple of years ago they would not.

Laissez-faire has been the conservative motto for centuries, but there are points along the national evolution where necessary evils - like the income tax, and the government building an interstate highway system - have become so obvious that finally, everyone bites the bullet.

We are now at the point where at least everyone is ready to try something. Conservatives realize it can't be laissez-faire anymore. Hell, it's not just the medical insurance industry, it's the insurance industry PERIOD. The royal fucking we got here in Mississippi, and are still getting post-Katrina, is another example. You can bet your ass that when Cali gets the big quake and the insurance industry tries to pull that shit on a wealthy and powerful part of the country, instead of a weak and poverty-stricken part, that reform will come fast and furious.

The way Enron manipulated the energy market to fuck California on its electricity rates, that is still having repercussions in their economy and by extension the national economy, is a perfect example of how we can't let business piracy continue. I would shoot those fuckers for economic treason.

Letting big insurance and big oil and big pharma fuck us all up the ass has become intolerable, and there's going to be a major reformation, either politically and in a civilized fashion, or it will be very violent and ugly, vigilante-style. So in a way I see the healthcare issue as a major symptom of an even bigger systemic problem in the country.

Free enterprise is the bulwark of our system, but thre are certain areas that make the economy grow and flow where we can't tolerate businessmen squeezing every drop of blood out of the public anymore. We were so wealthy and resource-rich for 50 years following WWII that these issues could be ignored, but it's not that way anymore, and big changes are going to have to come in our society in the areas of healthcare, insurance and energy, which IMO DO need to be quasi-socialized for the efficiency of society as a whole. Or at least reined in so that execs aren't making obscene profits while the working class is ground into poverty.

This republic was designed knowing that conditions would change, and a balance was struck to make change possible,but not so easy that we are always flapping in the wind. These are issues that we began talking about in the 1960s, well it's 50 years since 1960 as of now.

Big oil alone, resisting new energy sources and environmental cleanups that alone is a hge area where they WON'T do it becauser it's right, they will HAVE to have their hand forced. I have seen you point that out yourself in threads about climate change. So we have to shake some things up, while trying to preserve the essence of freedome and capitalism as much as possible. Our world is way different than the world of our parents, and we have to change it even more. Not easy, and great thought needs tom go into it - but what we've been doing for the past 50 years just isn't working anymore, and we have to face up to that.

[VinnieKulick]

Here's my question.
How much is being healthy worth to you?

Is it worth $50 a month?

Is it worth $300 a month?

Because when you complain about the cost of health care, you're saying that your health isn't worth the price that it would take to maintain it.

Saying "I want my healthcare, but I don't want to have to pay for it" or "I don't think those providing my healthcare services are worth what I pay them" tells me that a person just doesn't value their own health.

[bane]

It's not a matter of what it's worth, it's a matter of what you can tolerate. It's insurance. It's a "what if". A lot of people can't afford the luxery of "what if" peace of mind at the expense of more immediate concerns, like food, housing etc.

[VinnieKulick]

It's not a matter of what it's worth, it's a matter of what you can tolerate. It's insurance. It's a "what if". A lot of people can't afford the luxery of "what if" peace of mind at the expense of more immediate concerns, like food, housing etc.

It's EXACTLY a matter of what it's worth.
If you NEED health care/medicine/doctor visits every month, how much is that service worth to you?

Insurance isn't always a "what if" a lot of the time it's a "definite". I myself take about nine medications, which would be a HUGE pain in the ass if I didn't have insurance. But, the thing is, if I DID have to pay for them all out of pocket, I would find a way to do it. (cut internet, cable, etc) because it's worth it to me to have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, no GERD, etc.

[bane]

It's nice that you can "find a way to afford it", but not everyone is that fortunate. Take a 50 something year old guy with say, diabetes. Lets say he loses his job due to the economic downturn. When his options are either having his house foreclosed on, or keeping up his Cobra payments, which one do you think he's going to pick?

[VinnieKulick]

That situation is unfortunate.




But, why is it the tax payer's responsibility to fix it?

[Crazy Levi]

That situation is unfortunate.




But, why is it the tax payer's responsibility to fix it?

Why is it that right wing idiots can only look 1 move ahead in the chess game of life?

Who do you think is going to pay for this guy when he loses his house and then his job and has nothing?

He'll become a fucking ward of the state and a much bigger drain on the god-fearing "taxpayers."

[bane]

Because that's what modern Americans do. We aren't living in the late 18th century and crying "Let them eat cake"! You're paying for it anyway dude. The comedic part of it is, that handled correctly, we'd all be paying less.

[VinnieKulick]

Why is it that right wing idiots can only look 1 move ahead in the chess game of life?

Who do you think is going to pay for this guy when he loses his house and then his job and has nothing?

He'll become a fucking ward of the state and a much bigger drain on the god-fearing "taxpayers."

A ward of the state? Seriously? you think there's some 'orphanage' run by the state handling everybody's needs who end up broke?

Because that's what modern Americans do. We aren't living in the late 18th century and crying "Let them eat cake"! You're paying for it anyway dude. The comedic part of it is, that handled correctly, we'd all be paying less.

"if handled correctly?"
Like Medicare is? Oh, that's right, it's costing about 10 times what they projected.
For the money they want to spend, to set up all of this crap, they could just BUY the fucking insurance for the twenty to forty million people without insurance and you wouldn't be spending all the money they want to spend setting up this bullshit.

[bane]

Yes, if handeled correctly. If you've ever payed any attention to my posts, you must find it obvious that I'm not a proponent of any of the current legislation. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to fixing the problem. The system is definitely broken. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Are you always that black and white?

[VinnieKulick]

Well, when you look at things, in black and white, and see that neither of the bills that were put forward would actually provide or insure insurance for everybody, you realize that the money that they want to spend, isn't going to work.

And, if you look at history and see how the government has handled medicare, you can see that they have no clue how to run an medical insurance program.

And, if you visit any VA hospital, let me know if that's how you'd like to have your medical care administered.

The bottom line is, the government doesn't need to be in a business to compete with or as some people have said, eliminate a private sector industry.

If the government would do some SIMPLE things, it would go a long, LONG way towards getting people covered.

Make it illegal to prevent companies denying previously existing conditions.
Make it legal to sell accross state lines.
Let people get 'pool' insurance coverage.

You can do all of that and not spend a dime of tax payer money.

Just letting the government take control, or enter a division of the private sector, isn't the answer.
Make