From the steamy comment section of Nurse K’s blog comes IglooDoc’s link to an article showing how a state agency in Arizona is heading in the right direction in the war on drugs.
Effective Tuesday, the Arizona Department of Economic Security started performing urine drug testing on individuals whom officials had “reasonable cause” to suspect were using illegal drugs. Get caught using and you’ll lose your welfare check for a year.
Before you start applauding, the requirement has a lot of loopholes:
The test only happens when you reapply for assistance — it is not a random test.
When you do reapply, apparently “reasonable cause” is determined by peoples’ answers to a three question questionnaire. I’m bubbling over with anticipation to see how many people will answer “yes” to the “do you use illegal drugs” question.
If you are one of the unfortunate few to be selected to take the urine drug test, you have to submit your sample within ten days – by which time it is likely that, if you can control your habit for that long, most drugs will be out of your system anyway.
So the Arizona requirement is largely toothless, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
There was an e-mail going around not too long ago saying that if working people are subject to random drug tests while earning money at work, people who are earning money from welfare should be subject to the same random drug testing. Don’t want to give up your civil liberties and privacy to the contents of your bodily secretions? Then don’t take the money.
Now if only more state governments would get the hint.
There was an e-mail going around not too long ago saying that if working people are subject to random drug tests while earning money at work, people who are earning money from welfare should be subject to the same random drug testing. Don’t want to give up your civil liberties and privacy to the contents of your bodily secretions? Then don’t take the money.
Amen. Brilliant idea. Makes me smack my forehead (”head-palm” as my kids say)and say “D’OH, why didn’t anyone think of this sooner!”
The one with the gold makes the rules.
I would love it if there was a yearly test to determine if someone is disabled. It is amazing how many patients I see that are “disabled” yet are able to drive, play golf etc.
Part of our routine trauma eval is to do a drug screen and it seems that more are positive than not. I wonder since Medicare will not pay for certian events that happen in the hospital if they would consider not paying for certain events if the patient tests positive on their drug screen?
At least for SSA disability, if you are classified as expected to recover you do get yearly reassessments. Even not expected to recover nets you a three year period. Alaska Adult Public Assistance does a yearly evaluation regardless of the classification.
Is that just a state thing? Our patients have a classification of “permanent disability” and they recieve social security, Medicare and Medicaid. They have diagnosis such as fibromyalgia, bipolar and chronic fatigue. These patients all can drive, fill out federal paperwork and are very computer savy. I never can figure out why they are disabled as I can come up with at least a hundred jobs that they can do.
Because you can drive doesn’t mean you can work 40 hours a day. I’ve seen guys on disability who worked 20 hard years doing hard blue collar manual labor with barely a high school education but their bodies sometimes just give out on them. Or they get injured and can never do the strenuous work anymore.
Can they drive? Sure. Can they fill out paperwork? Sure. They can probably even play golf once in awhile. But can they do pipefitting in a refinery all week? No. The fact that a 50 year old man can fill out paperwork or surf the netdoesn’t mean he can actually get a job doing that work. Particularly when for that clerical position he’s up against younger, healthier people. If you’re an employer who do you pick? The young healthy kid or the older person with the health problems who will likely cost you more in insurance?
Are there frauds on disability? Of course. But they’re not living that high on the hog and they are reviewed fairly often. And to get disability, you typically have to wait at least 1.5 years with essentially no income. And second, your disability is based on your previous earnings, and for many of these people it wasn’t that much in the first place. But that is important to remember – these people are receiving money they’ve paid into the system. Unless they’re SSI, which are often kids when they become disabled.
Matt:
Why are these people considered 100% disabled? Why cant they get a job, driving, filling out paperwork etc? We pay them to not work when there are jobs that they can do. Your 50 y/o pipefitter can get a job as a telemarket person. They are unemployed not 100% disabled. Is the NFL player whose knees go out 100% disabled? Again, why should we as tax payers pay them?
Throck,
Come on, you are seriously suggesting to Matt that we rid ourselves of the cottage legal industry surrounding disability appeals. Come on. We need more lawyers, not less! They are far more beneficial to society than lowly physicians.
Throck, technically it’s THEIR money, since what you get is based on your withholdings. To the extent that any withholdings for SS are your money, that is. And excepting SSI recipients that is.
As for the guidelines, they’re lengthy, but you can find them online.
“We pay them to not work when there are jobs that they can do.”
I believe the SSA actually has a vocational expert in the hearings to determine if there are jobs they can do.
I do agree welfare recipients should be tested for illegal drugs.
I don’t know what the consequences should be.
BUT what if the welfare recipient such as I, am NOT taking my LEGAL drugs for my “mental” illness, should I also lose my welfare check?
Antipsychotic drugs make stupid people MORE stupid in my opinion.
That IS what they are designed to do, stop the brain from working as there is no psychotic molecule-bacteria-virus for an antipsychotic to effect.
Research on the people who do recover from “mental” illness do not regularly take antipsychotics.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.html
In fact, the mentally ill die on average 25 years earlier. Maybe from being stupid.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1863220,00.html
This would be a great step forward. Even though I am in Canada I think this should be put forth in any country that has a welfare policy. I also believe that you should have to do so many hours of community service a week in order to get your check (that is a different topic though!)
I am on ODSP (Disability Program in Ontario) and agree with ‘throckmorton’ that there should be follow ups with disability programs. Even do drug screening with disability program, allowing for the fact that some people will legally be on drugs but they should be able to easily produce a prescription for said substance. I know (here are least) is is very difficult to get disability support (something like 10% get it on their first try I have heard) but I know of a handful of people who got on disability and when they got better, figured it was just an easy way to get money and stayed on it. As a legitimite disabled person (I have had 3 government organizations and a handful of drs confirm this) I would have no qualms at all about having to fill out yearly paperwork to assess where the person is in their disability and then a random sampling of people receiving benefits or even having a person every 5 years to have to have a dr’s note (or two or three) confirming that they still qualify. I know who ’signs my cheque’ and have no problem proving that I am not abusing the system. I feel the only ones who would are the ones scamming the system.
However about the “It is amazing how many patients I see that are “disabled” yet are able to drive, play golf etc.” that I have a problem with. As I am a young (28ish) female with no physical disabilities besides limping and random braced joints, I get many many dirty looks if I go out and use a handicap parking permit. However those people who look at me and assume I am healthy and a schemer do not see me after an hour of doing grocery shopping having to take a 3 hour nap, take strong narcotics and rest up the rest of the week. And yes, occasionally (like 4 times a year) I go out and do something physically demanding with my nephew and I feel I am entitled to occasionally push my limits beyond being to have some quality ‘normal’ time. I am the one who pays heavily for it the following weeks (yes I mean weeks, I am still recovering from a trip I took last month and it was just to visit family). I know there are a lot of schemers out there and they make my blood boil but please dont assume that just because you see a person driving or playing one game of golf of being a fraud, I would be more than happy if someone came up to me and said ‘why do you have a handicap parking permit’ instead of shooting me dirty looks.
Just my two cents, didn’t mean to go on a rant there.
Re:Lose welfare as result of testing positive for illegal drugs.
Whats the drug addict going to do then?
A) More crime to support his need of drugs, or B) Magically spontaneously recover?
I am pretty sure choice “A” will happen.
Treatment or jail then? Forced treatment will not work as the Addict person does not want to quit the drugs they love. Some Addicts will pretend to recover, but some Addicts (hopefully) will honestly recover. Bad odds but it has to be tried, otherwise you just put them in cages and make them worse human beings.
A doctor would want an “ill” person to recover their sanity. The person-patient making their choices , not a physically drug dependant making the choices for them.
A carrot works better than a stick to get a mule to move.
Canada has Heroin-assisted treatment safe and effective: study
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/10/18/bc-naomi-trial-results.html
It is cheaper to house the homeless, and not beat them with a metaphorical stick of tough love.
“Health Care and Public Service Use and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons With Severe Alcohol Problems”
“Results Housing First participants had total costs of $8 175 922 in the year prior to the study, or median costs of $4066 per person per month. Median monthly costs decreased to $1492″
http://www.jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/301/13/1349
“Steamy comments section” hehe.
Like you said there, it seems pretty obvious that the American taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing illegal drug use in the form of cash assistance to drug abusers.
If you’re a hardcore heroin/meth/coke/prescription drug addict or something, you won’t be able to go 10 days without shooting up or going to my ER for a new script, so at least if practiced with a little more balls, it would exclude the hardcore addicts, but, as you said, not the occasional user unless they were just top-of-the-pile stupid.
And the benefit of rendering “hardcore addicts” homeless and starving is…?
Not homeless nor starving. See below…wouldn’t apparently be disqualified for housing/food/medical assistance. Believe it or not, addicts who receive money in the mail tend to prioritize their expenditures to drugs. The economy is in the shitter if you haven’t noticed, and cash payments to drug addicts really shouldn’t be a spending priority. There are always homeless shelters, rehab programs, food shelves, and things of that nature if they need them. If they don’t want to help themselves through a rehab program and get off the drugs, why should we continue to incentivize their drug use and lifestyle with taxes on working people to pay for their drugs? Wouldn’t encouraging drug use via free money to buy drugs do more harm than good?
Certainly, if a more ballsy enforcement were to come into play, there would have to be some consideration given to a probable upswing in crime, but most serious drug addicts who are not employed likely would steal, deal drugs, or prostitute themselves anyway with or without cash assistance…
An addict has to hit rock bottom before they can begin their climb. Al-anon and other support groups for friends and families of addict recommend cutting the addict off financially. The government should listen to these experts.
Mark P.S.,
I think your metaphor is flawed. The way the system works now is more like giving the mule a carrot whether or not it moves at all. I agree addicts will get desperate and crime rates may go up, but perhaps it may be more motivation for people to enter drug rehab programs? I think handing out welfare checks to those we know are putting it towards illicit drug use is just plain wrong in my book.
I wrote the answer to a positive test for illegal drugs is “Forced treatment… Bad odds but it has to be tried.”
As in confronting the drug addict , and asking “why do they continue in this suicide” and “Do they want to quit, to live a better and longer life?”
There is a problem with drug testing, and a serious one at that…. There are many hardcore drugs like crack that can be metabolized very quickly and therefore a user can often times pass urine tox screens. We all know that marijuana can be detected on tox screens for a month after last use.
Most public assistance goes to the disabled and families with children….
There are some people with severe disabilities that may use illicit drugs to maladaptively deal with those disabilities. I am not sure that I like the idea that a cancer patient would be kicked off assitance for smoking pot.
As far as families go….Parents illicit drug use should not be a means to punish children. Of course individuals with serious addictions most likely need CPS involvement….but again… single mom smoked pot….children go hungry.
Just saying
This only applies to cash assistance, not food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 or whatever else. I’m sure in the welfare community that this stipulation will get out, and hopefully, Mama will see fit to not smoke pot when she’s applying.
*Maybe* as word got out though ..people would take it seriously and not screw around with the drugs.. unless seriously addicted.. then they’re not thinking straight anyway. The thing is..how many kids go hungry even with the checks coming in because the parents use the money for cell phones,cigarettes, drugs, booze, lottery tickets, etc.?
These agencies should do follow up but that requires manpower/larger budgets.
Also, I am not against public assistance for people that genuinely need it. We should help the poor that are not able to help themselves.
But I am all for random drug testing ..
I have no problem with random drug testing, but how does cutting someone who can’t stop using actually do anything? They’re not then employable if they can’t pass a drug test, are they? Now that they can’t pay the rent how have we accomplished anything for the taxpayer? I guess we shifted them to receiving food and shelter, if any, from nonprofits.
Matt ..you’ve got a point. It’s all so frustrating.
In the end.. there will always be an element of the population looking to scam the system for their benefit. The ones who are not addicted, yet scam the system for their gain actually act more egregiously ..again assuming they are of sound mind. But it’s all just *wrong*. I am not excusing drug addicts. I still think they should be accountable… because to do nothing allows their behavior to remain the status quo.
There needs to be more follow up..reevaluate criteria, strict adherence protocols, etc., but budgets are cut and so if anything..there is less.
Heck..we have a government that sends out tax refunds to dead people! Or pays how many hundreds of dollars for a regular toilet seat? (old story) There is so much waste all around us. I don’t think it is just the recipients of government monies..but also corruption within the system. Acorn anyone? I know..apples and oranges.. but the problems are pervasive.
Then with welfare..it is generational since it’s inception. Children are born into this free ride mentality, perpetuating the cycle.
People can come from other countries and never having contributed anything to this country..then get on the public systems. Then you have people in this country..who for whatever reason.. work hard ..but in menial jobs and so live at poverty level..yet make too much to qualify for any assistance and so they fall in between the cracks.
I wonder what would’ve happened if the programs were never instituted?
I believe with all my heart that we should help the poor.. but the flip side are the ones who take advantage..commit fraud and milk every program they can for all they can get. Oh and then some work on the side and don’t claim it on their federal taxes.
Then look who is in charge of the treasury..who also evaded paying taxes.
How do we fix this?
I think it has to be a from the ground up revamping of the entire system. But they say..once you have these programs..so many people become dependent. I don’t know if this is true..but I’ve also heard that if this healthcare program goes through… we won’t be able to undo it.
Sorry about the mini rant WC.
One last thing ..I have too admit.. I have wondered like Throck does …about *some* people on disability. I have seen people who collect and really do seem like they can work. One guy had a vascular problem with his *legs*, was on full disability and yet opened his own limo service and was *driving all the time*. ? Where was the follow up? But he did work and so that is a good thing.
I have a friend who was initially *denied* disability who 100% deserved it. His whole life was ruined because while a volunteer in the local FD..was hit in the head by the ladder during a call. They didn’t know that was the cause until years later, but he began having serious seizures that exacerbated to the point that he had to give up his license, could not work because of the frequency and unpredictability of the seizures which after all these years has caused additional damage. This man would love to work, earn his own money and have his life back. *He was denied disability*. Fortunately ..a nun who moved in near him became aware of his situation..told him he should have it, went to bat for him and he was awarded back payments..plus disability.
I WONDER who and why do they deny someone like him and award it to someone much less deserving?
If only there could be an accurate way to determine eligibility.
Maybe at least if there was random drug testing ..they could be forced into a rehab program and be put on notice there will be more frequent random drug tests. ?
I guess Arizona is in the same financial situation as California. I wonder if the motive for this bill is more a case of who to you cut funding for… police, teachers or welfare recipients on drugs. From the look of things there, it is all of the above. And, I think it is a glimpse of all of our futures.
As to the carrot and mule analogy, I give you the answer you get more of what you incentivize. California has 12% of the nation’s population but 32% of the nation’s welfare recipients, attributed to the failure to enforce the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (link) And the state legislature just imposed a 10% income “non-tax” … they increase your tax withholding by 10% immediately, and will refund it in April… kind of an interest free loan from the taxpayers, until it turns into a tax because the government is out of money.
So I ask you… If you are employed in California, why would you stay?
Well, if you’re a physician, you stay for the tort reform. That’s why California has so many more physicians, and it’s so much better to practice there, and health care is so much cheaper there than anywhere else in the country! Because if you injure or kill a kid with your malpractice all their life is worth is $250,000!
Huh?
Let’s see — incentivizing druggies with welfare = physicians kills a kid for 250,000.
Yup.. no leap of logic here. Move along, nothing to see here.
Sleep it off, Matt.
You asked why you would stay in California if you’re employed. I simply reminded you of what so many physicians say: tort reform is key to keeping physicians. Cali has had it for 30 years, and it’s the harshest one around – so there’s a great reason for you physicians to stay.
If you don’t want your questions answered, why do you ask them?
Read what you type, igloo.
Matt
I was referring to average tax paying people… why would they stay in a state that incentivizes not working. The average tax payer would and should work in a state where their work is valued and their income is taxed less, and not paid to non-working citizens (that don’t have a damn good reason not to work).
As for your physician-California analogy… California does not have real tort reform. No state in the United States does. Monetary caps is not reform… it is a bandaid for a dying system. Real reform does not involve lawyers at all. And it will come.
Guess you should have been more clear that you weren’t talking about high income taxpayers like physicians.
As for “real reform”, the only way anything other than caps is coming is through single payer. For the simple reason that insurers and tobacco and such drive the “reform” train currently, and physicians are just the unwitting face of it. The only other reform will be via single payer and involve a no-fault style for the patient, and some sort of review board for the physician within the Dept. of Health and Human Services or similar agency. Even then there will be someone to present the victim’s case, because they often lack the capacity or understanding to do it themselves. Just like workers comp.
Hope you enjoy the single payer model. I do agree with you it’s coming.
They tried this in Florida but it never took off. Problem was they expected the individuals to pay for their own drug tests. When you are seeking employment it is the employer who pays for your drug test. If someone is down on their luck then they should not be required to pay a fee to begin receiving benefits. Other than that it was a great idea.
Everyone seems to loooooovvve this idea. I don’t! All of you seem to think that drug tests are infallible. Talk to someone who has experienced the horrors of a false positive (failed drug test).
Here’s my sad story: I was caught in posession of drugs last year and chose treatment rather than jail. My rehab gives 2 UAs (drug tests) each week. I have been doing well at rehab, mostly because I WANTED to quit using. I have been clean for almost a year now. So…imagine my surprise when my case manager pulled me aside to tell me that I came up “positive” for cocaine on one recent test and I was flagged for “insufficient urine” on another. (Insufficient urine, spilled urine, diluted urine and urine with an unusual ph factor are an automatic “positive”. The assumption is that the addict tampered with the urine.) I have not used cocaine or any other prohibited drug for 8 1/2 months. I wasn’t trying to mess up the other test, either. So, here I am, facing some jail time and the possibility of being kicked out of the rehab program. My next hearing is in January, so I get to spend the holidays and my birthday (December 17) worrying and crying over this. If I was in Arizona, I might be facing a year without food stamps or medical insurance. If the drug testing frenzy ever reaches Social Security ( God forbid!), I would be totally broke and evicted/homeless within a month or two.
Why don’t I work? I have severe arthritis and multiple sclerosis. Some days, I can walk, bend, stretch, carry things, etc… Other days, I am unable to do any of those things. Even putting on clothes or writing a note takes an hour! I would love to be a healthy person with normal energy levels and a great job. Being poor and sick isn’t the endless party that so many welfare-haters think it is. Many poor people use drugs because of physical and emotional pain. Lots of people can’t find a job in today’s economy. Some people CAN’T do those “menial” jobs which all the haters on anti-welfare forums “suggest”.
Anyway, back to the drug testing disaster. So many people are saying: “Well, MY job requires me to take random drug tests, so jobless people should have to do it, too.” In other words, let’s share the misery! I have a fresh new idea: NO
ONE should be drug tested unless their behavior or job performance indicates a problem. Drug testing should be the last resort!
Also… stopping a drug addict’s check will not stop his addiction. It won’t change his need for food, shelter, clothing, etc… As more of these laws are passed, expect a dramatic rise in homelessness and crime. Expect a lot more violence, more in the stressed-out homes of the poor, and more in the streets. And if your knee-jerk answer is something like “okay, then we’ll just throw all of ‘em in prison”, remember how EXPENSIVE that is: $50,000 per year each prisoner, last I heard.
I believe that ok lets drug test welfare recipients,but let us not throw them to the street.There are other options.Alot of welfare plans include parenting classes and offer help in domestic violence.You people are talking about abolishing and shunning those people,which would make it bad on everyone else.You know if we can pay $50.000 per person in prison,why not spend $5,000 to help an addict in need ,and who’s life can be changed.I myself am an addict and if someone came to me know and said hey I can send you to a long term drug rehab for free ans not lose my son or my assistance for food and health and cash.Alot of us addicts really do want the help with all our being but addicts are also afraid and ashamed of there addictions and what they have done to our loved ones.You can’t get rid of us by throwing us away.Why could’nt the system say ok we can help you but you have to go to this 3 month residential rehab first.Alot of our lives could be saved this way.