Texsox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 How much lobbying from testing companies is going into this testing for benefits movement? Do you want to spend $5 to save $3? And are we really going to cut off aid intended for kids because their parent tests negative? How many retests will be necessary to be accurate and fair? Seems like a solution looking for a problem. The private prison lobby has been pushing tougher illegal alien laws everywhere to counter the more lax drug sentences, they are always looking for business. Now the drug testing companies are getting into the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 By the way, from Florida which has snagged some headlines, it seems the Gov may have a conflict here One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling. Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line. The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name. This raised a groundswell of concern and questions about his health policy initiatives, especially his push to move Medicaid into private HMOs. Solantic does not take Medicaid but does business with private Medicaid HMOs. The questions are growing louder with Scott's executive order on drug testing. Solantic charges $35 for drug tests. The main customers? People who want advance reassurance they will pass an upcoming drug test for work or parole, and worried parents who bring in wayward teens, Bowling said. Customers can have results sent confidentially to their homes, without involving their employer or insurer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Horrible invasion of privacy based on unfounded prejudices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 07:59 AM) Horrible invasion of privacy based on unfounded prejudices. Do you feel the same way about the workplace urine tests that people with jobs that support such benefits are often required to take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) Do you feel the same way about the workplace urine tests that people with jobs that support such benefits are often required to take? I'm generally opposed to them but not for exactly the same reasons. There is a difference between government and private actions. I'd like to see some consistency from the pro-testing side, though. Pee tests for all government benefits and handouts, including mortgage and child tax deductions, SSI disbursements, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:11 AM) I'm generally opposed to them but not for exactly the same reasons. There is a difference between government and private actions. I'd like to see some consistency from the pro-testing side, though. Pee tests for all government benefits and handouts, including mortgage and child tax deductions, SSI disbursements, etc. I'd have no problems with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) I'd have no problems with that. That basically means drug testing the entire country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) I'd have no problems with that. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) That basically means drug testing the entire country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 The average cost of a drug test in Florida is $42, according to a quick googling. 300 million people in the country, once per year, $12.6 billion dollars a year for a single drug test round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) I'd have no problems with that. Why? Why are you in favor of massively increasing the penalities for drug usage, massively increasing government surveillance of your life and introducing massive costs to virtually every aspect of government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:44 AM) The average cost of a drug test in Florida is $42, according to a quick googling. 300 million people in the country, once per year, $12.6 billion dollars a year for a single drug test round. I bet we save a factor of 10 times that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I just don't get it. Why would anyone ever be in favor of drug testing the entire country, let alone a supposed small-government conservative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) Why? Why are you in favor of massively increasing the penalities for drug usage, massively increasing government surveillance of your life and introducing massive costs to virtually every aspect of government? lol @ the idea that those things aren't taking place already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) I bet we save a factor of 10 times that. I bet cost analyses of these testing schemes show it's always a net loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) lol @ the idea that those things aren't taking place already. You don't get to ever complain about a single thing along the lines of "nanny state" ever again. Anyway, these would be new invasions and new costs and new burdens, so your point here doesn't make any sense. Edited October 28, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) I bet we save a factor of 10 times that. What do we do with the people who test positive? Cause if they're going to jail..."Savings" is about the farthest thing from what will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) You don't get to ever complain about a single thing along the lines of "nanny state" ever again. I guess that means you never get to ask for regulations and rules for anything again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) I guess that means you never get to ask for regulations and rules for anything again. That doesn't really follow, while on the other hand you can't get much more paternal government than "drug test every single American" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) You don't get to ever complain about a single thing along the lines of "nanny state" ever again. Anyway, these would be new invasions and new costs and new burdens, so your point here doesn't make any sense. Nobody seems to care when something like Dodd-Frank or SOX does that, why is this so different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) That doesn't really follow, while on the other hand you can't get much more paternal government than "drug test every single American" Paternal like all of the other governmental regulatory bodies that require all of their compliance procedures to be taken place.... Oh like mandatory health care, tax returns, social security, EPA, etc, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) Nobody seems to care when something like Dodd-Frank or SOX does that, why is this so different? Good point, drug testing every American citizen for...some reason...is analogous to banking regulations such that we don't get more Enrons and Lehman Brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) Good point, drug testing every American citizen for...some reason...is analogous to banking regulations such that we don't get more Enrons and Lehman Brothers. So we don't get more drug addicts Americans to ruin their lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) Paternal like all of the other governmental regulatory bodies that require all of their compliance procedures to be taken place.... Oh like mandatory health care, tax returns, social security, EPA, etc, etc Right, that's at least along the same line (not sure about tax returns?). I don't support any and all regulations, and I don't support criminalized drug laws, and I really don't support unnecessary and expensive drug testing for government benefits. But I don't ideologically oppose paternal or paternal-like government actions, while conservatives generally do, or at least claim to. If you're going to make an argument in favor of such strong paternal actions, you can't turn around and criticize other programs or laws based on their paternal nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) So we don't get more drug addicts Americans to ruin their lives? There are several key leaps here you're making that I question...I'm the "Big government is spectacular" guy here so I'm not going to oppose this on some principle...but I need some reason to think it would be effective. How often are you going to test people? Is it going to be randomly done or scheduled (i.e. when you pay your taxes or soemthing like that)? Wouldn't you basically need an army of people to make nationwide random testing happen? What happens when people test positive, is this going to triple our prison population? How do you respond to the different types of drugs, do you treat powder cocaine differently from crack (as the law currently does), steroids, marijuana, etc.? I'm skeptical that any nationwide measure would "keep addicted Americans from ruining their lives" rather than ruining a lot of people's lives instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) So we don't get more drug addicts Americans to ruin their lives? Drugs are already criminalized, but that hasn't stopped a damn thing. I lost my uncle this week due to alcoholism. I look forward to your support for prohibition and routine breathalyzer testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts