Why should a drug addict's babies die? ("Welfare"
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
08 Jun 2011, 8:06 am
Interesting.
Paying for drug tests with money they don't have? Well, that's the thing, a Catch-22. Exactly how much does a drug test cost? Given time, someone panhandling can eventually get that kind of money, or they have relatives who will help out, or they can go to a local church and ask for help. The idea is that if they are using drugs, they're getting money from SOMEWHERE. If they can afford drugs, they can afford drug tests. There are ways of getting money on the street (not involving illegal activity, I might add).
Perhaps no one here hates DHS more than I do, especially given the policies of CPS and the arrogance of a lot of social workers. However, someone addicted to drugs such that they aren't helping at least provide the needs of their kids really does pose a danger to that child or those children and probably SHOULD have their children taken away. Not that children in foster care are really that much better off, but at least it's SOMETHING. It's something to eat and a place to sleep. Honestly, everyone knows it's foolish to become addicted to hard drugs in the first place--I understand addiction to pain medication when prescribed under a doctor's care after some kind of severe illness or trauma, but that isn't the same thing. And kids in the foster care system ARE basically getting welfare benefits--which leaves the drug-addicted parent. Without the burden of a child, such a parent may choose to straighten up so that she CAN receive welfare...or not, whatever.
But allowing someone who is drug-addicted to receive benefits is not good because it can enable the addiction. Nobody wants that, and it isn't really kind to the addict. Foster care is cruel to the kids, but at least you can say that these kids have somewhere to go for some kind of help. Enabling an addict just prolongs the illness. If denying them benefits causes them to rethink their actions, then call it "intervention." Call it "tough love." Call it "deterrence" for those who might be tempted to use drugs but decide not to because of the consequences of drug use. As to people who are clean but can't afford the drug test--as I've said before, one can always get the money SOMEHOW. I'm really curious how much a drug test costs, especially given that someone will be compensated if they are clean.
The welfare system as a whole is highly hypocritical, speaking from my own personal experience. I've made no secret of the injustices my family has endured from the start of the Great Recession, to wit: Both of us lost our jobs, had to give up our house, were homeless for 2 1/2 months, were reported to CPS on 3 separate occasions. During this time, we DID manage to receive WIC for about 2 years and voluntarily gave that up because we didn't need it anymore once things started to turn around for us. We've been denied Medicaid EVERY SINGLE TIME, especially after our daughter was in the hospital for 3 weeks. There is a government-sponsored program that helps cover the cost of childcare for working parents, but once we cut through the red tape we were still denied because we "make too much money" and my work hours are very irregular. What's awful is I know people who will admit to lying in order to receive welfare, and a social worker once told my wife to go back to the office and reapply for childcare assistance--but before she goes in, take off her wedding ring.
???
So "the system" encourages dishonesty and immorality. I'm not writing this for anyone's pity or anything--we dug ourselves out of our own pit, and no doubt much of that was divine intervention. It's just the reality of it. People who are just wealthy enough to avoid welfare only hate it because of the tax impact. People like us who really do CARE about improving our situation are denied when our need is only temporary, so we hate the system because of the immorality and dishonesty of both people who stay in the system and those who administer it. It's no surprise to me at all that when tough times hit people want to get rid of money allocated to welfare, and a good place to start is within a population reputed to be high-risk for using funds to feed their addictions.
08 Jun 2011, 8:26 am
I don't it's as easy as it used to be to trade food stamps. Most states have have a debit card system now.
I'd also like to point out that people aren't exactly lining up to adopt children from broken homes. Healthy babies, yes. Older kids with issues, not so much. Are they better off in group homes and foster care? I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the exact circumstances.
And a side to AngelRho - I feel your pain. My family has been in a similar situation for almost 2 years now (lost jobs, lost home, luckily no homelessness - that must have been awful). We've been denied medicaid too (our family of 4 makes over 12K/year - isn't that just insane?). Thankfully, our kids qualified for CHIP so they now have coverage. Have you tried CHIP? It takes a while (for use about 3 months), but it's well worth it. The childcare thing sucks too. I was lucky to find a job working at home. Childcare is unbelievably expensive - and you often get what you pay for. Apologies for the digression.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
08 Jun 2011, 8:52 am
Paying for drug tests with money they don't have? Well, that's the thing, a Catch-22. Exactly how much does a drug test cost? Given time, someone panhandling can eventually get that kind of money, or they have relatives who will help out, or they can go to a local church and ask for help. The idea is that if they are using drugs, they're getting money from SOMEWHERE. If they can afford drugs, they can afford drug tests. There are ways of getting money on the street (not involving illegal activity, I might add).
Perhaps no one here hates DHS more than I do, especially given the policies of CPS and the arrogance of a lot of social workers. However, someone addicted to drugs such that they aren't helping at least provide the needs of their kids really does pose a danger to that child or those children and probably SHOULD have their children taken away. Not that children in foster care are really that much better off, but at least it's SOMETHING. It's something to eat and a place to sleep. Honestly, everyone knows it's foolish to become addicted to hard drugs in the first place--I understand addiction to pain medication when prescribed under a doctor's care after some kind of severe illness or trauma, but that isn't the same thing. And kids in the foster care system ARE basically getting welfare benefits--which leaves the drug-addicted parent. Without the burden of a child, such a parent may choose to straighten up so that she CAN receive welfare...or not, whatever.
But allowing someone who is drug-addicted to receive benefits is not good because it can enable the addiction. Nobody wants that, and it isn't really kind to the addict. Foster care is cruel to the kids, but at least you can say that these kids have somewhere to go for some kind of help. Enabling an addict just prolongs the illness. If denying them benefits causes them to rethink their actions, then call it "intervention." Call it "tough love." Call it "deterrence" for those who might be tempted to use drugs but decide not to because of the consequences of drug use. As to people who are clean but can't afford the drug test--as I've said before, one can always get the money SOMEHOW. I'm really curious how much a drug test costs, especially given that someone will be compensated if they are clean.
The welfare system as a whole is highly hypocritical, speaking from my own personal experience. I've made no secret of the injustices my family has endured from the start of the Great Recession, to wit: Both of us lost our jobs, had to give up our house, were homeless for 2 1/2 months, were reported to CPS on 3 separate occasions. During this time, we DID manage to receive WIC for about 2 years and voluntarily gave that up because we didn't need it anymore once things started to turn around for us. We've been denied Medicaid EVERY SINGLE TIME, especially after our daughter was in the hospital for 3 weeks. There is a government-sponsored program that helps cover the cost of childcare for working parents, but once we cut through the red tape we were still denied because we "make too much money" and my work hours are very irregular. What's awful is I know people who will admit to lying in order to receive welfare, and a social worker once told my wife to go back to the office and reapply for childcare assistance--but before she goes in, take off her wedding ring.
???
So "the system" encourages dishonesty and immorality. I'm not writing this for anyone's pity or anything--we dug ourselves out of our own pit, and no doubt much of that was divine intervention. It's just the reality of it. People who are just wealthy enough to avoid welfare only hate it because of the tax impact. People like us who really do CARE about improving our situation are denied when our need is only temporary, so we hate the system because of the immorality and dishonesty of both people who stay in the system and those who administer it. It's no surprise to me at all that when tough times hit people want to get rid of money allocated to welfare, and a good place to start is within a population reputed to be high-risk for using funds to feed their addictions.
The thing is requiring drug test also forces people who don't use drugs to take the test so its messed up to make them pay for it, obviously if they did not need financial help they would not be applying. And you can't say for sure everyone could come up with money for a drug test. Also drug testing in general does not prove whether or not someone is an 'addict' I think its too much of an invasion of privacy to drug test in general. But yeah it does not seem like this law is meant to protect or help anyone....its to try and get less people on welfare so less money can go to that
08 Jun 2011, 9:46 am
I don't disagree with the principle of the law. It's the method and attitude I don't like. I don't think someone with an addiction problem should be recieving benefits unless they are also getting treatment. My problem is with forcing EVERYONE who goes on benefits to take a drug test. That's just condescending and a violation of privacy. I also wouldn't count something like occasional marajuana use as an "addiction", yet this law wants to nail those people too.
08 Jun 2011, 1:27 pm
I don't think the adoption option would demonstrate itself to be a meaningful solution.
I suspect that most children identified in these situations would be more than twelve months old. Access to neo-natal care and post-partum support is generally stronger for mothers of children under 1 year old, than mother's of older infants and children.
By the time that administrative action could be taken to sever these children from their parents, they would likely be beyond the age that they would represent desirable adoptees. Children's Aid Societies and foster homes are full of children who cannot successfully be placed with adoptive parents, the vast majority of whom want to adopt neonates.
_________________
--James
08 Jun 2011, 1:39 pm
It seems that you have the type of brain I'm trying to pick here. How do you feel about the opinion posed in the OP? If you agree with the opinion, could you elaborate as to why?
My position is that the only proper system of human interaction is based upon purely voluntary association. That is the only way to preserve justice and prevent slavery.
How do you justify the position of Alexander Hamilton, who opposed slavery, defended a man's freedom of speech (who was speaking in favor of things he vehemently opposed), and argued the necessity for a government to tax its citizens?
I don't.
So you cannot support your own position in the face of a historic and influential figure that's clearly oppositional to your position? I was hoping your point of view was a bit more intelligent and thought-out than that.
08 Jun 2011, 1:49 pm
Yes, it's quite diabolical. You see, there's already plenty of government programs that mandate drug testing. A standard Medicaid physical includes a drug test. Job assistance programs require a drug test. The difference is that it's on the State's dime. Under the new legislation, a drug addict doesn't get to have their addiction addressed and discussed with a physician and then be presented with options for treatment and recovery. Under the new legislation, a drug addict, if one has the stones to pay for a drug test when they already know the negative results, will be simply denied any help at all and be left to continue their drug habits unaddressed and unassisted.
This does perpetuate the drug culture and, in addition, places an increased burden on Child Family Services to investigate and seize children when they do not currently have the manpower, funding or skills to handle their current workload.
No good can come of this thing.
But that fact set aside, I'm trying to get to the bottom of how someone who was normal five minutes ago can suddenly pop out with, "If their children starve, that'll teach those drug addicts not to have kids they shouldn't have had." It just makes my jaw hit the floor. The assumptions in that single statement really blow me away. So far, nobody's really bringing anything to the table that doesn't scream "overprivileged", "classist", "ignorant" and "hateful" so I'm not sure I'm going to get a coherent, intelligent and well-defined answer to my question.
08 Jun 2011, 1:55 pm
It's hardly risky, people used to come into a restaurant I once worked at offering to sell foodstamps for half value in cash all the time. My employer at the time used to buy them too, it was not exactly a back alley type of transaction.
It's a debit card that requires a pin number. The program must be re-qualified for every three months. This means poor people will have to pay for their own drug test every three months to be able to feed their families, this including low income full-time working people who just need a little help. And you can't pay for anything with food stamps. You can't pay for drugs with food stamps. You can't even buy toilet paper with food stamps. It's on the state websites what you can use food stamps for. Ditto with Medicaid. What does Medicaid have to do with drug addict abuse? Isn't the already included drug test with Medicaid physicals enough to address a patient's drug problem and demand the patient seek treatment?
I'm wondering if people will have to go through physicals next to determine pre-existing conditions before they'll qualify for Medicaid and Medicare. Every three months, they'll have to be judged. Like private insurance, but worse. That'll teach those poor people not to have any money!
08 Jun 2011, 2:08 pm
It seems that you have the type of brain I'm trying to pick here. How do you feel about the opinion posed in the OP? If you agree with the opinion, could you elaborate as to why?
My position is that the only proper system of human interaction is based upon purely voluntary association. That is the only way to preserve justice and prevent slavery.
How do you justify the position of Alexander Hamilton, who opposed slavery, defended a man's freedom of speech (who was speaking in favor of things he vehemently opposed), and argued the necessity for a government to tax its citizens?
I don't.
So you cannot support your own position in the face of a historic and influential figure that's clearly oppositional to your position? I was hoping your point of view was a bit more intelligent and thought-out than that.
Your question was 'do I justify Hamilton's position'. I don't justify his position, that was his prerogative. There are some things that I agree with him on; taxation is not one of them. My position does not seek support from his.
In Hamilton's time most people did not believe that existence was possible without a king, much less without taxation. His generation's contribution to history was to demonstrate that mankind could exist without being shackled to a monarchy. It was left up to later generations to demonstrate that mankind can exist without shackles at all. One can only do so much in a lifetime.
08 Jun 2011, 2:16 pm
Actually, "Hamilton's generation" was tasked with building a non-monarchy government system that functioned. Hamilton's position was that taxes were a fundamental and essential part of that. He argued that the monarchy's folly in taxing was that they did not afford the colonies representation. In a government that provides representation, taxation is a practical and necessary part of providing a working government. Hamilton also argued to maintain a standing Army, as well as other services for which taxes would be used. The intention was not to provide a ruler with wealth but to return the money in services and quality of life for the country's people. In essence, a country's people providing for themselves. I didn't expect to have to derail into having to explain this. Are you not actually familiar with the history?
08 Jun 2011, 2:21 pm
Actually, "Hamilton's generation" was tasked with building a non-monarchy government system that functioned. Hamilton's position was that taxes were a fundamental and essential part of that. He argued that the monarchy's folly in taxing was that they did not afford the colonies representation. In a government that provides representation, taxation is a practical and necessary part of providing a working government. Hamilton also argued to maintain a standing Army, as well as other services for which taxes would be used. The intention was not to provide a ruler with wealth but to return the money in services and quality of life for the country's people. In essence, a country's people providing for themselves. I didn't expect to have to derail into having to explain this. Are you not actually familiar with the history?
Alexander Hamilton was the Statist from Hell. It is too bad a musket ball did not finish him ten years earlier during the Whiskey Rebellion.
ruveyn
08 Jun 2011, 2:44 pm
I'm very familiar with how an EBT card works, and how EBT fraud works as well. With the new cards you just give the card holder a grocery list and pay them a percentage of the receipt total in cash when they return with the groceries, quick and simple. Trust me, I've seen this done first hand quite often, it's easy to do and practically zero risk for all parties. This is not to say that I support the Florida policy, I'm for legalizing all drugs so I could really care less about who's taking what, but I happen to have experience with one aspect of this thread and am commenting only on what I have personally seen.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
08 Jun 2011, 2:47 pm
Yes, it's quite diabolical. You see, there's already plenty of government programs that mandate drug testing. A standard Medicaid physical includes a drug test. Job assistance programs require a drug test. The difference is that it's on the State's dime. Under the new legislation, a drug addict doesn't get to have their addiction addressed and discussed with a physician and then be presented with options for treatment and recovery. Under the new legislation, a drug addict, if one has the stones to pay for a drug test when they already know the negative results, will be simply denied any help at all and be left to continue their drug habits unaddressed and unassisted.
This does perpetuate the drug culture and, in addition, places an increased burden on Child Family Services to investigate and seize children when they do not currently have the manpower, funding or skills to handle their current workload.
No good can come of this thing.
But that fact set aside, I'm trying to get to the bottom of how someone who was normal five minutes ago can suddenly pop out with, "If their children starve, that'll teach those drug addicts not to have kids they shouldn't have had." It just makes my jaw hit the floor. The assumptions in that single statement really blow me away. So far, nobody's really bringing anything to the table that doesn't scream "overprivileged", "classist", "ignorant" and "hateful" so I'm not sure I'm going to get a coherent, intelligent and well-defined answer to my question.
Well, you ARE talking about NTs here. They are capable of incredible logical switchbacks. Maybe it's been a while since you read Orwell's 1984. Remember where Winston is in a crowd that is full of vim and vigor denouncing Eastasia, being riled up by Party speakers, and suddenly word comes out that Oceania is REALLY at war with Eurasia, and everybody (except Winston) starts denouncing Eurasia with the same hate that was directed at Eastasia 60 seconds before? That's what NTs are capable of. If humans didn't hate, they wouldn't be human. If the strong didn't exterminate the weak, this would be a totally different universe. (Maybe there's a planet somewhere where communism is the natural order of things, but I doubt it.) You can either keep pushing that stone uphill, or go with the flow.
Personally I think we should issue human hunting licenses. You can hunt down and kill X number of homeless drug addicts, X number of feral children, and so on. It would take care of the problem easily. We use this system to keep deer and elk populations in line. The alternative is gas chambers, and I'm told that the ovens smell. Burning human flesh is not pleasant.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
08 Jun 2011, 2:58 pm
Yes, it's quite diabolical. You see, there's already plenty of government programs that mandate drug testing. A standard Medicaid physical includes a drug test. Job assistance programs require a drug test. The difference is that it's on the State's dime. Under the new legislation, a drug addict doesn't get to have their addiction addressed and discussed with a physician and then be presented with options for treatment and recovery. Under the new legislation, a drug addict, if one has the stones to pay for a drug test when they already know the negative results, will be simply denied any help at all and be left to continue their drug habits unaddressed and unassisted.
This does perpetuate the drug culture and, in addition, places an increased burden on Child Family Services to investigate and seize children when they do not currently have the manpower, funding or skills to handle their current workload.
No good can come of this thing.
But that fact set aside, I'm trying to get to the bottom of how someone who was normal five minutes ago can suddenly pop out with, "If their children starve, that'll teach those drug addicts not to have kids they shouldn't have had." It just makes my jaw hit the floor. The assumptions in that single statement really blow me away. So far, nobody's really bringing anything to the table that doesn't scream "overprivileged", "classist", "ignorant" and "hateful" so I'm not sure I'm going to get a coherent, intelligent and well-defined answer to my question.
Well, you ARE talking about NTs here. They are capable of incredible logical switchbacks. Maybe it's been a while since you read Orwell's 1984. Remember where Winston is in a crowd that is full of vim and vigor denouncing Eastasia, being riled up by Party speakers, and suddenly word comes out that Oceania is REALLY at war with Eurasia, and everybody (except Winston) starts denouncing Eurasia with the same hate that was directed at Eastasia 60 seconds before? That's what NTs are capable of. If humans didn't hate, they wouldn't be human. If the strong didn't exterminate the weak, this would be a totally different universe. (Maybe there's a planet somewhere where communism is the natural order of things, but I doubt it.) You can either keep pushing that stone uphill, or go with the flow.
Personally I think we should issue human hunting licenses. You can hunt down and kill X number of homeless drug addicts, X number of feral children, and so on. It would take care of the problem easily. We use this system to keep deer and elk populations in line. The alternative is gas chambers, and I'm told that the ovens smell. Burning human flesh is not pleasant.
Well yeah if such a thing actually was legalized I think I would go somewhere else...as I don't think running around trying to exterminate people I don't like would be a very good way to solve anything.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
08 Jun 2011, 3:19 pm
There's a law now in Florida that requires poor people to pay for their own drug testing before they and their children can qualify for public assistance (including Food Stamps and Medicaid, etc.). If an individual passes the drug test, they will be refunded the money for the test. If they do not pass, there's no assistance and no refund.
If they don't pass the drug test and it's not a false positive, perhaps while they're seeking welfare they could cut down on the purchasing of illegal drugs and instead spend their own money on food for their family.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
08 Jun 2011, 3:23 pm
There's a law now in Florida that requires poor people to pay for their own drug testing before they and their children can qualify for public assistance (including Food Stamps and Medicaid, etc.). If an individual passes the drug test, they will be refunded the money for the test. If they do not pass, there's no assistance and no refund.
If they don't pass the drug test and it's not a false positive, perhaps while they're seeking welfare they could cut down on the purchasing of illegal drugs and instead spend their own money on food for their family.
well if someone is addicted chances are they may need help quitting, this approach does not seem like its really going to solve any problems.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| How Many Alien Babies Have You Had? |
05 Feb 2024, 10:42 pm |
| a cheap generic drug is the darling of longevity enthusiasts |
16 Mar 2024, 11:50 am |
