| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:59 am |
|
| Bill - I read the PM and I understand what you are saying. I'm not a PM type of poster and I won't divulge what you discussed. Good luck with the family and I don't disagree with your thoughts on DHSS.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
| go ahead, I've enabled it for you.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 12:03 pm |
|
PTG I need to discuss something privately with you can I send you a PM?
Bill
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 12:00 pm |
|
Toocoolforschool wrote: I'd like to hear a good reason why drug testing wouldn't be a good idea...there are hard working people in this world who want to work, and are required to pass a drug screening test.
Some interesting facts from a 2002 study:
3.0 million 2001 -2002 marijuana users, overall rates of past-year abuse or dependence increased from 30.2% in 1991-1992 to 35.6% in 2001-2002 .
Almost without exception, the conditional rates of abuse or dependence were larger in the more recent survey, although not all increases were significant. However, significant increases in the prevalence of marijuana abuse or dependence among users were found for both males (33.9% to 38.9%) and females (22.7% to 29.2%), and most notably among 18- to 29-year-old black men (21.8% to 43.0%), 18- to 29-year-old black women (19.1% to 47.2%), and 18- to 29-year-old Hispanic men (29.8% to 53.7%).
These are all working age group people too, many whom have probably been drug tested just like you and me, but guess what it doesn't mean they stay clean, or will ever be tested beyond the initial drug screening.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 03:10 am |
|
That makes you new.
Social Worker wrote:
Actually neither, I have been here 3 yrs.
|
happygoluckyindoverdelaware
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 02:09 am |
|
| honestly i never applied for medicaid...was just told when we did get our insurance..that we were not allowed to have a secondary insurance including medicaid...as for the coworker...she was reported not once but twice...am not quite sure how she has managed to get away with her fraud all this time..but she is living quite nicely right now....am hoping one day she gets slammed! i know that sounds mean...but makes my blood boil when i work my tail off and can barely make ends meet and then there are people like this who live a lot better than i do...
|
Social Worker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
Concerning your coverage.............. depending on your income, if you are at or below 133% of the federal poverty level and have coverage through your employer, Medicaide will pick up as secondary coverage to help supplement the clients income. When you came in, you must of been over that limit which is why you were denied. If you would like to know what the income limit is at 133% for your household size, please feel free to reply and I will let you know.
As for your acqaintance who was married....... workers do have access to Delawares Bureu of Vital Statistics and should access such daily. She could have slipped by if she previously had an open case and never reported her marriage. Her husbands income should have counted towards her, reguardless if she wanted him added to the case or not. As upset as you sound about it, why did you never report this?
As for our investigative unit, YES there is one in place and very much used! It is called ARMS (Audit and recovery management) We literally have investigators who will follow client's, go to their daycare centers to find out if the supposed absent parent is actually signing the child in or out, they will question neighbors, landlords... you name it, they do it! And once fraud has been established, the client is labled and IPV (intentional program violator) required to pay back all benefits for the established time line fraud was ongoing, and banned for life from the program.
The major flaw I personally have with the system is the fact that Delaware does not have legal seperation, so if a client is stating they are currently seperated from their spouse and pending a divorce, their declaration must be tooken. It is only at the workers discretion if the situation seems fishy to send ARMS in, and unfortunately we can't for every situation.
Also, while going through the posts today, I actually found another post similar to mine, however, whoever the worker was more detailed in their response. It is all correct though........ Please feel free to refer to "Mutan" post dated 1/13/2006.
|
Social Worker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 01:46 pm |
|
| Actually neither, I have been here 3 yrs.
|
happygoluckyindoverdelaware
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 11:51 am |
|
| i cannot honestly beleive that those requirements are in place!!! can you tell me how people can have a commercial insurance plus medicaid? when i recieved bcbs they told me that i could NOT have a secondary insurance..so how do people get away with this? i mean honestly do people REALLY check up on these people who abuse the system? i actually worked with one girl, who was married, lived with her husband...and when getting assistance gave them her maiden name...and told them she wasnt married!!!!!! and got all of the assistance you could imagine!!! if these requirements were in place there would be a LOT less abuse of the system!!
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 01:14 am |
|
| You must be a recent hire, or a numb lifer with DHSS.
|
Social Worker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 10:38 pm |
|
I am a Social Worker here in the state, and have been for many years. I have read what you have posted and wanted to clear up any misconceptions concerning welfare and public assistance.
First, any clients coming in who have a drug felony for use (not a distribute felony) are required to have completed a drug program to be issued food benefits. Once they verify successful completion of treatment, for the remainder of time while receiving benefits they are subject to random drug testing, usually with a 48 hr notice. If the test has been missed, they are cut off from receiving such. The same goes for cash assistance programs as well. Now if you know someone who is receiving benefits and is using drugs of any sort, please call your local DSS office to report this-and make sure to write down the name of the worker you have spoken with for follow up. I myself have received such calls and have sent our investigation unit out or have mandated the client for drug testing.
Clients are required to work for their benefits! For Food benefits, the client is required to complete employment and training if unemployed, 20 to 35 hrs per wk, and usually go on to obtain a minimum wage job through employment and training within the first couple months. If they miss a day of training they are closed out of their foodstamps until they comply which usually causes a lapse in benefits for the month.
Cash assistance literally makes you work for your check! As soon as a client applies they have around 2 wks to enroll in employment and training. They do not receive their cash ck until the 2wks has been completed (and are required to go 5 days a wk from then on until employment is obtained). If the client has missed even one day out of those 2 wks, regardless of circumstance, they are required to start all over! Meaning, they can be on their 11th day of class, miss the 12th and have to start back from day one; going another 2 wks before the check is issued. If they do not have child support started, we send them out and will not issue benefits until DCSE has set them up. Once child support has been collected we take back our money. If they have child support already when applying for assistance, we take a portion of that as well!
Think about it for a minute, the max cash benefit for a house hold of 3 is $338 monthly. It pays more to have a minimum wage job then to be on welfare! The average client receives cash no longer than 2 months. Clients do not/can not live off of the state for long! I hope I have cleared up some things for all of you, and feel free to ask anything that may have seemed unclear. Have a good day.
|
hnic
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
| Maybe we can give some welfare recipients that don't want to drug test the job of cleaning up the failed indian river bridge insted of contracting out the removal of the eyesore at tax payer expense.
|
hnic
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
| Marijuana is an illeagal substance and maybe so, he should not have used it unless there were laws that would have in fact allowed him to do so. People who abuse controlled substances for personal use (to get high) are making a mochery of the system in which you are defending. Welfar recipients are not all drug abusers and should not be treated so, and even this being said many of those out there on welfare do in fact use welfare to avoid having to work or being responsible for thier own bills. Such abuse cannot be controlled but at least if we can stop those who abuse narcotics seeking welfare, we may be able to save some tax money and prevent others from having a free ride to substance abuse and burdening our economy.
|
MomOf3inDE
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:22 pm |
|
I am not sure on the drug test issue strictly due to costs...but I do think that welfare recipients could do SOMETHING to earn their $$. There are plenty of roads that have garbage all over them...have them start at one end of Rt. 13 with a trash bag, walk 3.5 hrs picking up trash...then walk the other side back for the next 3.5 hrs picking up the other side of the road. The State of DE does a bid procurement for cleaning up and taking care of specific cemetaries, why not have the welfare recipeints earn their $$ doing that?
I am not sure on the info that was posted by Mutan on what they need to do and that there is no way around that. When I volunteer in my childrens schools, there are plenty of welfare recipients that come and go at different times of the day. Driving off in their car that is nicer than mine, and with their nails done while talking on their cell phones.
Just stop and consider all of the "jobs" that could be accomplished at no additional cost to the state. If they have younger kids there are still things they could do to help out the community. While on maternity leave, I used to take my youngest in the car seat to my other childrens elementary school and work with a group of kids on their reading. My point is if they want to receive from the community they should HAVE to give back in some way, shape or form to their community.
Community service type of jobs that we as tax payers go out and do after doing a full weeks work (Adopt-A-Highway program) If I can work a full time job, care for my 3 kids and volunteer on weekends, I think anyone can manage it, can't they? I think they would find a way if it meant no welfare check at the beginning (middle or end) of each month.
And yes, I am one of those that it drives nuts to see people at the grocery store buying whatever it is they want when I have to budget my grocery allotment each month. My kids would love all the prepared snacks in individual packages, and soda and steak and crab legs...instead I make a trip to Willey Farms, or DSU Farmers Market and buy fresh fruits and veggies and they get whatever meat was on sale at the grocery store that week. There should be limits set on what types of food they can buy..ie: No meat over $3.50 a lb...No soda...etc. If they were limited on what could purchase I think some might have a little incentive for getting off the free help.
If indeed less people are utilizing the $$ each month as a benefit as Mutan suggests then those funds could help cover the costs of drug testing for those who are receiving it. Does anyone know..is there a time limit one can collect food stamps? I know WIC is when a child reaches a specific age...each elementary school child here in Dover (In CSD) has availability to free breakfast every morning, plus welfare parents qualify to get free lunch provided every day for their child...does the state fluctuate the amount of food stamps for the months these kids are in school? They are only feeding their kids 7 dinners, 2 lunches and 2 breakfasts a week. I am just not convinced that the welfare system is being run the way it should/could be to save tax payers the money that it could be. I do not spend $400 a month on groceries to feed a family of 5; 2 adults 3 kids.
And just for the record I am subjected to random drug testing at my job, have been with my employer now for 7 years and have been random tested 6 times I think.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 11:45 am |
|
Bella thank you for your view point without all the insults being hurled. As I said right from my first post fundamentally I agree there should be testing. I just think some caution has to be used in implementing whatever testing is done, instead of a knee jerk reaction policy. I agree also there should be consequences, for abuse of anything.
Unfortunately there are plenty of state and local government employees including teachers, and emergency responders who use drugs on a regular basis and never get caught as well. I believe it is due to the fact that they don't conduct random screening at all on these employees.
Staunch opponets will argue we targeting welfare recipients because they get a "handout" from our tax dollars, and ignoring the people who receive they governmental pay because they are at least employeed.
Everyone including me wants some type of law in place, but we need to keep in mind once a law is passed it's pretty darn hard to undo it, and once precedent is set it opens a potential pandoras box for other laws.
Perfect example that comes to mind for me the following. If a person who is receiving state aid or government pension and has cancer, they smoke marijuana to help alleviate the sickness from cancer treatment which is approved and accepted in several states, do we kick them off the state aid, because our legislators won't pass a medical marijuana bill.
My father passed away from cancer and smoked marijuana to alleviate the sickness he was employed by the government from the day he graduated HS until he retired, he received a government pension.
Should he have lost that because he smoked marijuana?
|
Bella516
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 05:53 am |
|
| I strongly believe that people on welfare should be tested for drugs. I work in a facility that does random drug testing. I must do this to keep my job. So if I pay taxes, and my tax money pays for their assistance, why shouldn't they also be tested randomly. As for the invasion of their privacy......if what you are doing is illegal and wrong then you must pay the consequences. I am also not allowed to do drugs or I would lose my job. If it is okay for us to do this then the government should make it mandatory for them also. There are definately individuals who need welfare and I am sure they are more concerned about getting back on their feet then they are about where their next dime bag is coming from. Some people do require prescription medication. They would obviously be able to provide a doctors note for this as I would also have to do for my employment. The government needs to stop handing out to people who don't deserve the assistance or who abuse the assistance. They should have to follow the same rules as we do........
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 10:11 pm |
|
m3nos95 wrote: Bluesman once again your ingnorance proceeds you. In regards to your statement about stereotyping welfare recipents, once again the ship has left and you are standing on the dock. No one is on trial. When you apply for Welfare, subsidized housing or whatever assistance you may seek you should not confuse the application process with a criminal proceeding. No one is accusing you of anything and the burden of proof does not lie with the prosecution. So your innocent until proven guilty cliche may be placed in the garbage along with your Obama 08 signs. And before I hear the typical liberal arguement "you are accusing me of using drugs", understand that you are not being accused of using drugs, it is a screening process to insure those who receive assistance are not using drugs. Moreover, it would only be considered profiling or stereotyping if you only tested a certain demographic of the population who apply. Once again the presumption is that a percentage of the general population use drugs, not just those who apply for Welfare. Those who apply for Welfare and fail there test would not be permitted state assistance. Now on to your next incoherent thought. You raise the question "if this is implemented where does it stop?" Before I answer I would like to ask you a more important question: if this is not implemented where do the governement handouts end and when will people ever be held liable for their own choices? Now to answer your question, the drug testing would only apply to those seeking state assistance, it ends there. There are no laws on the books that allow states to drug tests parents as you illustrate in your post. But guess what? There are laws that allow states to drug test welfare recipients. Next you ask: "who will pay for these drug tests that cost between $75-$125?" First, I would love to hear where you recieved those figures. I can go to Happy Harrys and get a drug test for $20 (its a cup and a strip....get real,) so if purchased in bulk im sure a substantial price cut could be expected. And to answer the question "who will pay?" The taxpayers will pay....but not with new taxes. With the implementation of drug testing, thousands will be denied assistance and thousands more will lose their assistance (and deservedly so) a portion of the millions of dollars saved will go towards the purchase of drug tests. You speak harshly of stereotyping people then in your next breathe what do you do? You stereotype the drug users by saying and I quote "Most of the abusers are being prescribed legal drugs by licensed doctors Oxycodone being the most widely abused prescribed drug currently. They aren't buying street drugs." Typical liberal, you make statements that have no factual basis at the same time contradicting your own fundamental views. Please point me in the direction of the studies that show that most of the welfare recipients who abuse drugs abuse Oxycodone and not street drugs. Next staying "true blue" you make a blanket statement that the real problem is doctors who write prescriptions. Who are you to determine who is or isnt deserving of pain medicine? Correct me if I am wrong but you are not a pain management doctor are you? Further, like a typical democrat you avoid the facts and try to redirect the focus of drug testing welfare recipents to holding doctors accountable for doing there job. Even if your statement were true, it really has no place in this conversation because the recipient would have a prescription thus making it legal use. And finally after writing all of this my wrists hurt a little....can I get the names of those doctors?? I would love to continue this battle of wits but I can clearly see some are unarmed....
My opening sentence in my Oct 19th post: "No fundamentally I am not opposed."
Fundamentally n Something that is an essential or necessary part of a system.
Your selfevident ignorance is very clear in your post. You can't respond without making a disparaging, or insulting remark. You are also the leader in making blanket statements, reread your posts.
You are correct there is no trial. Instead of the presumption of innocence we (everyone who has to submit to a drug test of any form) are considered guilty and must prove our innocence that we are NOT using drugs by submitting to a drug test.
You say remove people who receive receive public assistance of any kind if they test positive. A problem arises because that's not what happens in the private sector, federal law and most state law requires that employer paid drug counseling be offered to the employee, if the employee refuses they can be terminated.
My Obama signs ? Again your stereotyping and showing your ignorance. Would you like my address you can come and check my property you won't find any Obama signs on it I can assure you of that fact.
Why is the outcry for drug screening people who are receiving welfare assistance, because people perceive mistakingly that all people on welfare abuse the system and or are on drugs. All you have to do is read the responses in here to get a clear overview of peoples thoughts about it.
Punish the suspected abusers on a one on one basis, don't assume that all people on welfare are drug users.
Stereotyping and profiling is decided by a certain criteria and it isn't just race, again you show you ignorance.
I didn't say there were any laws on the books about drug testing parents, I stated what would prevent that law from being put in place.
Happy Harry's test for $20.00 does not do the same test as one does in a labratory try again. Furthermore, there are a number of prescribed maintenance medications that give false positives as I already stated. I happen to take one that I have been for over 25 years that does just that everytime I am tested, requiring further tests.
Factual basis read and research instead of calling me ignorant:
DEA Targets OxyContin Abuse
A mere five years since it became FDA-approved, the drug is making headlines. News reports have brought attention to the problems of OxyContin abuse. The latest twist to the saga has the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) asking Purdue Pharma L.P. (the makers of the drug) to:
- Market the drug only to pain specialists.
- Omit its claim that the drug is less subject to abuse than other narcotics.
- Reformulate the drug to limit OxyContin abuse potential.
Such recommendations can be made by the DEA and FDA but Purdue Pharma cannot be forced to comply.
What Exactly Is The Problem With OxyContin Abuse?
The active ingredient in OxyContin is oxycodone, a substance found in several different analgesic painkillers. While some contain small amounts of oxycodone, OxyContin is a time-release formula containing 40 to 160 milligrams of oxycodone. By chewing or crushing or snorting or shooting the pills, the time-release aspect of the drug can be easily bypassed, allowing for a quick high.
OxyContin Abuse Reports
Reports of criminal activity and diversion associated with the drug have increased significantly. Incidents which occurred in Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, are described on the website of the National Drug Intelligence Center. However, it doesn't end with those states. There is no community which is immune to OxyContin abuse problems.
Maybe you should try watching a few factual documentaries once in a while including ones on drug abuse, instead of just assuming everyone is a liberal and a Democrat.
Doctors doing their job? What's that providing medication like it's candy to people for years who are clearly addicted. I know first hand, a doctor in Massachusetts was suspended from practicing medicine for self prescribing pain medications (Oxycontins). He continued to submit bills to medicaid for patients he was not even seeing, to support his habit. He bilked the system for $500,000.00 until I turned him in for submitting bills for my mother who was in a acute care facility, by the way he was a staunch Republican (not that it has a d**n thing to do with the discussion).
You are so much wiser than I figure out who the doctors are.
BTW I listened to 8 years of rhetoric about no new taxes, and my ancestors generations from now will be paying off the current debt this administration created.
Until you can debate properly without hurling your innuendos and insults I have nothing further to debate with you.
Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 12:32 pm by Bluesman
|
m3nos95
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 08:07 pm |
|
| Bluesman once again your ingnorance proceeds you. In regards to your statement about stereotyping welfare recipents, once again the ship has left and you are standing on the dock. No one is on trial. When you apply for Welfare, subsidized housing or whatever assistance you may seek you should not confuse the application process with a criminal proceeding. No one is accusing you of anything and the burden of proof does not lie with the prosecution. So your innocent until proven guilty cliche may be placed in the garbage along with your Obama 08 signs. And before I hear the typical liberal arguement "you are accusing me of using drugs", understand that you are not being accused of using drugs, it is a screening process to insure those who receive assistance are not using drugs. Moreover, it would only be considered profiling or stereotyping if you only tested a certain demographic of the population who apply. Once again the presumption is that a percentage of the general population use drugs, not just those who apply for Welfare. Those who apply for Welfare and fail there test would not be permitted state assistance. Now on to your next incoherent thought. You raise the question "if this is implemented where does it stop?" Before I answer I would like to ask you a more important question: if this is not implemented where do the governement handouts end and when will people ever be held liable for their own choices? Now to answer your question, the drug testing would only apply to those seeking state assistance, it ends there. There are no laws on the books that allow states to drug tests parents as you illustrate in your post. But guess what? There are laws that allow states to drug test welfare recipients. Next you ask: "who will pay for these drug tests that cost between $75-$125?" First, I would love to hear where you recieved those figures. I can go to Happy Harrys and get a drug test for $20 (its a cup and a strip....get real,) so if purchased in bulk im sure a substantial price cut could be expected. And to answer the question "who will pay?" The taxpayers will pay....but not with new taxes. With the implementation of drug testing, thousands will be denied assistance and thousands more will lose their assistance (and deservedly so) a portion of the millions of dollars saved will go towards the purchase of drug tests. You speak harshly of stereotyping people then in your next breathe what do you do? You stereotype the drug users by saying and I quote "Most of the abusers are being prescribed legal drugs by licensed doctors Oxycodone being the most widely abused prescribed drug currently. They aren't buying street drugs." Typical liberal, you make statements that have no factual basis at the same time contradicting your own fundamental views. Please point me in the direction of the studies that show that most of the welfare recipients who abuse drugs abuse Oxycodone and not street drugs. Next staying "true blue" you make a blanket statement that the real problem is doctors who write prescriptions. Who are you to determine who is or isnt deserving of pain medicine? Correct me if I am wrong but you are not a pain management doctor are you? Further, like a typical democrat you avoid the facts and try to redirect the focus of drug testing welfare recipents to holding doctors accountable for doing there job. Even if your statement were true, it really has no place in this conversation because the recipient would have a prescription thus making it legal use. And finally after writing all of this my wrists hurt a little....can I get the names of those doctors?? I would love to continue this battle of wits but I can clearly see some are unarmed....
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
stinky wrote: they do give cash, but it isn't as easy as just signing up for food stamps and medicaid. 10 years ago, i received both while pregnant with my first, and continued to recieve those benefits for a year after her birth. but i never got a dime in cash, and never applied for any. of course, i had a job at the time, so i didn't really need the cash, but it isn't just "included" in the benefits.
ahhh okay thanks for helping understand. 
|
stinky
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
| they do give cash, but it isn't as easy as just signing up for food stamps and medicaid. 10 years ago, i received both while pregnant with my first, and continued to recieve those benefits for a year after her birth. but i never got a dime in cash, and never applied for any. of course, i had a job at the time, so i didn't really need the cash, but it isn't just "included" in the benefits. Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 04:01 pm by stinky
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 03:53 pm |
|
| Stinky not quite true, the state indeed does give cash as well. I know someone who receives all that you mentioned (food stamps, medicaid, and WIC ), as well as a check for $400.00 a month.
|
stinky
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 03:39 pm |
|
Bluesman wrote:
Who will pay for all these random drug test programs you want implemented we will at a cost of $75.00 - $125.00 for a basic test ?
Most of the abusers are being prescribed legal drugs by licensed doctors Oxycodone being the most widely abused prescribed drug currently. They aren't buying street drugs.
Why aren't these doctors who prescribe drugs such as this to the same patient for years held accountable ?
You have to stop the source first, and the source is the medical professionals who abuse their practice, by writing out these prescriptions.
You want 80 Oxycodones I can tell you 2 doctors located in Milford who will prescribe them to you on an initial visit. Everybody knows this not just people on welfare.
this is very true. despite what many here think, the state isn't just handing out cash to people. yes, food stamps and medicaid, but no cash flow. and thats why these folks abuse prescriptions. because not only are they free through medicaid, but they can't be arrested for something they have a prescription for. so drug testing won't help in this instance because the testee can produce a legal prescrition.
like bluesy says, whos gonna pay for the tests? and who is gonna house and support all the children who are removed from peoples homes? not the folks on this board, they are already complaining about monies spent by these programs.
and who gets tested? everyone in the household? what if someone has 4 kids, and one of the kids tests positive for pot? does the whole family lose it's benefits? should the state remove benefits, or pay for treatment? should the whole family suffer because some 15 or 16 year old kid makes a mistake?
and for those interested, only those on active duty in the military are tested, not thier spouses or children. so do we start testing whole families then? and if someones spouse or child tests positive, do we dishonorably discharge them? throw them out of housing onto the street?
another note, those who are subject to random testing, like police and military members, do use drugs. they tend to use cocaine and methamphetamine, because that garbage is out of your system in 2 or 3 days. high on friday, clean by monday. so are you gonna test people every other day till you catch them?
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 03:09 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Isn't racist a neat comment. It seems to be the word de Jour. If you like Obama and happen to be black, you're a racist. If you like Palin or McCain and happen to be white you're a racist.
If you're white and you don't like welfare, you're a racist. If you're black and you fight for welfare, you're a racist.
I guess I'm a racist and you're a racist.
There, now that we are all racists it doesn't mean anything any more.
and here I thought racist was a guy who followed Nascar.......
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 03:07 pm |
|
I'm not missing any boat. By virtue of our constitutional rights we are all innocent until proven guilty. It's called profiling or stereotyping a particular group of people, in regard to welfare recipients.
As far as state employees using teachers as an example, they are tested because they educate and are interacting with our children.
Should we therefore conclude all parents should be drug tested as well?
My point is it is a slippery slope if this is implemented and where does it stop.
Who will pay for all these random drug test programs you want implemented we will at a cost of $75.00 - $125.00 for a basic test ?
Most of the abusers are being prescribed legal drugs by licensed doctors Oxycodone being the most widely abused prescribed drug currently. They aren't buying street drugs.
Why aren't these doctors who prescribe drugs such as this to the same patient for years held accountable ?
You have to stop the source first, and the source is the medical professionals who abuse their practice, by writing out these prescriptions.
You want 80 Oxycodones I can tell you 2 doctors located in Milford who will prescribe them to you on an initial visit. Everybody knows this not just people on welfare.
Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 03:15 pm by Bluesman
|
smyrna guy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 12:13 pm |
|
| First I think you should be tested and another thing you need to understand the money you get from is welfare is not your money its my my money that comes from my paycheck. The time you spend on here crying about welfare you need to be out looking for a job and make your own money then you can spend the way you want.
|
work4your$
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:13 am |
|
| So, to Allan, why are you on this blog posting comments? Hard to swallow the truth that there are people out there like Obamadaman who actually exist? Anyone who believes otherwise is a moron. Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:14 am by work4your$
|
m3nos95
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:04 am |
|
| Bluesman you are missing the boat. There is no presumption that every person on welfare abuses drugs. The presumption is that there is a percentage of the general population, not just those on wefare who abuse drugs. If this were the case every state worker should join in on a class action lawsuit for being drug tested prior to employment. You see the State is not assuming everyone who applies and accepts a postion is a drug user. However, the State assumes that a percentage of the population uses drugs and they will not employ those who fail their test. In one of your previous posts you mention testing an applicant would strip them of whatever remaining dignity they have. If the assumption is a percentage ( not you) of the population use drugs, how does this offend you? Would you rather see those who abuse drugs and abuse the system be denied our tax dollars or would you rather see the system be abused and deadbeats spend your tax dollars on crack and meth. Lets face it, if someone is on drugs and welfare simultaneously it doesnt take a rocket scientist to arrive at the conclusion the welfare money was used in the purchase of the crack rock. And in the rare instance the crack rock wasnt purchased with welfare money, one could conclude that that applicant must have some disposable income and does not need the welfare money. Either way, to say we shouldnt drug test applicants because it would hurt their feelings or strip their dignity is ludacris. This is the real world, important policy is not implemented or more important fail to be implemented because of someones personal feelings. Bottom line, you cannot make decisions based on wether or not it is going to "hurt someones feelings." As I stated earlier, Michigan is the only state that implements this practice, I feel Delaware should follow suit (we never will, if this state went any farther to the left we would border California.) And by the way, I currently would be subject to a drug test. I am on partial unemployment because my employer cannot guarentee me 40 hours right now. Pass the cup, I will fill it up, it wouldnt hurt my feelings one bit and if it did who cares? I would have to get over it. Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:08 am by m3nos95
|
work4your$
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:04 am |
|
| "Yo", Ms. Obamadaman, you are truly disgusting, uneducated, and I think your time would be better spent taking some on-line courses to improve your education, spelling, and attitude to hopefully become a more productive citizen, who some day can give back to society that which you have so skillfully drained. Sound like a plan? Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:08 am by work4your$
|
work4your$
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 01:49 am |
|
| Good point, toocoolforschool - I know some in the medical profession who are disgusted with those on medicare...many of them take advantage of the system, are sarcastic, demanding, and plain "in-your-face" disrespectful.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 01:25 am |
|
Isn't racist a neat comment. It seems to be the word de Jour. If you like Obama and happen to be black, you're a racist. If you like Palin or McCain and happen to be white you're a racist.
If you're white and you don't like welfare, you're a racist. If you're black and you fight for welfare, you're a racist.
I guess I'm a racist and you're a racist.
There, now that we are all racists it doesn't mean anything any more.
|
StandupforAmerica
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 12:54 am |
|
| Interesting that you assumed my responses are racist. Since these post are anonymous, and you don't know anything about me, including my race.
|
StandupforAmerica
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 12:48 am |
|
| You are making reference to the minority not the majority. If people need assistances to help them with their income thats one issue, I have no problem with that. I am fully aware of the sacrifice our service men/women make for this country. My husband and I our support our Service men/women, and are supporters of Wounded Warrior Project. My issue is those who do nothing except march to mail box on the first of the month. Again this does not apply to military personnel, they submit to drug testing through the military, and if positive would suffer serious consequences, as should ALL welfare recipient's
|
m3nos95
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 12:36 am |
|
Allan wrote: Obomadaman: Let it rest. Your posts are no longer funny (not that I'm suggesting they were at all funny). They've reached the point of diminishing returns. Anyone from this point on who thinks your posts are "for real" .... is a moron.
obamadaman wrote: Work4the$.......Excuse me ms thing but what you mean i schoudnt be oposed to a drug test if i aint got nothing to hide? First of all not all every job out there rekwire drug tests...so no you do not nesasaraly need to pass a drug test to get you a job. An plus not everybody who do them a little bit of somethin is a deadbeat. Just becuz somone smoke a litle weed or do them a litle white dont make them a bad person. An plus if you make someone take a drug test how you gonna figyur out when they did them drugs? They can stay in your system a long time i hear...but i would not no bout that. So if somone smoke them a little piece of somthin five months ago when he have a job and he lose it and need assistances. how you gonna tell him he dont deserve it because he smoke a little somethin five months ago. you make no cense. just another case of the system tryin to bring down poor folks.
Allan I for one love his or her posts. I enjoy the satire and look forward to reading them. If you dont like them I suggest not reading posts by Obamadaman. Dont ruin it for everyone because you cannot find the humor in it. I have told several people about this site just so they can enjoy these posts....and guess what, they all find it hilarious. I think the posters depiction is very accurate and should be applauded....but I must say he or she needs some new material. May I suggest something in the affirmative action genre??
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 12:31 am |
|
Toocoolforschool wrote: Oh, and also, most of the people that come into the ER abusing the hospitals services, ARE on welfare! They know that there is NO copay, so a trip to the ER is no big deal. How irritating!
My wife is a school teacher and I am a self employed musician. Every year when my wife gets cut due to budget cuts we loose our health benefits. We aren't on welfare, and I have been denied medical attention at the Milford Hospital walk in clinic, (I have heart disease) because I couldn't pay $300.00 cash to be seen.
Now I could have applied for welfare assistance and probably received it but I didn't and won't because of the very nature of the comments made like ones in here. People automatically assume that if someone is on welfare they are either a drunk, an alcoholic, or a baby factory with a bunch of illegitimate children, or an outright abuser of the system.
Where is the accountability for doctors who prescribe these drugs for patients like they are good and plenty candy ?
I can name 2 doctors in Milford who will prescribe oxycotin like they are gum drops, and everyone who wants them knows it.
Doctors have created the legal drug abuse problems in Delaware and the United States not the drug abuser, we are a society that has a magic pill for every single malady known and unknown to man.
Little Johnny acts out prescribe him Ritalin, Mommy acts out give her Prozac, Daddy has a back ache hey Vicodin or Oxycotins and the list goes on and on.
Many of the biggest drug abusers are medical doctors themselves, but then again they aren't on welfare so it's okay.
You are drug tested for the profession you chose to follow, many welfare recipients are destitute and yes dignity does come into play. The same dignity that you should as a nurse treat every patient with whether the patient is a millionaire or a welfare recipient.
To blanket label every welfare recipient as a drug user so therefore require all welfare recipients to be drug tested to qualify goes against every basic fundamental right of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
|
Toocoolforschool
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
DelawareNative wrote:
So if someone that has a drug addiction comes to your hospital for care, and you are expected to help them, will you as a registered nurse hold back treatment? Aren't there more people that don't have healthcare that take advantage of our emergency rooms and hospitals, than there are people abusing welfare?
Oh, and also, most of the people that come into the ER abusing the hospitals services, ARE on welfare! They know that there is NO copay, so a trip to the ER is no big deal. How irritating!
|
Toocoolforschool
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
Delaware Native:
I absolutley CANNOT refuse a patient pain medicine if it's ordered by a doctor. We see so many drug abusers come into the hospital, it's disturbing. I simply think that passing a drug test should be part of the process of getting state assistance. It is in no way to assume or imply that everyone on welfare is a drug dealer, or on drugs. If that were the case then everyone who was drug tested at work would feel violated. I can't understand peoples arguements for this issue. Thank you Bluesman for saying that about nursing, because in fact it is very very true. I understand that there are some people that are truly in need of assistance, but I honestly don't feel that a drug test would be stripping them of their final dignity. It's just my opinion, it doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with it, but like I've stated so many times...MOST people are subject to a drug screening, so why should welfare applicants be any different? Because we are afraid to take away their dignity? Ok, then I'm not going to work anymore because I don't want to take a pre-employment drug screening test, which would take away my dignity. Instead, I'll go apply for welfare, without having to take a drug test, and instead live on the government!
Seriously, it's ridiculous.
|
Allan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
Obomadaman: Let it rest. Your posts are no longer funny (not that I'm suggesting they were at all funny). They've reached the point of diminishing returns. Anyone from this point on who thinks your posts are "for real" .... is a moron.
obamadaman wrote: Work4the$.......Excuse me ms thing but what you mean i schoudnt be oposed to a drug test if i aint got nothing to hide? First of all not all every job out there rekwire drug tests...so no you do not nesasaraly need to pass a drug test to get you a job. An plus not everybody who do them a little bit of somethin is a deadbeat. Just becuz somone smoke a litle weed or do them a litle white dont make them a bad person. An plus if you make someone take a drug test how you gonna figyur out when they did them drugs? They can stay in your system a long time i hear...but i would not no bout that. So if somone smoke them a little piece of somthin five months ago when he have a job and he lose it and need assistances. how you gonna tell him he dont deserve it because he smoke a little somethin five months ago. you make no cense. just another case of the system tryin to bring down poor folks.
|
obamadaman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 09:10 pm |
|
| Work4the$.......Excuse me ms thing but what you mean i schoudnt be oposed to a drug test if i aint got nothing to hide? First of all not all every job out there rekwire drug tests...so no you do not nesasaraly need to pass a drug test to get you a job. An plus not everybody who do them a little bit of somethin is a deadbeat. Just becuz somone smoke a litle weed or do them a litle white dont make them a bad person. An plus if you make someone take a drug test how you gonna figyur out when they did them drugs? They can stay in your system a long time i hear...but i would not no bout that. So if somone smoke them a little piece of somthin five months ago when he have a job and he lose it and need assistances. how you gonna tell him he dont deserve it because he smoke a little somethin five months ago. you make no cense. just another case of the system tryin to bring down poor folks. Last edited on Mon Oct 20th, 2008 09:10 pm by obamadaman
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
mishl wrote: You'd be surprised at how many young military families receive food stamps/WIC. Are you willing to go there and test them too? What a way to thank someone who puts their life on the line so you can spout crap like this.
Families with premature babies or those with special medical needs can qualify. How about senior citizens? Yes, there are seniors who receive foodstamps; and without them, they'd probably be reduced to one meal a day through Meals On Wheels.
Yes, there are those who abuse the system, but why punish everyone for the acts of a few? If you think someone is abusing public assistance then report them. Don't lump everyone in as lazy drug using deadbeats who are just mooching off society.
Well the state can start with all who live in public housing and have arrest records.
|
stinky
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
this has nothing to do with whether or not the activity is illegal. if that's the case, anybody convicted of any legal wrongdoing, including misdemeanors, or a simple speeding ticket(that is breaking the law, right?) should be subject to losing thier job.
employers drug test because they feel it causes absences and lost production. so make a job offer contingent on perfect health through medical testing, and again, any malady that may cause a problem for the company could also be used as an excuse to not hire someone, including fatness.
on a side note, a study was done by GE way back in the day , and what they found was those who tested positive for drugs were actually found to miss LESS time at work and cost the company LESS money. after speaking to the test subjects, they found out that those who dabbled in occasional drug use actually had better attendance at work because they needed to cover thier bills and the cost of thier drug of choice.
|
m3nos95
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 01:10 pm |
|
stinky wrote: i am fundamentally against it. if i come to work whenever i'm scheduled, do my job and perfom my duties to or above and beyond expectation, then it's nobody's d**n business if i want to smoke some cannabis come the weekend.
besides, if you are gonna test for drugs, test for cigarettes, cancer, heart problems, cholesterol, and bmi(no fat folks either, they tax the healthcare system, dontcha know?), and any other maladies that might cost the company money in missed days and lost production.
I have never seen or heard of someone getting arrested for being to fat or having cancer. As a matter of fact, I was watching cops last night and they walked right past a fat dude smoking a cigarette to arrest a crack head.
|
stinky
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 04:33 am |
|
i am fundamentally against it. if i come to work whenever i'm scheduled, do my job and perfom my duties to or above and beyond expectation, then it's nobody's d**n business if i want to smoke some cannabis come the weekend.
besides, if you are gonna test for drugs, test for cigarettes, cancer, heart problems, cholesterol, and bmi(no fat folks either, they tax the healthcare system, dontcha know?), and any other maladies that might cost the company money in missed days and lost production.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 02:02 am |
|
Toocoolforschool wrote: Bluesmen:
So are you saying that you disagree with drug testing welfare applicants as part of the pre-screening process to be eligible for state assistance? If so, I'd be intrigued to know what your reasonings are. The military is a very honorable job, however, there are others out there too. For instance, I am a registered nurse, and though it is much different than serving in the military, it too is a commendable, dangerous profession. It shouldn't matter what you do, or did for a living to qualify for welfare. Everyone should be expected to go through the same application process, and drug screening should be one of the steps.
No fundamentally I am not opposed. What concerns me is the blanket presumption of guilt that is being assumed creating the need for drug screening. Where do we draw the line should everyone applying for a drivers license be mandated to pass a drug test prior to licensing ?
After I left the service I was a certified welder and worked in nuclear plants, I was subject to random drug tests as well as a pre employment screening, and as a substitute teacher currently I am subject to them as well.
This however is a whole different scenario from pre employment or random drug tests. The reason people want to see it set in place is the presumption of guilt because some people do in fact abuse the welfare system. Deal with them on a one on one basis, including stripping them of their benefits if warranted.
The people that really need the services don't find any dignity in accepting a handout, now we want to strip them of any remaining dignity they have by assuming they are drug users, I don't agree with that.
BTW, I know how dangerous a nurses profession is my mother was a registered nurse during WW II and in the private sector after the war. For what it is worth I think your profession is another that's taken for granted and you are under paid in my opinion.
|
DelawareNative
Member
|