Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would suggest reading more than what you want to read. Here's the table again that takes into consideration the 1500 people that refused the test.
They might of spent $50k on tests but nearly 2 million in benefits was denied.
You're showing facts to a leftist that has no reason to believe facts, even when presented in the manner you have. you're wrong, he is right, and he will tel you that.
It was worth a try, as it sounded like a good idea, but it turned out that it was costing the state more than it was saving.
Drug testing welfare applicants doesn’t save state money, data shows - Florida - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/19/2757792/drug-testing-welfare-applicants.html - broken link)
TALLAHASSEE -- Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.
The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton
I don't need to read the rest of the thread. I could've told them that at the get-go!
The return on investment in this scenario should be ammortized over a 20 to 30-year planning horizon. It really doesn't matter to me if Year 1 of the drug-testing-for-welfare scheme is not cost beneficial. The benefit will come in later years when people know that they won't get benefits if they test positive for drugs. That type of societal correction and attitude adjustment has benefits that outweigh the costs to society. It's worth the upfront costs to set the tone.
The costs are not up front but ongoing. They are testing everyone and each test costs 35 dollars, and the tax payer has to pay for it.
108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed. The 2.6% who failed leaves you with $45,780 in realized losses. The average welfare check in Florida is $366 dollars a month.
108 failed tests x $366/month in benefits = $39528 monthly state welfare liability. Expand that over a year. $39528 x 12 = $474336. Not to mention the $176K in yearly savings from the other 40 who opted out. $500K+ savings on a $46K investment, that's a good return if I ever saw one.
The source is Miami herald, not daily kos. Vast majority of the people who took the test passed, and the taxpayers had to pay for their test, and that is why the program ended up costing more than it is saving.
It was worth a try, as it sounded like a good idea, but it turned out that it was costing the state more than it was saving.
Drug testing welfare applicants doesn’t save state money, data shows - Florida - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/19/2757792/drug-testing-welfare-applicants.html - broken link)
TALLAHASSEE -- Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.
The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton
It was never about drug testing them, it was about the cash the Scott's made off this program... less than 2% actually came back positive, most welfare people passed the drug test clean.
It was a method used by the Scott's to make more money by feeding the tired stereotypes about welfare queens and the conservative idiots ate it all up as usual.
The source is Miami herald, not daily kos. Vast majority of the people who took the test passed, and the taxpayers had to pay for their test, and that is why the program ended up costing more than it is saving.
.....again you're only including the hundred+ that failed the test. What about the 1500 hundred that refused to take the test? You can't fail a test you refuse to take.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
