Home > Uncategorized > Drug Testing for MaineCare

Drug Testing for MaineCare

This is the kind of stuff we need to look at when it comes to welfare reform, at least at first.

Let me say for the 10,000th time, that I think all drugs should be legal, because how other people kill themselves doesn’t concern me at all. I do take exception at being asked to subsidize someone drug use when they do it while on welfare programs.

Presumably people pay money for drugs and it seems that not providing benefits to people that have the money to waste on drugs is a good thing. It frees up funds for others who aren’t blowing money on a high and aren’t asking for a handout while they are doing it.

“But what about those with substance abuse problems!?!?! You evil conservative! Why don’t you just push the children down stairs you bigot!!!”

Yes, I know. Now that it’s been said no one else needs to, but lets be real. Discriminating against those doing harmful drugs by saying if they can pay for those they can buy their own health care, food and housing is one way of providing an incentive against doing those things. Perhaps the best way is to bar those people who are not enrolled in (and progressing satisfactorily) a substance abuse program who test positive or to use the military term, “piss hot”.

I simply find it insulting that people would ask for assistance from the “collective me”, and waste the money they do have on drugs or alcohol or any one of 100 things they don’t need. For some people to say that it is our civic duty to provide for them anyway, I say: “horse shit”. Your right to the publics help should stop when you start making crappy decisions that are going to cost everyone.

It quite easy. Under President Nathan Fellows, you can do any drugs you want as long as you don’t want to work for the government, get public assistance of any kind or work for the employers who don’t permit druggies. Freedom is yummy and usually provides a cost savings or turns a profit.

(for the record, as funny as it is to watch people of any age falling down stairs, conservatives don’t, as a rule, do the pushing. In fact over on the other side of the spectrum there is a lot more pushing going on, they just call it “compassion”)

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 2011/04/25 at 21:07

    I don’t disagree that giving assistance to those who are taking drugs is distasteful. But what DO you do with those children of the drug abusers? Take them away and provide housing/parenting for them elsewhere?

    Who’s going to pay for that and what’s THAT bill going to be?

    Is this another instance of you wanting even bigger gov’t rather than smaller gov’t on the basis of principle? That is, if it were determined that, by keeping such folk in the system where they could get help getting off of drugs cost $1x and dropping them off assistance and then taking their children and housing them for however many years at a cost of $2-10x, you’d still support the more expensive, more expansive gov’t solution, because you’re opposed to giving money to someone “on drugs”?

    Or is it the case that you wouldn’t advocate taking those children away and that family would just sink/swim the best they can?

    None of that is meant to sound hostile, just trying to clarify what that would mean in the real world.

  2. 2011/04/25 at 21:08

    Another question: If this family were on assistance and NOT doing drugs, but they were giving 10% of their money to their church, would you advocate kicking them off assistance for that, too?

  3. 2011/04/25 at 21:31

    I’m for getting rid of the government assistance in its entirety, but if we must have it than it needs to be administered in a way that doesn’t provide benefits to people who are using the system as a way to let them afford things that are likely to keep them on the rolls.

    As far as the church contributions go… If they can afford to give 10% of their money away to their church than clearly they are not in dire need of government assistance. I don’t think there is much of an issue with the poor giving money to charities of any kind, but you raised an interesting point. I would support having a families finances more closely examined though.

    I think random drug testing is not much of a growth of government, particularly when it is likely to reduce its overall size given the incentive to either get off welfare so they can do as they please or reduce the number of people on the rolls.

    Your point about the cost of their children falling through the cracks is an interesting one. I think it bolsters my belief that there is too much government intrusion when the government takes a keen interest in these things as it is. If non-profits (churches, NGO’s, etc.) were left to set the terms of assistance I think you would find more incentives to do better and not do things that can get you kicked off the list.

    If the state were involved only in taking abused and neglected children and than placing them with organizations to help them instead of administering their care directly, I believe the over all level of care would rise and the cost of that care would fall. the government relegated to something they do better than administer, that is oversee.

  4. 2011/04/25 at 21:33

    Also I pointed out that a solution that requires those on welfare and on drugs to be progressing in some kind of program to help them would be better. rather than accepting that the best way is just to kick them off or keep them on regardless.

    Great comments, as usual, thanks.

  5. 2011/04/25 at 21:43

    I don’t think there is much of an issue with the poor giving money to charities of any kind, but you raised an interesting point.

    It is my understanding that the poor in the US tend to give as much or more than those with more. Not sure how that relates to those on assistance.

    If the state were involved only in taking abused and neglected children and than placing them with organizations to help them instead of administering their care directly

    I believe that is how it works, at least here in KY. The problem is, there’s not enough money/resources to assist those children who need the assistance now. If you start removing even more children, that becomes even more of an expense that SOMEONE will have to pay for, and currently, the churches/non-profits don’t have the resources to step up. Or better stated, church folk DO have the resources, but that is not going to meet the needs that are out there.

    The point is, if you try to save money in this way, SOMEONE SOMEWHERE will have to pay even more, it seems to me.

    For me, I’d be all in favor of the public at large funding non-profits to take care of all these needs. As it is, that’s not happening in sufficient amounts to meet the needs.

  6. 2011/04/25 at 21:43

    I feel the need to be a serial commenter, which I can get away with since it’s my blog 🙂 (for better or worse)

    Its said its better to teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish is it not? Surely it must still be better to give a man a fish rather than give him a coin to buy a fish.

    You can look back to medieval “welfare” to see this application. Monasteries would often give food and lodging rather than financial assistance to the poor. They also ran school to educate the children of the poor.

    (It gives rise to the question of dark age and middle age literacy. It’s widely thought that many people could at least read, but not write. Something that is kind of a revelation compared to what was once the understanding, but that’s all another post for a different day)

    So you have a better system of welfare. real things are given rather than the means to get those things.

    “A man given a penny is as likely to spend it in an ale house as to buy food for his wife and children. Better to give the man bread and have them all eat for a day rather than have the man be merry for a night.”

    That is somewhat paraphrased from the rule of St. Benedict. Words to that effect anyways. Financial assistance is a horrible idea.

  7. 2011/04/25 at 21:46

    I’m with you on not just better funding of non-profits, but better incentives to donate to them. I’d be even happier with government chartering of non-profits, with the aim of elected officials having partial oversight but also with the aim of them being financially independent.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: