Thread: Florida bad at math

Originally Posted by C-B-M

If the state used a $2 test, would you be OK with it? It's a simple question.

It would be a better idea on the financial end.

Originally Posted by CSA

How many people were discouranged from applying for benifits because they were on drugs.

I.E., did applications drop month over month since the bill was passed.

How many people knowing that they could be tested drop the drug use?

We'll never know...

Originally Posted by Latterbach

The financials on this thread have been thrown out by a number of people besides myself. I think you and I may agree about the OP, (a first).

There's a constant stream of folks applying for benefits, some folks that fail the test can reapply, someone not getting the benefits doesn't save the state a penny becasue they weren't receiving the funds before they applied...

It's only possible to actually get savings with this scheme if a finite number of people are permitted to apply over a time period and some of those people are rejected. People apply when they perceive they have a need. They are not costing the system any money for those benefits before they apply and are approved.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

It be a better idea on the financial end.

That's true. But it didn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Latterbach

I am naive enough to hope there is a professional Government employee reviewing every welfare case and is looking out for us taxpayers.

You are naive. A government agency that doesn't use it's budget loses budget and staff end up being laid off, that could be the professional government employee hired to review every welfare case. There's an incentive for agencies that oversee benefits programs to find enough people to help so they maintain their budgets and their jobs.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

That's true. But it didn't answer the question.

Was this your question?

Originally Posted by C-B-M

If the state used a $2 test, would you be OK with it? It's a simple question.

If so, I answered the question in regards to finances.

If you have another question, try asking it.

That's right, but I wasn't referring to finances. Which you know.

The problem is if you answered the question, you'd reveal what your actual issue was with the drug testing. Here's a hint: it's not the financial side of things.

It really doesn't matter if you actually answer it or not, since it's painfully obvious by now. The only reason I'm asking is because I think it's both cowardly and disingenuous to mask your actual agenda with some false outrage about something else. But that's certainly up to you.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

That's right, but I wasn't referring to finances. Which you know.

The problem is if you answered the question, you'd reveal what your actual issue was with the drug testing. Here's a hint: it's not the financial side of things.

It really doesn't matter if you actually answer it or not, since it's painfully obvious by now. The only reason I'm asking is because I think it's both cowardly and disingenuous to mask your actual agenda with some false outrage about something else. But that's certainly up to you.

Ask a complete question, try avoiding trickery and veiled questions if you are so brave and concerned about honesty.

I did ask a complete question. I can't help it if you don't want to answer it. Additionally, it's a very direct question. I asked you if the state used the cheaper kits, would you then be OK with the drug testing? After all, your original post was going on and on about the cost, as were your subsequent posts. But both of us know that's not the thing that's actually angering you about this issue. Is it?

Originally Posted by C-B-M

I did ask a complete question. I can't help it if you don't want to answer it. Additionally, it's a very direct question. I asked you if the state used the cheaper kits, would you then be OK with the drug testing? After all, your original post was going on and on about the cost, as were your subsequent posts. But both of us know that's not the thing that's actually angering you about this issue. Is it?

Tell me what I'm thinking.

Sure. You're actually just upset that people are being punished for using drugs. See how simple that was?

By the way, I'm gonna hit the sack right now, but I'll read your response in the AM.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Sure. You're actually just upset that people are being punished for using drugs. See how simple that was?

No, you are wrong. I object to the public being bamboozled into supporting laws that force individuals to provide evidence against themselves with lies about cost saving. The constant eating away at out liberties is what I object to in addition to ridiculous expense which has nothing at all to do with money and everything about more power for the government.

Originally Posted by Jefe

It's actually $2.50, and that's only for a single panel test. If you really want to catch those druggies, you want the 6 panel test for $7.25 each.

http://http://www.drugtestsuccess.com/order.htm

Further, this test only comes with a "test card". It doesn't include the specimen collection container. It also doesn't come with the healthcare professional required to administer the test, who obviously adds a lot to the cost.

IOW, there's no such thing as a "$2.00 drug test". The self contained, idiot-proof specimen cups with built-in test strips, that check for 5 or 6 drugs (not just one) cost around $30-$35. I believe that includes a secondary lab analysis, though, which is probably unecessary. The state of Flordia could probably negotiate a lower price for these self-contained cups, but it won't be $2.00.