All politicians receiving tax payer subsidized health care should also take drug tests - and loose their pensions if they fail.
3
Please, please, be sure to test for opoids. That is, test for the drugs that the Trump voters are using.
2
Another typical idea from the odious Governor Walker. If we're going to drug test Medicaid recipients, then why not those parasites on Medicare? And don't forget Social Security. While we're at it, how about all candidates for political office? Based on what a despicable human being Scott Walker is I suspect he may be stuck on a really, really bad acid trip. And I'd love to see the analysis of the chemical stew in the President's blood and urine samples. With access to nuclear weapons, surely Mr. Trump poses a much greater threat than some random poor person.
Why not just drug test every American, every month, forever?
Why not just drug test every American, every month, forever?
6
Fair is fair. If we're going to drug test poor people, then everyone - everyone - who gets any kind of a subsidy or stealth subsidy in the form of a tax credit should be drug tested. For alcohol and tobacco, too.
6
Comments were closed for article re medical aid to the undocumented but this is about medical aid to the poor. The Canadian medical system does not cover dental care or prescriptions. Depending on the province people on social assistance may get some limited dental and prescriptions. Ditto for seniors medications. i.e. in BC seniors prescription coverage is quite limited. Refugee claiments may get more generous coverage i.e. eye care...not covered generally except limited eye exams. Eye illness is covered but on referral. The Harper government tried to discontinue refugee coverage but this was met by outcry. If you are undocumented you would need to find a free clinic or go to an ER. People have died in Canada from.untreated dental.disease.
2
I get government assistance because I drive on public roads. I get government assistance because when it snows, those roads get plowed. I get government assistance because our military protects me. I get government assistance because the EPA prevents all sorts of pollution that could harm me. I get government assistance because I can deduct home mortgage interest and property taxes from my income for income tax purposes.
I guess I need to be drug tested before I drive, breathe, drink clean water or pay my taxes.
I guess I need to be drug tested before I drive, breathe, drink clean water or pay my taxes.
9
I think it would make more sense if congress were handed a bottle to fill before every vote.
3
OK, then, drug testing should include presrcribed drugs, you know, the ones the well-off, insured people take. Adderal and Meth are pretty much the same, and the benszdodiazapines are pretty bad, too.
5
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Seems to me I've read this story before, a long time ago, and the character who said that eventually learned compassion for the poor - the hard way.
Wisconsin is not showing the nation how to move in a civilized direction.
Wisconsin is not showing the nation how to move in a civilized direction.
3
After reading some of these comments, it appears that we need to mandate basic reading comprehension and minimal human empathy testing for commenters...
2
Think that drug usage has something to do with poverty?
Think that if these poor people got their acts together that they might improve themselves?
Think that if these poor people got their acts together that they might improve themselves?
2
Mike, as the article clearly states, the research on drug testing shows that people on Medicaid and Food Stamps are LESS likely to be using drugs than the population in general, by a factor of 10. So the answer is...no.
11
That is true.
It is not only true for people who are poor.
There are rich people who are on drugs who would benefit if their blood was tested for drugs.
They can afford to go to drug treatment but don't want it for other reasons.
Shouldn't they be drug tested as well because they will benefit when pressure
is used to make them attend a drug program.
I don't know if drug testing will help.
If it does then maybe everyone should be tested.
It is not only true for people who are poor.
There are rich people who are on drugs who would benefit if their blood was tested for drugs.
They can afford to go to drug treatment but don't want it for other reasons.
Shouldn't they be drug tested as well because they will benefit when pressure
is used to make them attend a drug program.
I don't know if drug testing will help.
If it does then maybe everyone should be tested.
1
Liberals, this is why you continue to lose elections.
6
Tom;
Ever hear of Gerrymandering ?
How about the electoral college ?
Liberals would not lose a fair election.
Ever hear of Gerrymandering ?
How about the electoral college ?
Liberals would not lose a fair election.
10
No, it's because the right wing is locked into lies and bigotry and is better at spreading their message
5
Putting a stigma on welfare will motivate people to move up and off the dole. Everyone knows that.
6
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average child Medicaid recipient in Wisconsin, 2014, received $1762. Perhaps all child Medicaid recipients should be drug tested. The earlier such abuses are caught, the easier it should be to reform them. Along those lines, perhaps anybody or any corporation receiving federal government monies greater than $1762, tax credits, payments for goods and services, should be drug tested. After all, taxpayer money should provide the government goods and services untainted by the mind-numbing fog of drug abuse, and if we are returning taxpayer money, the recipients should spend it with the clarity of sobriety.
3
A separate standard for "poor" people? Drug testing for everyone else but not for people on Medicaid.The implication appears to be we should do this because they are black or hispanic. How insulting. It appears that the authors want to continue the stereotypes and deepen the racial divide.
4
Do facts not matter in the least to you, Chris? Do you just choose to ignore that drug testing recipients of aid doesn't actually accomplish anything (except to make people like you feel better of course)? Why is poor in quotation marks, Chris?
4
Next thing you know, some liberal wonk will write a NYT article saying it is "invasive" to ask a sexual partner if he/she has AIDS.
The people using drugs and on Medicaid are asking for public funds. They will get sicker if continuing on drugs. The idea is to get them healthy and to decrease the financial burden they impose on the rest of us working, tax paying non-drug users. That is "invasive"?
The people using drugs and on Medicaid are asking for public funds. They will get sicker if continuing on drugs. The idea is to get them healthy and to decrease the financial burden they impose on the rest of us working, tax paying non-drug users. That is "invasive"?
9
How do you come to your first conclusion? What evidence do you base that assertion on?
Not providing medicaid for those with drug problems who are unable to afford care on their own may, prima facie seem to entail a decrease in medicaid users, but really all it will do is require an expansion of welfare programs in the future. For if people who are in need of health care have no recourse except towards government aid, then they shouldn't have to decide between that and no health care at all. Sickness would mean an inability to work effectively and hence pay the taxes that you claim they should pay. Instead they could be stuck in a cycle of inability to fulfill what the society deems to be a reasonable amount of suffering. Not because they lack will or perseverance, rather because they are in a situation none if any of us could overcome.
Also I would be careful about being so sanctimonious about being a "non-drug user", as what defines a recreational drug is extremely relative. Alcohol, after all, is a definite drug proven and, according to the NIH, its misuse cost the US over $200 billion in 2010. Honestly all drugs truly are is a form of entertainment and distraction, which is something we all indulge in by watching TV or sports or even using the internet. Just not everyone in our society can afford such comforts and must find such necessary relief in substances that only put them at a further disadvantage.
Not providing medicaid for those with drug problems who are unable to afford care on their own may, prima facie seem to entail a decrease in medicaid users, but really all it will do is require an expansion of welfare programs in the future. For if people who are in need of health care have no recourse except towards government aid, then they shouldn't have to decide between that and no health care at all. Sickness would mean an inability to work effectively and hence pay the taxes that you claim they should pay. Instead they could be stuck in a cycle of inability to fulfill what the society deems to be a reasonable amount of suffering. Not because they lack will or perseverance, rather because they are in a situation none if any of us could overcome.
Also I would be careful about being so sanctimonious about being a "non-drug user", as what defines a recreational drug is extremely relative. Alcohol, after all, is a definite drug proven and, according to the NIH, its misuse cost the US over $200 billion in 2010. Honestly all drugs truly are is a form of entertainment and distraction, which is something we all indulge in by watching TV or sports or even using the internet. Just not everyone in our society can afford such comforts and must find such necessary relief in substances that only put them at a further disadvantage.
1
Drug testing employees who handle dangerous equipment or who monitor equipment for substances which could endanger others is a necessity. Testing drivers who are in vehicles involved in accidents with injuries or with the potential to endanger others is also a necessity. If private employers hire people such as Wall Street traders who then allow them to require drug tests, I would assume it is because many of the employers know how Wall Street traders celebrate on the job. Tests are a choice like non-disclosure agreements.
Drug testing those who need money to pay for medical bills who may have illnesses or injuries that allow them to take legal drugs is a foolish waste of time and money. Our Republican legislators and governors have already declared that they are not scientists, not doctors, prefer not to appoint qualified people to posts requiring technical knowledge and are never familiar with the actual content of the bills they are told to sign or vote for so what would be the point of them setting the standards for the drug tests or even listing what drugs will be tested for.
Republican states use drug testing the way that now out-of-office sheriff used pink underwear in his jails: to humiliate and punish people who are poor. It seems many Republican states would like poverty to be an actual crime since so they charge prisoners for basic care and other items to make a profit on them during their jail stays.
Make the GOP tell the truth about drug testing bills.
Drug testing those who need money to pay for medical bills who may have illnesses or injuries that allow them to take legal drugs is a foolish waste of time and money. Our Republican legislators and governors have already declared that they are not scientists, not doctors, prefer not to appoint qualified people to posts requiring technical knowledge and are never familiar with the actual content of the bills they are told to sign or vote for so what would be the point of them setting the standards for the drug tests or even listing what drugs will be tested for.
Republican states use drug testing the way that now out-of-office sheriff used pink underwear in his jails: to humiliate and punish people who are poor. It seems many Republican states would like poverty to be an actual crime since so they charge prisoners for basic care and other items to make a profit on them during their jail stays.
Make the GOP tell the truth about drug testing bills.
6
Let's be clear about this: the drug testing regimen being used today and proposed in Wisconsin does not test for, and cannot test for, the most commonly abused drug -- alcohol. And the drugs most 8-panel urine tests screen for -- cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and cannabis -- have varying half-lives, so the time between the test and last use very much affects who produces a positive test. Thus, while cocaine can produce a positive urine screen up to 8 days after last use, cannabis can do so up to 30 days following last use, or even longer. As the former director of an intensive outpatient substance abuse program, I had one patient who tested positive for cannabis 90 days following her last use.
So, unless they give everyone a breathalyzer test at the same time they do the urine screens there is a 100% chance that people with chronic drinking issues who are smart enough not to drink for 8 hours before the test will not get caught, while all of the frequent pot smokers will.
The clinical reality is that people who abuse any drug are likely to abuse multiple drugs -- called polypharmacy, or polysubstance abuse. This is the population that consumes the most health care resources, if not in the outpatient substance abuse treatment setting, then certainly at the Level I trauma centers around the country where they are being seen in increasing numbers.
On way or another, we all pay for untreated substance abuse.
So, unless they give everyone a breathalyzer test at the same time they do the urine screens there is a 100% chance that people with chronic drinking issues who are smart enough not to drink for 8 hours before the test will not get caught, while all of the frequent pot smokers will.
The clinical reality is that people who abuse any drug are likely to abuse multiple drugs -- called polypharmacy, or polysubstance abuse. This is the population that consumes the most health care resources, if not in the outpatient substance abuse treatment setting, then certainly at the Level I trauma centers around the country where they are being seen in increasing numbers.
On way or another, we all pay for untreated substance abuse.
3
Why don't we test executives, pilots, Uber drivers and politicians for alcohol in their system before we let them endanger all of us? Why is one drug okay but the rest are not? Finally, why don't people realize that ALL drugs, including alcohol, are taken to reduce pain: mental, physical, psychic, moral. Denying people the medical access to get to the core of the pain and resolve it is simply cruel, irrational and punitive. What kind of world is this? Don't we have even a shard of compassion for people who are hurting, often because other people who didn't/couldn't get help have abused them?
6
We actually do test pilots, select executives and select drivers for drugs.
Not sure what your point is - testing for illegal activity is wrong in all cases?
Not sure what your point is - testing for illegal activity is wrong in all cases?
2
I think you do not understand what Rfm's comment.
Yes there are people who are not poor who get tested.
Very few.
There are many who are not.
Just like there are reasons society would benefit if the poor would be made to seek drug treatment society would also benefit when people who are not poor are also made to seek drug treatment.
Should everyone be tested..
Yes there are people who are not poor who get tested.
Very few.
There are many who are not.
Just like there are reasons society would benefit if the poor would be made to seek drug treatment society would also benefit when people who are not poor are also made to seek drug treatment.
Should everyone be tested..
1
You're going to have to explain paragraph 11, where it states people would be forced to receive treatment, and yet somehow that this is a barrier for treatment.
You can't argue against drug testing during an opioid crisis. It's not an invasion of privacy when their obituary says they overdosed the next day. If drug testing is such a waste of money, so is Narcan and a slap on the wrist. If an employer can legally drug test someone, then the public should be allowed to know who is abusing their tax money, too.
You can't argue against drug testing during an opioid crisis. It's not an invasion of privacy when their obituary says they overdosed the next day. If drug testing is such a waste of money, so is Narcan and a slap on the wrist. If an employer can legally drug test someone, then the public should be allowed to know who is abusing their tax money, too.
4
If a person wants others (the PUBLIC) to pay for (subsidize) his/her medical care, then the Public has a right to make sure that the person is not squandering this assistance.
It can definitely be argued that if a person can pay for their drug of choice (including alcohol), they could certainly have made the choice to earmark those funds for healthcare.
Regarding several of the objections already mentioned:
1.Weed vs Other Drugs, and test accuracy: While weed is not as costly as some other drugs, a regular weed habit, whether we condone it or not as a lifestyle, uses money.
2. Questionable Tests: This is a separate question, and its answer does not affect the key need to screen for wasted or misapplied funds.
3. "Invasion of privacy" arguments: If you pay with your own money, then yes, it would be an invasion of privacy. But applicants are applying for PUBLIC funds -- this in and of itself makes the issue a public one.
So, yes -- just like when you asked your parents for spending money, and they first asked you what you needed it for, and they asked what happened to YOUR money before either agreeing or refusing, whether we like it or not, by asking for public funds, a person invites the public into their lives.
If you want to use public money, the public can and should set conditions.
It can definitely be argued that if a person can pay for their drug of choice (including alcohol), they could certainly have made the choice to earmark those funds for healthcare.
Regarding several of the objections already mentioned:
1.Weed vs Other Drugs, and test accuracy: While weed is not as costly as some other drugs, a regular weed habit, whether we condone it or not as a lifestyle, uses money.
2. Questionable Tests: This is a separate question, and its answer does not affect the key need to screen for wasted or misapplied funds.
3. "Invasion of privacy" arguments: If you pay with your own money, then yes, it would be an invasion of privacy. But applicants are applying for PUBLIC funds -- this in and of itself makes the issue a public one.
So, yes -- just like when you asked your parents for spending money, and they first asked you what you needed it for, and they asked what happened to YOUR money before either agreeing or refusing, whether we like it or not, by asking for public funds, a person invites the public into their lives.
If you want to use public money, the public can and should set conditions.
7
Have you read the 4th Amendment? Do you care about the US Constitution?
I've got a better idea. If you run for public office, you have to release your tax records for the last 20 years.
Or, if you plan to be the governor (Scott Walker) you can't be in the pocket of some wealth brothers.
I've got a better idea. If you run for public office, you have to release your tax records for the last 20 years.
Or, if you plan to be the governor (Scott Walker) you can't be in the pocket of some wealth brothers.
6
Great -- LET'S go there:
If you're going in for strict construction, then go all the way -- there is no mention of Medicare/Medicaid at all; ergo it "must" be unconstitutional. (Good luck with that case...)
But, if you are not willing to go this far, and insist that Medicaid/medicare is a desirable entity (which many people this century do), then you allow that we have chosen to continue to permit the the creation & administration of executive departments (also entrusted to operate for the public good in a given area of expertise) as provided for by Article II, Section 2 Paragraph 2, to continue allowing for the raising of funds as provided by Article I, Section 8. Since ultimate approval for such funds perforce derive from the will of the people, they have a right and at he proper expectation that the duly appointed administrative head or the Statutes governing his/her actions shall safeguard and regulate the outflow of these funds -- as per Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 7.
Given the current mob mentality in supporting or opposing anything, running for office is clearly not an option. (And Scott Walker's opinion on anything is not really relevant here). Thank you.
If you're going in for strict construction, then go all the way -- there is no mention of Medicare/Medicaid at all; ergo it "must" be unconstitutional. (Good luck with that case...)
But, if you are not willing to go this far, and insist that Medicaid/medicare is a desirable entity (which many people this century do), then you allow that we have chosen to continue to permit the the creation & administration of executive departments (also entrusted to operate for the public good in a given area of expertise) as provided for by Article II, Section 2 Paragraph 2, to continue allowing for the raising of funds as provided by Article I, Section 8. Since ultimate approval for such funds perforce derive from the will of the people, they have a right and at he proper expectation that the duly appointed administrative head or the Statutes governing his/her actions shall safeguard and regulate the outflow of these funds -- as per Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 7.
Given the current mob mentality in supporting or opposing anything, running for office is clearly not an option. (And Scott Walker's opinion on anything is not really relevant here). Thank you.
A "degrading invasion of their privacy" -- no, it is not. It is probably the drug use that landed them on Medicaid to start with. The people who are working jobs should have some assurance that the money they are paying out in taxes is not being wasted or being thrown away to continuing "rehab" facilities. I do not believe testing for recreational drug use is an unreasonable requirement to receive Medicaid benefits -- however, all people who apply for Medicaid should be tested.
7
Assuming an applicant for Medicaid or other pubic assistance is a drug abuser is degrading and stigmatizing and morally wrong. Especially considering that recipients of public assistance are far less likely to be drug users than the rest of society as studies have shown over and over again. Furthermore, almost half of nursing home residents are Medicaid recipients. Surely it wasn't their drug use, as you say, that "landed" them on Medicaid.
6
I disagree. Testing itself does not "stigmatize". Drug testing is routine for Olympic athletes -- in fact most sporting events now use drug testing.
2
We should drug test 100% of anyone that receives any federal money or benefit at all. Be it in the form of a grant, purchase, contract, wage, pension, medicare, medicade, welfare, bonus, stipend, etc. If a dollar has ever past through the federal government, we should drug test its recipient.
This would test every federal employee, all the way up to DT, including anyone that derives a benefit from the federal gvt, such an office in the whitehouse.
Every governor, congressperson, employee and contractor.
Every person in every company that sells anything to the federal government.
This would test every federal employee, all the way up to DT, including anyone that derives a benefit from the federal gvt, such an office in the whitehouse.
Every governor, congressperson, employee and contractor.
Every person in every company that sells anything to the federal government.
7
How about taxpayers that take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction? CEOs of corporations that receive federal contracts? People who drive on federally funded highways? Soldiers in the U.S. Military? Drug testing is pretty expensive and ineffective for testing everyone who receives any federal benefit at all.
5
POI: All military members from Day One agree to be randomly tested. anytime, and for any reason. It's part of the contract.
I like the CEOs thing, though...
I like the CEOs thing, though...
1
Please forgive the typo/omission: All military members and government employees are subject to this stricture.
First sensible proposal from GOP since Nixon's Comprehensive Health Insurance Act, 1974.
3
If you view drug abuse from a medical perspective then denying people with a medical condition access to medical care seem pretty ridiculous. But, as with all self righteous conservatives, it isn't about how Christ would view them, but how the almighty dollar views them.
8
Oh, come on. We all know the purpose of drug testing ACTUALLY IS to drive people away from welfare. The proponents think applicants mostly all deserve to die because their failures in drug abstention are moral failures, not medical. Their failures to find work are pure laziness, not medical. Sure there might be a few actually real hard luck stories standing there in the line, but GAWD FEARING, Christian churches can figure that out for their own parishioners. If your not part of a church, go ahead and die. Logic has no role in this decision, it is God's just punishment administered by HIS righteous.
12
...and the fact this happens to be the cheap alternative is pure coincidence.
1
Broaden this to include everyone: before you can take a tax deduction on your federal tax forms, you need to submit to a pass a drug test. Before you can cash any government check, too. And before any company can get a government contract, all employees from the C-suite to the janitor must pass drug tests.
7
Yes, poor people shouldn't be drug tested. The tests are expensive and the poor people don't have the money to reimburse the drug tests. Rather, poor people need to be left alone, given their privacy, afforded the opportunity to pursue their dreams in America. They are not animals. they have the free will to abstain from drug use, learn a skill to survive, become self supporting members of normal civilized society. All they need is to be left alone by the social liberals who continue to disable them with false promises, bogus social constructs..
5
Drug testing in America is out of control at all levels. When I lived in the US I was drug tested before being able to start work at important, life and death jobs like serving frozen food at a water park. Serious stuff.
Later, in the UK, I have never once been drug tested for any job, including working for the MOD. Why? Because it is irrelevant! Do people in favour of drug testing think employers and the government should also scientifically test for binge drinking? Alcoholism? What about rage problems? Depression?
Americans believe wholeheartedly in authoritarian control, be it from corporations, the government, or both. What a sad, far cry away from the founding principles of the nation.
Later, in the UK, I have never once been drug tested for any job, including working for the MOD. Why? Because it is irrelevant! Do people in favour of drug testing think employers and the government should also scientifically test for binge drinking? Alcoholism? What about rage problems? Depression?
Americans believe wholeheartedly in authoritarian control, be it from corporations, the government, or both. What a sad, far cry away from the founding principles of the nation.
11
I'm all for drug testing those who receive government benefits -- starting with executives of corporations receiving tax breaks, or bail-out money, or subsidies of any sort. Let's move on to those who receive government money in exchange for goods and services, e.g., the Trump Organization and every military contractor in the land. Include those who receive a salary from the government, from the president on down. Surely it's more important that we have drug-free public servants than drug-free poor people. Let's have a drug-free America!
7
The facts are that it costs American taxpayers and people who buy health insurance, $100,000 or more to treat one case of Hepatitis C. It is easy to contract it, and years of "wasted" family earnings to cover each case.
It is time taxpayers were required to pay for minimum government services but got to partially direct 30% of their income taxes. The politicians who win 51% of the vote would effectively no longer control choices for 100% of discretionary spending. Some would choose more highway lanes, some Planned Parenthood, some more environmental protection and some for more medical research. And some, like the writers, would pick up the medical bills for drug addicts. Wouldn't that be frightening !! Imagine allowing our educated population being able to best choose the country's most important priorities.
It is time taxpayers were required to pay for minimum government services but got to partially direct 30% of their income taxes. The politicians who win 51% of the vote would effectively no longer control choices for 100% of discretionary spending. Some would choose more highway lanes, some Planned Parenthood, some more environmental protection and some for more medical research. And some, like the writers, would pick up the medical bills for drug addicts. Wouldn't that be frightening !! Imagine allowing our educated population being able to best choose the country's most important priorities.
2
Shouldn't we drug test our elected leaders for at least half of them seem to be on something.
20
I'm seeing quite a few commenting that if they have to take drug tests for a job, then medicaid users should be drug tested too.
Please answer this question for me. Why do you feel it's okay for prospective employers to violate your Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment?
Please answer this question for me. Why do you feel it's okay for prospective employers to violate your Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment?
7
This may be what the late Sen. Moynihan called defining deviancy down: when a practice becomes widespread enough, it becomes the new norm.
Drug testing of employees, or potential employees, became commonplace in the 80's, a heady time for those who worshipped the almighty dollar. That was when a group of young financiers were caught dealing in insider trading? The employer of some of them had a solution: drug tests for its employees.
Did the brokerage firm really believe that people manipulate stocks because they're high on drugs? I believe drug testing has another purpose: intimidation, "showing them who's boss."
Drug testing of employees, or potential employees, became commonplace in the 80's, a heady time for those who worshipped the almighty dollar. That was when a group of young financiers were caught dealing in insider trading? The employer of some of them had a solution: drug tests for its employees.
Did the brokerage firm really believe that people manipulate stocks because they're high on drugs? I believe drug testing has another purpose: intimidation, "showing them who's boss."
2
"Why do you feel it's okay for prospective employers to violate your Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment?"
Because they're not violating either one. They are asking me if I will submit to a drug test, and I can choose to not submit. Once I say "Sure, go ahead" they are not violating either Amendment.
The State cannot violate either Amendment by forcing someone to submit to a drug test at the drop of a hat. But that's not what's happening in Wisconsin, either.
Why do you feel it's okay to misrepresent the facts?
Because they're not violating either one. They are asking me if I will submit to a drug test, and I can choose to not submit. Once I say "Sure, go ahead" they are not violating either Amendment.
The State cannot violate either Amendment by forcing someone to submit to a drug test at the drop of a hat. But that's not what's happening in Wisconsin, either.
Why do you feel it's okay to misrepresent the facts?
2
Why? Well, because they wouldn't be violating the Constitution in any way...
1
Elephant in room: "Drug testing" is about weed. Only anti-weed zealots favor it. No other substance leaves traces that last 30 days in urine. Nearly all other substances dissipate long before that, and the actual psychoactive effect of weed wears off long before that.
Weed is sold as produce in many localities, and the sky hasn't fallen. There is no media hype of a weed epidemic. More to the point, few still view the use of weed as a moral failing justifying harsh measures as in the past, such as imprisonment or the automatic loss of work opportunities or health care.
Weed is sold as produce in many localities, and the sky hasn't fallen. There is no media hype of a weed epidemic. More to the point, few still view the use of weed as a moral failing justifying harsh measures as in the past, such as imprisonment or the automatic loss of work opportunities or health care.
10
Weed slows people down and lowers productivity and the people on medicaid especially need all their energy and faculties if they are going to get out of their predicament. I work in a community health center that takes Medicaid and HealthFirst and many able-bodied un or underemployed patients come in high on pot. Enabling them continue this lifestyle in not doing them any favors.
1
Give me a break, allright. <4 is 100% correct. Why would you single out marijuana when so many other drugs are more "productivity lowering," namely alcohol or opioids?
And your plea that medicaid recipients "need their energy and faculties" is laughable and paternalistic and quite frankly creepy.
And your plea that medicaid recipients "need their energy and faculties" is laughable and paternalistic and quite frankly creepy.
1
I'd still rather work with a toker than a drinker any day.
2
Uh, for many people who work, drug tests have long been a fact of life. It's ridiculous to exempt Medicaid recipients because their feelings might get hurt. If I want a paycheck, I pee in the cup. If you want your benefits, you can do the same.
12
If "Big Government" Walker can get away with removing or restricting health care from folks he doesn't like by using infractions of the law as his excuse. Then he can do the same to your Medicaid because of an improper turn ticket, or any infraction for that matter.
Once a republican starts taking from you, It never ends.
Trump is now taking the clean air you breathe and polluting it, The clean water of life and polluting it, The food you need and allowing poisons to contaminate it. He is even ramping up pumping greenhouse gases into our atmosphere causing more global catastrophe's.
Now Walker chimes in with his brain addled idiocy.
What has he been drinking ?
Once a republican starts taking from you, It never ends.
Trump is now taking the clean air you breathe and polluting it, The clean water of life and polluting it, The food you need and allowing poisons to contaminate it. He is even ramping up pumping greenhouse gases into our atmosphere causing more global catastrophe's.
Now Walker chimes in with his brain addled idiocy.
What has he been drinking ?
5
"Once a republican starts taking from you, It never ends."
Democrats have been taking from me since FDR imposed Social Security and Welfare and Food Stamps, took more when LBJ imposed Medicare/Medicaid. Apparently their taking never ends either. But you seem to ignore that.
Democrats have been taking from me since FDR imposed Social Security and Welfare and Food Stamps, took more when LBJ imposed Medicare/Medicaid. Apparently their taking never ends either. But you seem to ignore that.
2
Not ignoring anything Karlos. We all benefit from everything those Dems set up. . So it is not taking ! Any of us would be eligible for those insurances, if we needed them. Even You. But you seem to ignore that fact.
1
Very poor logic. Is this woman really an instructor at Cornell?
By the writers own admission the Wisconsin proposal provides screening, testing AND treatment, which she maintains somehow will drive folks from the program.
Well lady, if someone is lliving off the dole on the taxpayers dime the least they can do for their own dignity is demonstrate their sobriety . Does the public have the right to impose any type of standard for these people, or is the suggestion we should all shut up and merely hope things improve
The days of paying for the party and tip toeing around welfare recipients' sensitive felons are over
By the writers own admission the Wisconsin proposal provides screening, testing AND treatment, which she maintains somehow will drive folks from the program.
Well lady, if someone is lliving off the dole on the taxpayers dime the least they can do for their own dignity is demonstrate their sobriety . Does the public have the right to impose any type of standard for these people, or is the suggestion we should all shut up and merely hope things improve
The days of paying for the party and tip toeing around welfare recipients' sensitive felons are over
There should be a special exception for musicians, writers and artists, unless you want Pat Boone, Andy Rooney and Norman Rockwell to all make comebacks as bastions of cutting edge expression.
2
Recipients of public healthcare benefits need to take responsibility for their health: if they are doing drugs, that has to stop. It would be incongruous to expect taxpayers to subsidize fixing unhealthy problem A while the beneficiary furthers unhealthy problem B -- health cannot be compartmentalized. If that is a problem, too bad : public healthcare benefits exist to provide health, not worry about the psychological "stigmatizing" of a beneficiary persisting in self-destructive behavior.
5
Should smokers be tested for tobacco? Should fat people have to lose weight before receiving benefits? The list goes on and on.
2
These would be potent discussions.
As a physician in N Ga who has served in a medically underserved area for the last 25 years thus caring for primarily indigent patients, I applaud the merits of this paper. These authors actually changed my viewpoint. ( a rare thing with an op ed NYT piece i must admit ). But this piece was very well written, logical and convincing. I thought of my own patients as I read this piece and I could not agree more esp in light of the current opioids crisis and what this might do to exacerbate it. While drug testing the poor might make for good political theater, Professors' Michener and Kohler-Hausmann have clearly shown it would make for terrible policy. Thank you for your effort here in helping me to understand an issue in a completely new and more logical way.
12
and thank you for reading it with an open mind
2
Why is it these evil right wing politicians and others of their ilk feel the need to drug test the poor? Are the poor more prone to drug use or is it a not so subtle code word for non - whites? I recently retired from almost 50 years in the radio business, a good portion of it in rock and roll radio where there was considerable drug use. All these people were middle class and the poor could not afford the substances that were being used.
Any sort of public assistance is a form of government subsidy. Homeowners with a mortgage get to write off their mortgage interest. Ah a government subsidy. Drug test them. Social security is a government subsidy. Drug test all the elderly. Church goers get to write off their contributions and churches pay no taxes. Yet another government subsidy to support religion. Drug test all church goers and their churches. Huge corporations get huge tax breaks and incentives. A government subsidy. Drug test all corporate CEOs. Child care tax credits? Dug test all all parents with kids in day care. Politicians on the public payroll. Drug test them all. But let's stop attempting to criminalize the less well off., something the republicans seem to enjoy doing.
Any sort of public assistance is a form of government subsidy. Homeowners with a mortgage get to write off their mortgage interest. Ah a government subsidy. Drug test them. Social security is a government subsidy. Drug test all the elderly. Church goers get to write off their contributions and churches pay no taxes. Yet another government subsidy to support religion. Drug test all church goers and their churches. Huge corporations get huge tax breaks and incentives. A government subsidy. Drug test all corporate CEOs. Child care tax credits? Dug test all all parents with kids in day care. Politicians on the public payroll. Drug test them all. But let's stop attempting to criminalize the less well off., something the republicans seem to enjoy doing.
11
I believe they feel the need to test this population for drugs because this population is asking us to give them money. If we don't have a right to direct who gets and who doesn't, how do we do anything? I know! We ask Bruce whether it's okay. He will decide for us.
Hold on: I think our authors may be missing the possibility that drug-testing *works*:
"In recent years, seven states with drug-testing programs for T.A.N.F. have spent over $1 million, only to find that in six of them, fewer than 1 percent of beneficiaries tested positive, compared with about 10 percent of the general population."
First, $1 million over several years in 7 states (not $1m/state/yr, but 1 million cumulative) is very cheap. Second, maybe rates are relatively low *because* testing discourages use among recipients!
I have no idea what the truth is of testing's impact on substance abuse and welfare application rates, and clearly the authors don't either. But I want people in need to have access to programs like this, and if this remarkably cheap requirement is what it takes to get Republican buy-in, I'm all for it.
"In Wisconsin, where 33 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are black or Hispanic, the spectacle of calling for drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect."
Please don't imply this is a racist policy. Wisconsin is 20% black and Hispanic. anyway. While it's troubling that those groups suffer more from poverty, it's not like this policy is racially targeted. It still overwhelmingly affects whites.
"In recent years, seven states with drug-testing programs for T.A.N.F. have spent over $1 million, only to find that in six of them, fewer than 1 percent of beneficiaries tested positive, compared with about 10 percent of the general population."
First, $1 million over several years in 7 states (not $1m/state/yr, but 1 million cumulative) is very cheap. Second, maybe rates are relatively low *because* testing discourages use among recipients!
I have no idea what the truth is of testing's impact on substance abuse and welfare application rates, and clearly the authors don't either. But I want people in need to have access to programs like this, and if this remarkably cheap requirement is what it takes to get Republican buy-in, I'm all for it.
"In Wisconsin, where 33 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are black or Hispanic, the spectacle of calling for drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect."
Please don't imply this is a racist policy. Wisconsin is 20% black and Hispanic. anyway. While it's troubling that those groups suffer more from poverty, it's not like this policy is racially targeted. It still overwhelmingly affects whites.
5
I don't think drugs should be singled out as THE defining moral failure that drives up the cost of healthcare. Obesity and unregulated breeding are far worse offenses. If you are on Medicaid, it is reasonable that society asks for a sacrifice from you. Everybody should contribute - and if you can't contribute money, then limitations on your personal freedom are a way to give back to the commonwealth. Lose these pounds, don't have that unplanned baby, stop taking drugs - and think of these as your sacrifice for your country. Shouldn't the dignity of the poor be honored by believing them to be capable of moral choice?
8
I would absolutely advocate for mandatory birth control for Medicaid recipients! However, this does seem to be in exact opposition of what the Repubs are shooting for, with regard to the benefits they think we ought provide.
What they're shooting for doesn't necessarily seem to be truly reducing the cost of providing support to the public, because reducing unplanned babies is the cheapest way... rather, the goal seems to be social control.
Unwanted pounds are a side-effect of their corporate friends getting rich producing cheap and unhealthy processed food for poor people. It's cheaper for the government to direct-purchase and distribute food commodities itself (as the USDA in the old days) - and SNAP subsidizes giant food corps. Doesn't seem like better public health is the goal.
Unwanted babies have two purposes: to appease the religious (which helps the poor to accept their lot peacefully) and to become cheap labor. Reducing their number is not a goal, but rather keeping poor people quiet and hungry.
When you're poor, your choices are constrained. Your time is sucked away, just trying to travel from one place to the next. You attempt to find joy in life where you can, and relief where you cannot.
Want to talk about dignity? Allow poor people understanding that while maybe their choices aren't the best ones - they still ought have the dignity of making the choice in the first place.
What they're shooting for doesn't necessarily seem to be truly reducing the cost of providing support to the public, because reducing unplanned babies is the cheapest way... rather, the goal seems to be social control.
Unwanted pounds are a side-effect of their corporate friends getting rich producing cheap and unhealthy processed food for poor people. It's cheaper for the government to direct-purchase and distribute food commodities itself (as the USDA in the old days) - and SNAP subsidizes giant food corps. Doesn't seem like better public health is the goal.
Unwanted babies have two purposes: to appease the religious (which helps the poor to accept their lot peacefully) and to become cheap labor. Reducing their number is not a goal, but rather keeping poor people quiet and hungry.
When you're poor, your choices are constrained. Your time is sucked away, just trying to travel from one place to the next. You attempt to find joy in life where you can, and relief where you cannot.
Want to talk about dignity? Allow poor people understanding that while maybe their choices aren't the best ones - they still ought have the dignity of making the choice in the first place.
1
So...when they drug test all the unfortunate people who have an Opiate Addiction due to either provider mismanagement in relation to prescription drug choice or dosage or the patient changes dosage or instructions (due to the original chronic pain condition that got them addicted to a pain killer), do they then get thrown off Medicaid?
Or does addiction to a non legally available /restricted opioid medication (listed as a prescription drug) not count as being under the influence of/addicted to this very dangerous/potent/restricted Drug?
I'm not sure what the point is to drug test Medicaid Recipients as if they register having levels of Opiates/Barbiturates/Ecstasy/Amphetamines/Cocaine etc in their blood/Urine for drug testing, doesn't then mean they get some help at an addiction Clinic to help them with their issue/problem/addiction?
And wouldn't they get the treatment and help they need as Medicaid Recipients?
Surely you are not implying that if a Medicaid Recipient tests positive for drug use...what?...they lose their Medicaid coverage and all access to Healthcare including treatment to what may be a substance abuse/drug addiction problem that needs urgent attention and care?
That's like saying to a Medicaid recipient.. the doctor has diagnosed a lung infection or a cardio related illness/disease and means they lose their coverage and all options to treat their condition as punishment for it!
You CAN'T Drug test and remove Health Care if someone tests positive!!
Or does addiction to a non legally available /restricted opioid medication (listed as a prescription drug) not count as being under the influence of/addicted to this very dangerous/potent/restricted Drug?
I'm not sure what the point is to drug test Medicaid Recipients as if they register having levels of Opiates/Barbiturates/Ecstasy/Amphetamines/Cocaine etc in their blood/Urine for drug testing, doesn't then mean they get some help at an addiction Clinic to help them with their issue/problem/addiction?
And wouldn't they get the treatment and help they need as Medicaid Recipients?
Surely you are not implying that if a Medicaid Recipient tests positive for drug use...what?...they lose their Medicaid coverage and all access to Healthcare including treatment to what may be a substance abuse/drug addiction problem that needs urgent attention and care?
That's like saying to a Medicaid recipient.. the doctor has diagnosed a lung infection or a cardio related illness/disease and means they lose their coverage and all options to treat their condition as punishment for it!
You CAN'T Drug test and remove Health Care if someone tests positive!!
1
a general question: How often should a drug addict get access to publicly funded rehab treatment when resources are scarce and there is a waiting list for treatment programs?
A general question: for how long should an alcoholic (recovered or not) receive dialysis and associated services while on Medicaid? How many donated kidneys should they receive - there is a shortage of dialysis spaces and donor kidneys, you know.
For how long should Medicaid provide home health aide services to an elderly person after she's broken her hip? After all, she did it to herself because she didn't save enough money for such a long retirement and is going to die pretty soon anyway and there is a shortage of health workers...
Unconditional compassion is the only way to go; no one person is ever more deserving. You have no idea what kind of contributions your hypothetical recalcitrant addict may make to the world.
For how long should Medicaid provide home health aide services to an elderly person after she's broken her hip? After all, she did it to herself because she didn't save enough money for such a long retirement and is going to die pretty soon anyway and there is a shortage of health workers...
Unconditional compassion is the only way to go; no one person is ever more deserving. You have no idea what kind of contributions your hypothetical recalcitrant addict may make to the world.
2
Drug testing has never been validated as a screening test for asymptomatic people, or people who are not at increased risk for a condition. When you use inappropriate testing in inappropriate situations you have the problems of false positive and false negative test results. Since we have no reason to believe that someone receiving medicaid is more likely to use illegal drugs than anyone else, we shouldn't be testing them. Routine drug testing for employment is also a waste of time and money. You shouldn't be testing people for no reason. Medical tests are all subject to false positives and false negatives. In this case a false result can ruin someone's life. We have become such a punitive little society.
2
If I wish to work at many companies, I have to submit to a pre-employment drug screening and if hired may be subject to random future screens as well. Why is this not considered degrading?
3
It should be considered degrading. No one should have to submit to drug testing without a court order or a warrant. None of us should have to submit to drug testing for a job.
3
There must be significant strings attached to any person requesting government assistance for anything. Too many able bodies people living off the government dole. Additionally we should be charging ALL visitors to the US for the medical care they get here in the form of emergency medicaid. As a physician who works at a hospital near a major airport I can tell you that many people come here simple to take advantage of our health care system. This needs to stop and people have a responsibility to take care of themselves. I know liberals hate these two words "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY".
7
Why would anyone fly to the US for medicaid? Flying to Canada would make MUCH more sense.
1
I agree with you somewhat , a friend got sick in Spain and needed surgery , he had to dole out six grand for his medical care . You may preach personal responsibility but how do you apply that to children of the poor who thru no fault of their own are victims of bad health because of poor nutrition , or the elderly ? Will the elderly or children be drug tested too?
2
No, they would have to rent an apartment before they made it through the queue for care. Here, they can fly home the same day.
1
Has Scott Walker ever done anything sensible? He and Paul Ryan have ruined the reputation of Wisconsin as a good state to go to and and good state to come from. Lack of compassion is at the top of the list of their priorities and I know Wisconsinites did not exhibit that characteristic when I grew up there.
6
This whole drug testing policy is basically a way of saying "I won't help you solve this addiction problem unless you've already solved it yourself." The people who struggle with poverty and addiction are the ones who need Medicaid the most.
I see this often. Nonprofits and government organizations want to help people who already have it together so they can claim the success of their programs. They're not interested in solving the deep-rooted problems that plague our society. They just want to make the most of their money so they can pay larger salaries to their executives, reduce the federal deficit, or provide staggering tax cuts for the wealthy.
I see this often. Nonprofits and government organizations want to help people who already have it together so they can claim the success of their programs. They're not interested in solving the deep-rooted problems that plague our society. They just want to make the most of their money so they can pay larger salaries to their executives, reduce the federal deficit, or provide staggering tax cuts for the wealthy.
5
As one who is intimately familiar with addiction (and I mean intimately!), and a taxpayer, I see no problem with drug testing people for ANY government benefits distributed at ANY governmental level. Current methods of drug testing immediately reveal the presence of controlled substances, and for those substances legitimately prescribed by a licensed physician or therapist. Simply, if one passes the test, he/she goes through the door on the left and proceeds with the application for benefits. Those who fail the test go through the door on the right for immediate intervention and a suggested modality of treatment. If they can meet the established minimum criteria to remain clean and sober, then they can go back through the door on the right. They can't have it both ways - continue using and receive benefits.
8
Not personally, but as a member of my county's Drug Court Steering Committee I know first hand what happens in a courtroom with such as you describe. And I might as well get to the point that not all who seek rehab and are given a stay of execution of sentence, are successful. And then, we can discuss what successful means, and on it goes.
No problem for me - 36 years clean and sober irrespective if I "12 step" or not. My knowledge and experience comes from having worked with many 'suffering' addicts and alcoholics, mainly through my work in government, education, and as the director of an employee assistance program at a large manufacturing firm. The absence of LACD or LSW designations don't, in my opinion, detract from what I know and how I came to know what I know. Unless turnabout is not fair play, "Cat," what's your pedigree?
Invasions of privacy? I'll kindly remind the author that if drug-testing can be a valid requirement for employment, it is not an invasion of privacy to test people applying for federal funding for drug use. In fact, one could argue that it is all the more vital, since the compensation models are fundamentally different.
5
First, know that other countries do not drug test. This is an American thing. And as you read the comments here, people think it's normal to have your privacy violated. The answer isn't, "Well I have to take a drug test, so should you." The question is why anybody is forced to give bodily fluids if it's a violation of your rights? Here's Canada's policy: Although our neighbor to the north, Canada, may appear to be very similar to the U.S., the Supreme Court of Canada recently held that the implementation of random alcohol testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions was an invasion of privacy and an invalid exercise of management rights. The Court held that without “evidence of enhanced safety risks, such as evidence of a general problem with substance abuse in the workplace,” such testing was an “unjustified affront to the dignity and privacy of employees,” and therefore impermissible. https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/global-hr/Pages/US-Drug...
Second, Republicans believe that to motivate the rich we must make them more comfortable but to motivate the poor, we must punish them because they believe, as Ben Carson just stated "Poverty is a state of mind" or a character flaw. The truth is, in every Republican state that used drug testing of Medicaid recipients, the results were lower than the drug use of the general population. And don't forget, many state courts ruled Republicans drug testing as unconstitutional.
Second, Republicans believe that to motivate the rich we must make them more comfortable but to motivate the poor, we must punish them because they believe, as Ben Carson just stated "Poverty is a state of mind" or a character flaw. The truth is, in every Republican state that used drug testing of Medicaid recipients, the results were lower than the drug use of the general population. And don't forget, many state courts ruled Republicans drug testing as unconstitutional.
15
First, let's distinguish something: Medicaid does not provide HEALTHCARE. It provides HEALTH INSURANCE, which is explicitly predicated on NOT PAYING FOR CARE. That's how insurance pools survive you know. Basic, 101 level stuff here. Second, you have a right to receive health care. You do NOT have a right to Health Insurance. And nor should you. Now that we've made those distinctions, let's look at your claim: that drug testing violates your rights. You do NOT have a right to Health Insurance, so no violation there. You do have a right to health care, but that's not what's at stake here. Drug testing is a perfectly legitimate method to ensure federal funds are used properly. Every single other federal program on the planet has safeguards to make sure the money is used as intended. Removing those safeguards makes zero sense here.
3
" Every single other federal program on the planet has safeguards to make sure the money is used as intended"
I guess you haven't looked at the Pentagon and defense budget!
I guess you haven't looked at the Pentagon and defense budget!
1
so if someone smokes a little pot, they don't deserve healthcare? oh wait. let me phrase for your approval: they don't deserve insurance? how does that 'ensure federal funds are used properly'? nonsensical.
2
The reason that drug testing of applicants for anything ( benefits, jobs, etc) get few positives is that people who know they can't pass don't bother taking the test in the first place. But the idea that people wanting government largess shouldn't be required to do anything in return, whether it is staying drug free or working some number of hours week is infuriating the the majority of Americans who are being asked to subsidize these people. The social compact goes both ways.
10
So by this logic, that receiving government “largess” such as Medicaid is part of a social compact and therefore asking recipients to be drug tested or to work in order to receive such aid is fair, every person who receives any form of government aid should be held to the same standards. Farmers who grow subsidized crops such as corn, cotton, or soybeans; home owners who utilize the mortgage interest deduction on their tax returns; and millionaires/billionaires like Donald Trump who write off business “losses” on their personal income taxes are all recipients of government subsidies. According to your logic they should all be taking drug tests, be required to prove they work a certain number of hours, or submit to whatever other demoralizing tests are deemed appropriate by the “majority of Americans who are being asked to subsidize them.” Right? Wrong. Demonizing or stigmatizing those in need of certain types of government aid is an old and appalling way of scapegoating those lower down on the socio economic ladder. Many, many other Americans receive government subsidies in some form or another.
2
Rod, I would argue the difference is there is a link between poverty and drug addiction. There is no link that I'm aware of between farming, home owning, or deducting business loses, and drug addiction. There is nothing wrong with the government using both a stick and a carrot.
1
Bankers who were involved in the disappearance of more than a trillion $ in 2008 should be drug tested first so a baseline of how often criminals test positive may be established.
12
"In Wisconsin, where 33 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are black or Hispanic, the spectacle of calling for drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect."
Why shouldn't we expect these groups to exhibit responsible behavior, if they are requesting taxpayer assistance? I could understand if certain groups, like whites or Asians were excluded, but that is not the case. There's nothing inherent in one's cultural or racial background that makes them more predisposed to use illegal drugs and I expect testing will prove that out. Those results should break the stereotype, not prove it.
Why shouldn't we expect these groups to exhibit responsible behavior, if they are requesting taxpayer assistance? I could understand if certain groups, like whites or Asians were excluded, but that is not the case. There's nothing inherent in one's cultural or racial background that makes them more predisposed to use illegal drugs and I expect testing will prove that out. Those results should break the stereotype, not prove it.
5
At the end of the day it's all to do with profits not about keeping the community safe by helping addicts.
It's unethical to say there is a system in place to apply for Medicaid' but then deliberately make it difficult for the person to apply for the Medicaid. There should be some kind of complaints procedure to make against staff if they make it difficult for the recipient to apply for Medicaid as there are professional standards required.
It's discrimination to single out childless people when the statistics prove it's the overall general population that require drug testing. I'd have thought that people with children would be the governments first priority so as to protect vulnerable children from their drug addicted parents.
Universal healthcare is the only system that works for all citizens and doesn't discriminate against sick people who are drug addicts. I'd have thought that if someone is a drug addict they need to go into rehab to get help to come off drugs and get rid of their addiction. Lots of addicts are controlled by gangs who exploit them for prostitution and robberies as they will do anything to get drugs. Medicaid should be helping drug addicts not hindering their access to healthcare. I'm all for alternative healthcare as lots of people get addicted to drugs from legal prescription drugs and doctors dishing them out like lollies.
Ooops! That's right I forgot! The big drug companies like Pharmac are USA owned and we can't have their profits going down.
It's unethical to say there is a system in place to apply for Medicaid' but then deliberately make it difficult for the person to apply for the Medicaid. There should be some kind of complaints procedure to make against staff if they make it difficult for the recipient to apply for Medicaid as there are professional standards required.
It's discrimination to single out childless people when the statistics prove it's the overall general population that require drug testing. I'd have thought that people with children would be the governments first priority so as to protect vulnerable children from their drug addicted parents.
Universal healthcare is the only system that works for all citizens and doesn't discriminate against sick people who are drug addicts. I'd have thought that if someone is a drug addict they need to go into rehab to get help to come off drugs and get rid of their addiction. Lots of addicts are controlled by gangs who exploit them for prostitution and robberies as they will do anything to get drugs. Medicaid should be helping drug addicts not hindering their access to healthcare. I'm all for alternative healthcare as lots of people get addicted to drugs from legal prescription drugs and doctors dishing them out like lollies.
Ooops! That's right I forgot! The big drug companies like Pharmac are USA owned and we can't have their profits going down.
1
Poor people need structure and consequences in their lives, and drug-testing will incentivize them to stay clean and sober.
7
A whole lot of poor people already have structure and consequences in their lives. It's called working - which many, many Medicaid recipients do.
Low paying jobs do not give benefits, and the wages are too low to afford private insurance. Hence the need for Medicaid.
Comments like this show a scary level of ignorance and baseless assumptions.
Low paying jobs do not give benefits, and the wages are too low to afford private insurance. Hence the need for Medicaid.
Comments like this show a scary level of ignorance and baseless assumptions.
10
PM: The view must be different from Reykjavik, where social mobility is actually possible, and there is something closer to an actual meritocracy.
2
The purpose of the drug test provisions in welfare laws (TANF), food stamp regulations (SNAP) and Medicaid rules is now and has been NOT to detect drug abuse or prevent cheating, but to discourage people in need from applying for assistance, add to the shame most folks feel is attached to needing assistance of any sort, and boost the approval ratings of right-wing candidates pretending that it is all about saving money. It is about punishing people in need while pleasing the roaring crowd of the angry and ill-informed.
8
Quite a leap in logic you've got there. Any support for your strawmen? Or were you just going to keep going on and on with unsupported opinions?
Spencer: Where would you like to begin? with TANF and drug testing?
What is really sad to see in many of these comments is the idea that drug testing for so many things (like welfare, medicaid, employment) is accepted as reasonable.
Drug testing is an invasion of privacy. It should therefore only be required when it is directly related to the job or the benefit. It never was reasonable to drug test all employees, or welfare recipients and the fact that it has been going on for many years does not make it right.
Drug testing is an invasion of privacy. It should therefore only be required when it is directly related to the job or the benefit. It never was reasonable to drug test all employees, or welfare recipients and the fact that it has been going on for many years does not make it right.
6
"Hey, Officer, your drug test of me behind the wheel is an invasion of privacy!" That argument doesn't work, because you are on public roads when this happens. It is not an invasion of privacy, therefore, for an employer to require you, prior to entering into a voluntary contractual agreement of employment with them, to submit to a drug test. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with what "invasion of privacy" means. It does NOT apply to drug tests for employment, welfare, etc.
It seems obvious that many of the commenters -- those who want to demand the power to tell everyone else how their tax money must be spent -- should be required to submit to drug testing... and maybe a low level (I say low level out of compassion) IQ test, as well...
1
I've been thinking about this issue a lot, so I eagerly read the article. Unfortunately, I didn't find the arguments persuasive.
The point about stigmatising benefit recipients falls flat. Understand that many on the right (especially those in the rural working class) are deeply suspicious of benefit recipients.
The TANF example seems to actually Support the case for testing. If only 1% of recipients test positive compared to 10% of the general population, preserving one's access to benefits must be a powerful motivator to avoid drug use.
As for barriers to benefits for people who need them, I'm most open to that argument. People who need benefits should have access to them. But the article provides no usable data to work through that. One random annecdote (the 60 year old diabetic) isn't helpful. Give us data, not annecdotes.
Lastly, the cost argument was nonsense. They state that $1M of "costly" screening across seven states found 1% of benefits recipients tested positive. If you bring the argument down to just money, surely the savings from removing 1% of recipients would Far exceed $1M. Instead, why not quantify the increased costs incurred for people without benefits (emergency room visits, etc.)? It is fertile ground for a stronger case.
Look, many of us are sympathetic to the case for preventing harm to benefits recipients. But we need to find arguments that make sense to the average person on the street, backed up with sensible (and fair) statistics.
The point about stigmatising benefit recipients falls flat. Understand that many on the right (especially those in the rural working class) are deeply suspicious of benefit recipients.
The TANF example seems to actually Support the case for testing. If only 1% of recipients test positive compared to 10% of the general population, preserving one's access to benefits must be a powerful motivator to avoid drug use.
As for barriers to benefits for people who need them, I'm most open to that argument. People who need benefits should have access to them. But the article provides no usable data to work through that. One random annecdote (the 60 year old diabetic) isn't helpful. Give us data, not annecdotes.
Lastly, the cost argument was nonsense. They state that $1M of "costly" screening across seven states found 1% of benefits recipients tested positive. If you bring the argument down to just money, surely the savings from removing 1% of recipients would Far exceed $1M. Instead, why not quantify the increased costs incurred for people without benefits (emergency room visits, etc.)? It is fertile ground for a stronger case.
Look, many of us are sympathetic to the case for preventing harm to benefits recipients. But we need to find arguments that make sense to the average person on the street, backed up with sensible (and fair) statistics.
2
What the disparity in percentages of positive tests shows, is not that the prospect of being drug tested decreases usage. That has been demonstrated to be false across the spectrum. Instead, it demonstrates that TANF recipients are extraordinarily resourceful, moreso than their comparison group (likely your average high-schooler who is getting tested and caught.)
Prior to legalization, my pot dealer was regularly drug tested for TANF due to a CPS intervention. She wasn't book-smart and was a 7th grade dropout, but she was smart enough to get clean human urine, delay testing until she was ready, and always passed no matter what.
Prior to legalization, my pot dealer was regularly drug tested for TANF due to a CPS intervention. She wasn't book-smart and was a 7th grade dropout, but she was smart enough to get clean human urine, delay testing until she was ready, and always passed no matter what.
This will be an unpopular take, I'm sure, but...if even wealthy people need their drugs to cope with life - and they do - then certainly we shouldn't deny similar comforts to those for whom life is a heck of a lot harder.
5
I'm all for it if they test all the public officials as well as they are on the public payroll.
10
Why should my tax dollars be spent on what amounts to a giant giveaway to the drug testing companies who will no doubt be funding Mr. Walker's next Presidential bid?
The comments here arguing, "I got tested, why shouldn't they?" are missing the point. Unless someone is operating heavy machinery or could otherwise harm someone while intoxicated, there's no reason anyone should be forced to submit to a drug test.
If the party of small government wants to monitor everyone's urine so desperately, they can pay for it some other way than my tax dollars.
The comments here arguing, "I got tested, why shouldn't they?" are missing the point. Unless someone is operating heavy machinery or could otherwise harm someone while intoxicated, there's no reason anyone should be forced to submit to a drug test.
If the party of small government wants to monitor everyone's urine so desperately, they can pay for it some other way than my tax dollars.
12
We should drug test people before they buy a gun, or at least for a carry permit. Or before they drive on taxpayer funded roads. Or before they drink from the public water supply. Why stop at poor people.
11
Well those other groups aren't using billions from our health care system, that's why. Not all 'poor' people are poor. Travel a bit, then you'll see poverty.
1
As a taxpayer, I would demand Medicaid be limited to:
- those who don't use drugs
- those who are not obese
- those who do not smoke
- those who do not drink excessively
- those who do not have speeding tickets (due to higher risk of accident)
- those who choose not to be homeless (due to higher rates of sickness & death)
If I think really hard about it, perhaps I could come up with at least 10 more categories of people, who clearly get sick/injured due to their own lifestyle choices. By the time I'm finished cutting all those people out, I think I might be left with just a few thousand eligible people. Budget problem solved. Tongue firmly in cheek.
- those who don't use drugs
- those who are not obese
- those who do not smoke
- those who do not drink excessively
- those who do not have speeding tickets (due to higher risk of accident)
- those who choose not to be homeless (due to higher rates of sickness & death)
If I think really hard about it, perhaps I could come up with at least 10 more categories of people, who clearly get sick/injured due to their own lifestyle choices. By the time I'm finished cutting all those people out, I think I might be left with just a few thousand eligible people. Budget problem solved. Tongue firmly in cheek.
8
Actually what you suggested sarcastically is exactly right. If you destroy yourself, you should be responsible for it. Not anyone else. Those of us who are living healthy lives are pretty sick of subsidizing this loser behavior.
1
This is abhorrent. People in need of assistance are people deserving of respect and dignity just as you would wish to be treated in the same circumstance. We are talking about common human needs. They do not need to be treated like trash because of the prejudice of elected government officials. People in need have enough to deal with. Poverty can happen to anyone, given the right set of circumstances, and it eats away at self-esteem, a necessary quality to persevere when the going gets tough.
The GOP is full of pious hypocrites mouthing "What would Jesus Say?" Well, folks, the record is clear. He would say "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Compassion is not a dirty word, but greed and pridefulness are among the seven deadly sins.
The GOP is full of pious hypocrites mouthing "What would Jesus Say?" Well, folks, the record is clear. He would say "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Compassion is not a dirty word, but greed and pridefulness are among the seven deadly sins.
10
"In Wisconsin, where 33 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are black or Hispanic, the spectacle of calling for drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect. When this happens, the public becomes less willing to support such programs and people become less willing to use them, even in times of desperate need. All of this makes the program increasingly vulnerable to further cuts and eventual dismemberment."
These benefit programs are not suppose to be free money, it should come with strings attached and if drug testing is one of them, then so be it because I pay taxing and I don't like the idea of so many on welfare using the benefits I pay for to buy groceries and pay rent because they can't afford these things but they can afford to buy drugs! And if the stats quoted above are true and only 33% on welfare in Wisconsin are black or hispanic that would mean that 67% are WHITE and they should be tested to get benefits too! No race card to play here folks. I get drug tested all the time by the company I work for, it's part of my condition of employment. Why shouldn't the same rules be imposed upon welfare recipients?
These benefit programs are not suppose to be free money, it should come with strings attached and if drug testing is one of them, then so be it because I pay taxing and I don't like the idea of so many on welfare using the benefits I pay for to buy groceries and pay rent because they can't afford these things but they can afford to buy drugs! And if the stats quoted above are true and only 33% on welfare in Wisconsin are black or hispanic that would mean that 67% are WHITE and they should be tested to get benefits too! No race card to play here folks. I get drug tested all the time by the company I work for, it's part of my condition of employment. Why shouldn't the same rules be imposed upon welfare recipients?
5
Unfortunately, impulses such as Gov. Walker's and those of social and religious conservatives stem more from their moralistic tendencies than from a concern for the body politic or good governance.
10
Drug and alcohol abuse along with obesity is a huge part of the cost of health care. It impacts the insured, the medicare and medicaid beneficiaries and the taxpayer.
If you want to have health care as a right, the public, each person, has a responsibility to maintaining their health including diet, exercise and drug use. The question shouldn't be do we drug test the question is how do we get people off of drugs and get them on a healthier course which will improver their productivity as citizens so that they are less of a burden and more productive. People benefit society and society gives back. The right to care is a two way contract.
The point of Universal care is we are all in this together. If you want society to provide health care through taxation to everyone, everyone has to do what they can to maintain their health. It reduces the cost and increases the health well being and wealth of our country.
We have an epidemic of drug and alcohol abuse, coupled with world class obesity, that impacts the cost of health care. If you want me to pay more in taxes to cover you the least you can do is take control over your own body.
We need a huge cultural shift and people should be ashamed of abusing themselves and should be proud of taking care of themselves. I have no idea how we get there. I hate drug testing but I understood the problem is real and can't be ignored. Drug abusers will not come forward willingly until they are exposed or reached bottom.
If you want to have health care as a right, the public, each person, has a responsibility to maintaining their health including diet, exercise and drug use. The question shouldn't be do we drug test the question is how do we get people off of drugs and get them on a healthier course which will improver their productivity as citizens so that they are less of a burden and more productive. People benefit society and society gives back. The right to care is a two way contract.
The point of Universal care is we are all in this together. If you want society to provide health care through taxation to everyone, everyone has to do what they can to maintain their health. It reduces the cost and increases the health well being and wealth of our country.
We have an epidemic of drug and alcohol abuse, coupled with world class obesity, that impacts the cost of health care. If you want me to pay more in taxes to cover you the least you can do is take control over your own body.
We need a huge cultural shift and people should be ashamed of abusing themselves and should be proud of taking care of themselves. I have no idea how we get there. I hate drug testing but I understood the problem is real and can't be ignored. Drug abusers will not come forward willingly until they are exposed or reached bottom.
8
Throwing red meat to the base, so we can wag our fingers at those who would utilize society's safety net. Helps insulate elected officials like Gov. Walker when they don't produce any meaningful change in the lives of their constituents.
14
Gov. Walker wants to keep a close eye on government spending, right? He wants to make sure that entitlement beneficiaries aren't abusing their privileges, right?
So here is a policy proposal that he ought to support enthusiastically: How about drug testing for recipients of mortgage interest tax deductions? That program is handing out billions in cash. We wouldn't want home-owners to be smoking any weed, would we?
So here is a policy proposal that he ought to support enthusiastically: How about drug testing for recipients of mortgage interest tax deductions? That program is handing out billions in cash. We wouldn't want home-owners to be smoking any weed, would we?
8
"In Wisconsin, where 33 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are black or Hispanic, the spectacle of calling for drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect. When this happens, the public becomes less willing to support such programs and people become less willing to use them, even in times of desperate need. All of this makes the program increasingly vulnerable to further cuts and eventual dismemberment."
I think that's the idea.
I think that's the idea.
10
People who apply for Medicaid are not covered by private insurance, either because they do not earn enough to purchase such coverage, are not covered by their low paying jobs, or are out of work. As I recall, Walmart has a lot of workers on food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid, as do other employers - so in reality our taxes are padding their profits. What we are seeing is that a self-righteous attitude that holds being poor is equivalent to being criminal, and that is an outrage.
18
One thing that seems to unite conservatives is an enmity for anyone less wealthy than themselves, and who might be getting public assistance for food, housing and health care. They are downright resentful, and that informs a lot of their political views and voting. But the poor don't have any power in this country, the real problem is at the top, with an oligarchy increasingly concentrating wealth and political power.
11
My husband was drug tested before he was employed at an executive level. I was drug tested as well. If you want to join the military, the FBI, or the CIA, all drug tested. So if you need it to be employed, why shouldn't the unemployed be required to do the same? It's taxpayer money after all.
23
You describe the legitimate needs of employment. You do not provide a reason or justification for drug testing applicants for assistance. That tax money is really a hidden subsidy for Walmart and Burger King and McDonalds etcetera.
Why do they need to be tested? If the result will not affect the decision whats the point? If there is a problem their doctor will detect it and treat it.
There is no reasonable reason given for the requirement.
Why do they need to be tested? If the result will not affect the decision whats the point? If there is a problem their doctor will detect it and treat it.
There is no reasonable reason given for the requirement.
2
If someone is on drugs and also not able to support themselves testing and treatment will help them not hurt them.
1
I won't apply for jobs that drug test and there are plenty of them out there. When I'm not applying for any jobs where I'd have someone else's wellbeing or safety in my hands, it is an unacceptable invasion of my privacy for the organization to which I apply to want to know what I do on my own time. Regardless of whether the test would be positive or negative, I'll never understand those who are so willing to easily give up their right to a private life free from their employer's (or the government's) interference.
9
So far, drug testing for Federal or State benefits has yielded few results and cost all that state's tax-payers more money to dig up a minuscule number of people that may have smoked a joint last week.
However - since this seems to be the lay of the land; you know, kicking people when they are already down then we should include all Federal and State government officials (Presidents, Governors, Senators, etc) in urine, blood or hair sample testing.
If we don't, then as a country we're saying poor people, by virtue of being poor are law breaking drug users who deserve to be humiliated because they are poor and government officials who earn their salary working for me with my tax-dollars and purchase drugs with it are more deserving.
We are one messed up country.
However - since this seems to be the lay of the land; you know, kicking people when they are already down then we should include all Federal and State government officials (Presidents, Governors, Senators, etc) in urine, blood or hair sample testing.
If we don't, then as a country we're saying poor people, by virtue of being poor are law breaking drug users who deserve to be humiliated because they are poor and government officials who earn their salary working for me with my tax-dollars and purchase drugs with it are more deserving.
We are one messed up country.
7
Requiring Medicaid recipients to get drug tested does not make them "inherently suspect". A system needs to be set up to get them off of the drugs and into rehab, this would be a good start, to helping them with their lives and eventually off of public assistance. Instead of the system now in place where people are in the system for decades and pass it down for generations. The drug epidemic now has NO color barriers. All of our society is affected by the surge of Heroin and Opioids. I know, having two family members turn their lives around by getting help.
3
Sorry, the arguments as presented are vacuous, What is wrong with implementing some baseline level of personal responsibility? Why should I, as an honest taxpayer, subsidize a heroin addict? The government cannot force people to help themselves. They can, however, put in the incentives to allow people to be successful. If you are a drug addict, job one should be to not be a drug addict. From my read here, that is exactly the goal of the Wisconsin bill.
This is a primary difference between liberal and conservative values. Liberal values are all about the government providing for people (through income re-distribution, generally). Conservative values are all about setting in place the environment for the individual to be successful, lower regulations, personal responsibility and the like. The conservative answer to dealing with poor people to give them the opportunity to not be poor, not just send them a check.
I fully support drug testing as a precursor to receipt of any public benefit. Creating the opportunity for individual success rather than providing unending handouts to people has got to be the answer.
This is a primary difference between liberal and conservative values. Liberal values are all about the government providing for people (through income re-distribution, generally). Conservative values are all about setting in place the environment for the individual to be successful, lower regulations, personal responsibility and the like. The conservative answer to dealing with poor people to give them the opportunity to not be poor, not just send them a check.
I fully support drug testing as a precursor to receipt of any public benefit. Creating the opportunity for individual success rather than providing unending handouts to people has got to be the answer.
11
...........how do you suppose these people will get treatment for their drug addiction when they can't pay for healthcare because you took their medicaid away? Hold a bake sale?
"This is a primary difference between liberal and conservative values. Liberal values are all about the government providing for people (through income re-distribution, generally). Conservative values are all about setting in place the environment for the individual to be successful, lower regulations, personal responsibility and the like."
Bahahaha. The primary difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think things through, as shown above. Liberals realize that a person can use public programs as a ladder. Liberals realize that people who are not hungry and who can afford medical care are more productive citizens. Conservative values in no way set up an environment for a person to succeed- like I said, please tell me how getting one's ability to feed themselves and obtain medical care going to *help* a struggling person to overcome a drug addiction (or get a job, or care for family, or do anything at all...?)
It's telling that the only two aspects of this "environment" you claim conservatives provide are "lower regulations" and "personal responsibility."
Huh?
"This is a primary difference between liberal and conservative values. Liberal values are all about the government providing for people (through income re-distribution, generally). Conservative values are all about setting in place the environment for the individual to be successful, lower regulations, personal responsibility and the like."
Bahahaha. The primary difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think things through, as shown above. Liberals realize that a person can use public programs as a ladder. Liberals realize that people who are not hungry and who can afford medical care are more productive citizens. Conservative values in no way set up an environment for a person to succeed- like I said, please tell me how getting one's ability to feed themselves and obtain medical care going to *help* a struggling person to overcome a drug addiction (or get a job, or care for family, or do anything at all...?)
It's telling that the only two aspects of this "environment" you claim conservatives provide are "lower regulations" and "personal responsibility."
Huh?
1
Drug testing also jeopardizes our democracy.!!! Of all your arguments, this is the most laughable.
7
I am very very old. I take drugs to control pain. Just wait, America. When you get to be very old, you may also use painkillers: just you wait. I am not an addict.......yet. But I see no reason to base drug testing on personal income. How about basing it on intelligence.....let every applicant take an IQ test. Or base it on where they live. Or their religion. You know....all the regular things we test people for. And do not forget a license to carry a gun....that could affect a lot of people........
7
"But I see no reason to base drug testing on personal income." Did you read the article? No one is suggesting that people with a "Personal Income" be drug tested. We want people who have no personal income, people who do not work, and want free money, want other people to pay their way in life so they don't have to change their life style to be drug tested and thats only if they want to receive free money on welfare! I think these people should have to not only be drug tested but if they are able bodied, they should have to work. And there are lots of jobs for unskill workers in the jobs that are being given to H2B and H3B visa guest workers. Lets employ Americans and get them off welfare by giving them these jobs.
2
the drug testing would be for illicit drug use, not legitimate, prescription medication. i.e.: It has nothing to do with your situation.
Test all politicians. Including IQ testing.
9
The idea of drug screening for people receiving government paid health care is completely reasonable and sane - how do you help someone and be good stewards of the public's money if you do not get involved in their risk factors? I think that the same should apply to nicotine and alcohol, and I am sure there are folks out there who would want public health care recipients to also be screened for weight, and for other risk factors that can be addressed by behavioral change. Public funding of health care should lead to public oversight of our health. People make crappy choices all the time - it is time for experts, paid by the government to help shape those choices more directly and more positively.
4
We need to drug test and lie detector test the prez and congress.
10
All state efforts around drug testing those who rely on safety-net programs show that the poor use drugs LESS than everyone else.
This just stigmatizes the poor as it created new, expensive state bureaucracies.
This just stigmatizes the poor as it created new, expensive state bureaucracies.
7
So long as so many working people (rightly) must pass drug tests to retain employment, the idea that recipients of public benefits should get a free pass on this is a non-starter. If working people have to pass drug tests, why is this suddenly "degrading" when applied to welfare recipients? This entire analysis is more than a little dumb, as other commentators have already pointed out.
Here's what is really going on though. Health care, big picture, is WAY too expensive in the US - about twice what it costs per person everywhere else in the developed world. (Did I mention that our results are terrible too?) Everyone is trying to dance around this fact without addressing the root causes. So to keep the cost of Medicaid under control, Republicans (and, some Democrats too) are looking to either under-pay providers or reduce the number of recipients, usually both.
The hope is that drug testing Medicaid recipients will drive a lot of people away from the program, thus reducing costs. This is not a bug, this is a feature. It might even work, but it is an inappropriate way of doing it, and will result in even more human suffering.
Here's what is really going on though. Health care, big picture, is WAY too expensive in the US - about twice what it costs per person everywhere else in the developed world. (Did I mention that our results are terrible too?) Everyone is trying to dance around this fact without addressing the root causes. So to keep the cost of Medicaid under control, Republicans (and, some Democrats too) are looking to either under-pay providers or reduce the number of recipients, usually both.
The hope is that drug testing Medicaid recipients will drive a lot of people away from the program, thus reducing costs. This is not a bug, this is a feature. It might even work, but it is an inappropriate way of doing it, and will result in even more human suffering.
Free health insurance or take drugs . . . That doesn't seem like a complicated choice. If the choice is the latter, what's there to feel sorry for when someone gets sick but can't pay? A little sacrifice is not lethal, as many seem to feel.
5
As if giving up drugs was that simple.
3
Not lethal and not necessary, either. It is at best a great waste of taxpayer money. It cost plenty and finds almost nobody. How much are you willing to waste on it? Spare no expense to shame the poor? Shameful.
5
Actually, it is simple. It's just not easy. One has to make a choice though. If it is medicare or abusive drug use it has to be a personal choice and can be done-- or not.
Actually it can save money for other things by getting drug addicted folks help through Medicaid---an idea being used to keep addicts out of jail in our state. Rehabilitating them, helping them get their lives back together and to get jobs and homes is valuable to the individuals and to all of us in our local and wider communities. Jails are far more expensive than drug rehab, and our jails are full of addicts and the mentally ill. And we are not talking about murderers and rapists. We are talking about regular people who for one reason or another get addicted. It could be any of us, or someone in our families. Why degrade folks asking for help by invading their privacy---at our expense, mind you. Why not help them get their lives back together and get healthy. Isn't that the goal of Medicaid? I mean, to get folks healthy? You can talk about it as a moral issue and it is, but it is also an economic issue. Conservatives should be thinking about costs---prisons vs. health care. Prisons vs. education. Is there really a choice here?
3
The authors object, that drug testing stigmatizes and racializes the poor.
I submit, that drug testing, would resolve these adverse possible characterizations, in the direction that people I am giving money to, were drug free (and law abiding) when tested
Altho, in a state with legal recreational marijuana, the question of a positive test is not so clear
I also support DNA testing, for paternity and for unsolved crimes
Don't like it? pay your own way or maybe get a charity to support you
Fingerprinting is one of the great advances in fraud control
I submit, that drug testing, would resolve these adverse possible characterizations, in the direction that people I am giving money to, were drug free (and law abiding) when tested
Altho, in a state with legal recreational marijuana, the question of a positive test is not so clear
I also support DNA testing, for paternity and for unsolved crimes
Don't like it? pay your own way or maybe get a charity to support you
Fingerprinting is one of the great advances in fraud control
8
Fraud control is the goal? Great. Let's start with investigating military contractors and making the Pentagon pass an audit. The fraud there is far more likely to generate real returns on the money invested in ferreting it out. It would also act as a disincentive to the ones involved.
5
We have a real issue with mental health but the issue is not the obvious one of cut.
The issue we have is that most Americans are INCREDIBLY dumb about human psychology. Most Americans are black/white thinkers who believe in absolutes---and right/wrong instead of the many nuances that go into being mentally healthy. They think in terms of absolutes and they don't have any education to understand what motivates people. or have any grasp in the dynamics that lead to cycles of poverty and drug use......
One of the things I have observed as I have moved up the economic ladder is that at the upper rungs--and especially in the NOrtheast--people are fairly functional. They can problem solve. They know how to communicate. They understand how to set goals and how to manage things without falling apart. They get not everyone is the same--and they understand and can see shades of gray.
If I could do one thing for America it would be this: teach them how to think not just critically but with psychological perspective into the human mind. Teach them psychology, sociology, and better human history. Alas, education in this country is going backwards and not forward.
The issue we have is that most Americans are INCREDIBLY dumb about human psychology. Most Americans are black/white thinkers who believe in absolutes---and right/wrong instead of the many nuances that go into being mentally healthy. They think in terms of absolutes and they don't have any education to understand what motivates people. or have any grasp in the dynamics that lead to cycles of poverty and drug use......
One of the things I have observed as I have moved up the economic ladder is that at the upper rungs--and especially in the NOrtheast--people are fairly functional. They can problem solve. They know how to communicate. They understand how to set goals and how to manage things without falling apart. They get not everyone is the same--and they understand and can see shades of gray.
If I could do one thing for America it would be this: teach them how to think not just critically but with psychological perspective into the human mind. Teach them psychology, sociology, and better human history. Alas, education in this country is going backwards and not forward.
2
It makes more sense for Medicaid recipients to be drug tested, and then to REQUIRE treatment as a condition of receiving Medicaid. Unfortunately, the Republicans likely wouldn't want to pay for treatment while authors like Michener and Kohler-Hausmann don't seem to be offering any solutions, but rather perpetuating a situation where benefits recipients can further spiral downward.
9
Roy, This idea and your position makes an assumption there is no basis for.
What gave rise to the idea oif testiung applicants for Drugs? When answered I thin you will find bigotry, ignorance and false assumptions.
The need ofr Medicaid is mainly the minim wage bandit corporationswho do not pay a living wage. Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps are all hidden subsidies for those corporations who employ peopkle but do not pay them enough to live on without assistance. If they cannot stay in business by paying a living wage then they should not exist as a business in the first place. Isn't that the rule of "free market" Capitalism?
These corps have collected $Trillions in hidden subsidies paid out to their employees by us the taxpayers. It's time we recouped the expenses for running their business which they have laid off on the taxpayer.
I refer you to a song by the Clash "Know Your Rights!"
What gave rise to the idea oif testiung applicants for Drugs? When answered I thin you will find bigotry, ignorance and false assumptions.
The need ofr Medicaid is mainly the minim wage bandit corporationswho do not pay a living wage. Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps are all hidden subsidies for those corporations who employ peopkle but do not pay them enough to live on without assistance. If they cannot stay in business by paying a living wage then they should not exist as a business in the first place. Isn't that the rule of "free market" Capitalism?
These corps have collected $Trillions in hidden subsidies paid out to their employees by us the taxpayers. It's time we recouped the expenses for running their business which they have laid off on the taxpayer.
I refer you to a song by the Clash "Know Your Rights!"
2
Roy,
Everyone who uses drugs is not an addict. If your cousin is on Medicaid and had an operation and was tested a week later and tested positive for opiates. Is he/she an addict? Think it through. This is not a black and white issue.
Everyone who uses drugs is not an addict. If your cousin is on Medicaid and had an operation and was tested a week later and tested positive for opiates. Is he/she an addict? Think it through. This is not a black and white issue.
1
If someone tests positive for drug use, they need medical care.
8
Huh? I'm a fully functional adult with a graduate degree, professional job and a 6 figure salary.
If I smoke pot before a concert on a Saturday night, what exactly are you going to send me to the ER for on Tuesday?
If I smoke pot before a concert on a Saturday night, what exactly are you going to send me to the ER for on Tuesday?
2
Doesn't matter -- you'd pay your own way.
Scott Walker's repugnant plan isn't about helping conquer drug abuse. It's about stigmatizing people who are poor, and making those living in poverty viewed as moral and ethical failures.
13
You ever think maybe people with drug addictions are among the ones who need medical help the most?
32
They do. And society should see that they get that help.
4
Well that's the whole point, isn't it. Just another way to reduce costs. Get all those high consumers out of Medicare and out on the street where they belong.
1
If we're going to drug test recipients of one type of welfare (Medicaid), then we should drug test recipients of corporate welfare as well.
11
Same goes for those who get Lobbyist welfare i.e. all of congress.
MJ
MJ
8
I certainly have had jobs where I was required to be alert and was drug tested as part of it. Yes it is stigmatizing, perhaps more so when you are someone who would not consider taking drugs. It made me think less of the work I did, less of the people I worked with and less of my employers. I did a good job and was careful because I was smart enough to care about the people we served, but was embarrassed about the requirement, and glad in a year or so when I moved on to work where they though more of the workers.
10
I would agree that testing should be a requirement of welfare; however, it should be tied to mandatory treatment for those who test positive. Having said that, the recent proposals for health care would cut treatment programs, even for those not on welfare, so we're back to square one.
4
Drug testing is now required or being considered for a wide range of benefits from various levels of government, so we should be more consistent. Let's require it for everyone who wants an income tax deduction for mortgage interest, every business owner who reports travel expenses or depreciation on capital equipment, every CEO and every other citizen who uses the court system in bringing or defending against lawsuits....after all, I don't want my tax dollars supporting drug abuse! And if we want, we can make it humane and only require drug users to get treatment, which (as long as they can regularly provide proof of it) could entitle them to still receive the government service or benefit.
And while we're at it, why are we tying these things only to drug abuse? What about child pornography, which I even more strongly want to avoid supporting? Everyone's computer should be checked before they are allowed to receive government benefits or services. How about tax fraud? We could require audits of everyone's income tax filings. Non-payment of alimony or child support...the list of things I don't want my tax dollars to support is endless.
We already have agencies of the government to seek and prosecute violators of the law. They are imperfect, but the proper response is not to empower every agency and every workplace to police us. That invites excessive and unfair intrusion and penalties, not coincidentally felt most strongly by citizens with the least influence in society.
And while we're at it, why are we tying these things only to drug abuse? What about child pornography, which I even more strongly want to avoid supporting? Everyone's computer should be checked before they are allowed to receive government benefits or services. How about tax fraud? We could require audits of everyone's income tax filings. Non-payment of alimony or child support...the list of things I don't want my tax dollars to support is endless.
We already have agencies of the government to seek and prosecute violators of the law. They are imperfect, but the proper response is not to empower every agency and every workplace to police us. That invites excessive and unfair intrusion and penalties, not coincidentally felt most strongly by citizens with the least influence in society.
10
Let's start by drug testing the members of Congress. The way they act, they must be on something 'cause they sure aren't normal.
2
How's this for an idea: drug test all Medicaid recipients. If they test positive, do a second test to make sure there was not a false positive. If they do test positive a second time, make their Medicaid benefits contingent on them getting treatment for drug use. If they fulfill that condition, then let them keep their benefits. If they don't, and if another drug test 6 months later comes up positive, then they get removed from the Medicaid rolls.
6
"then they get removed from the Medicaid rolls."
And then what? People still do get sick, you know. If you're worried about paying for care for people you don't think deserve it, then you must be aware that ER visits are not free, they are paid for by all of us, with higher rates for everyone.
And then what? People still do get sick, you know. If you're worried about paying for care for people you don't think deserve it, then you must be aware that ER visits are not free, they are paid for by all of us, with higher rates for everyone.
6
Exactly how much are you willing to spend on this? And where do you think the cost of NOT providing health care to those you kick off will go? Will it disappear? No, it will show up in Emergency Department budgets blowing up. At the very, very best this suggestion is penny-wise and pound foolish.
3
"Under Wisconsin’s proposal, people who use drugs will not automatically lose benefits, but they will be forced to undergo screening, testing or treatment, or all three, to maintain eligibility, which risks driving people from the program."
While I am not a doctor, I imagine that drug addiction affects a person’s health in a multitude of ways, creating and/ or exacerbating many medical problems. And my guess is that Medicaid is spending a huge amount in attempts to bring these problems under control, but cannot do so because of the continued addiction. Successful drug treatment could make a person healthier overall so Medicaid would save money.
Submitting to a drug test is a small thing. Every Medicaid recipient should do so, based on the possibility that he or she has been using drugs. If the person is found to be an abuser, then it would be better for his own health and it would save Medicaid money, if he would enter and successfully complete drug treatment.
Private insurance companies would be wise to authorize drug tests if a doctor has the least suspicion that a patient might be abusing drugs. Otherwise, drug addiction will continue to undermine health care, escalating costs.
While I am not a doctor, I imagine that drug addiction affects a person’s health in a multitude of ways, creating and/ or exacerbating many medical problems. And my guess is that Medicaid is spending a huge amount in attempts to bring these problems under control, but cannot do so because of the continued addiction. Successful drug treatment could make a person healthier overall so Medicaid would save money.
Submitting to a drug test is a small thing. Every Medicaid recipient should do so, based on the possibility that he or she has been using drugs. If the person is found to be an abuser, then it would be better for his own health and it would save Medicaid money, if he would enter and successfully complete drug treatment.
Private insurance companies would be wise to authorize drug tests if a doctor has the least suspicion that a patient might be abusing drugs. Otherwise, drug addiction will continue to undermine health care, escalating costs.
2
Should every Medicare recipient be required to submit to a drug test? Why?
2
Medicaid patients are poor. They therefore abuse drugs at a lower rate than the general population, because they don't have the money for drugs. This is repeatedly borne out by multiple studies.
Your assumptions are wrong, in other words.
Your assumptions are wrong, in other words.
5
Yes Ann, except what you’re missing here is an understanding of the brain of a drug addict. They don’t need a test to find out they’re addicted to drugs—they are more aware of it than anyone. The trick for us in the larger society is to get them to come in for treatment. And when they have determined they need to do that we need to make things as easy as possible. Governor Walker’s proposal works contrary to that, placing more hurdles in their way. So although he would argue that this is about compassion for the drug users, in reality it’s far from that—instead it’s all for show, to impress his followers with what a tough guy he is. Plus, it will probably be struck down by the courts, as similar proposals have been in the past, which he knows—again, all for show.
3
Well if you think that health care, food, clothing, shelter, and education are privileges rather than necessities, denying them to coerce people into conforming with behavior that earns them a right to enjoy those privileges makes sense. However, if they are necessities, then denying them will do harm and will contribute to the distress in people's lives that cause them to behave in ways to escape reality that are also self destructive.
When one considers how people become dependent upon drugs, it becomes fairly hard to simply dismiss it as poor self control for which providing the necessities of life are enablers. The person who is treated with pain-killers who develops an addiction, the child who is abused or neglected develops an inferior self image and seeks relief in drugs that follows them all their lives, the veteran who suffers from PTSD and depression using drugs to self medicate, the mentally ill person who never was able to cope using drugs to obliterate their confusing experiences of life, where does anyone find reason to attribute all of this to less than moral states of mind?
We as a society have the duty to provide people with the necessities of life because we can and because it makes our society a much healthier one. When we try to separate people into deserving and undeserving we tend to follow the way we see strangers and members of our group rather, being selfish rather than truly practicing the golden rule and enlightened self interest.
When one considers how people become dependent upon drugs, it becomes fairly hard to simply dismiss it as poor self control for which providing the necessities of life are enablers. The person who is treated with pain-killers who develops an addiction, the child who is abused or neglected develops an inferior self image and seeks relief in drugs that follows them all their lives, the veteran who suffers from PTSD and depression using drugs to self medicate, the mentally ill person who never was able to cope using drugs to obliterate their confusing experiences of life, where does anyone find reason to attribute all of this to less than moral states of mind?
We as a society have the duty to provide people with the necessities of life because we can and because it makes our society a much healthier one. When we try to separate people into deserving and undeserving we tend to follow the way we see strangers and members of our group rather, being selfish rather than truly practicing the golden rule and enlightened self interest.
4
I'm left leaning politically but couldn't disagree with this opinion more. Yes, we need to be sensitive to other people's needs but this is "bleeding heart" liberalism at its worst. People need to be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof) in order to receive benefits from other people's tax dollars. Not requiring someone to stay off of drugs (which should be tied to availability of free addiction treatment programs) is plain loony and unworkable.
16
Did you see the part about less than 1% being found to have used drugs? The cost to find that 1% far outweighs the benefits.
5
So all the Americans addicted to Prescription Opioid Drugs also need to be held accountable for their actions??
Because a drug addiction is a drug addiction and don't tell me it differs in any way by what drug or how a person becomes addicted to it...
BOTH, all and every person who has a drug addiction is in the same boat and has the same issues as any Drug Addict whether it be a Housewife hopelessly addicted to Valium, a chronic Pain Sufferer now addicted to Prescription Opiates or an unemployed Homeless man /Street Kid/ abused individual addicted to amphetamines/ Dope/Glue... they must get help and have their issue addressed and cured.
Or do you leave them uncovered, unprotected to be slowly consumed by their addiction and the problems that probably lie as their cause or reason.?
Until they die? Or are they expected to help themselves and get out of their holes with no care or help from society?
Because a drug addiction is a drug addiction and don't tell me it differs in any way by what drug or how a person becomes addicted to it...
BOTH, all and every person who has a drug addiction is in the same boat and has the same issues as any Drug Addict whether it be a Housewife hopelessly addicted to Valium, a chronic Pain Sufferer now addicted to Prescription Opiates or an unemployed Homeless man /Street Kid/ abused individual addicted to amphetamines/ Dope/Glue... they must get help and have their issue addressed and cured.
Or do you leave them uncovered, unprotected to be slowly consumed by their addiction and the problems that probably lie as their cause or reason.?
Until they die? Or are they expected to help themselves and get out of their holes with no care or help from society?
Not practical. People who are not meeting their needs are going to find that they want relief by any means necessary, which means falling back into their addictions. People who are meeting their needs are going to find dropping self destructives behaviors can be approached with a lot more self confidence and ability to stick out reconditioning themselves to overcome their addictions. This idea that to provide necessities to people enables destructive behaviors just dismisses the difficulties of overcoming those behaviors and presumes that sobriety and healthy behavior can be achieved simply and easily when our experience as a society proves that that is not so.
1
Agreed. I would also add that I think all drug testing (unless related to a job like pilot, or truck driver etc.) should be considered illegal search with no probable cause. The drug testing firms are making a fortune on the misfortune of millions of Americans - for example people in Washington, Colorado, or Oregon that might smoke weed Friday night, and then be randomly tested on the following Wednesday. Now you have a person that was working, and contributing - fired for what? Certainly there was no effect of the weed by Monday morning. Yet companies continue these "drug free" workplace practices, and testing entities are making a fortune. It is bad policy for the employer, and the employee. As your article states - drug testing for people receiving State benefits has proven to be costly, and ineffective. I don't know what it will take in this nation to stop the invasive practice of forcing people to turn over bodily fluids to keep their job, or receive State assistance. Great Opinion piece.
8
5% - 10% of positive drug tests are wrong.
What about Bill Cosby's alleged victims?
They'd be positive through no fault of their own.
The U.S. used to allow witch burnings.
Still do, just a different form.
Beware the Witch Burners.
What about Bill Cosby's alleged victims?
They'd be positive through no fault of their own.
The U.S. used to allow witch burnings.
Still do, just a different form.
Beware the Witch Burners.
8
So a program that affect the entire medicare population, with 33% that happen to minorities is inherently racist? Are the medicare receiving whites not subject to the exact same tests?!
3
I think the word racist is being thrown around way too frequently nowadays. I was recently called a racist for pointing out that Malcolm X was an ex-convict, even though he served 7 years of a 10 year sentence for burglary.
5
medicaid and medicare are two different things. it still astounds me how many people do not understand the difference.
1
Medicaid money is from Federal tax dollars, and no state should have any say in the spending of that money. Medicaid money must be administered by the Federal Government directly. Having states administer these funds are deny the people of some states their equal rights to their tax dollars....
5
Am I stigmatized because I get drug tested at work? I think it is a great idea as they will be able to get the help they need and be clean for the drug tests required for many jobs. Why does it matter if the drug abuse rate is higher or lower than the general population? Despite being illegal and dangerous, drugs lower work productivity in a population that is already having trouble securing employment so the drugs are not helping. Enabling drug abuse ultimately hurts the abuser.
4
I totally agree. Just as enabling drug use hurts the drug abuser, giving out free handouts hurts the lazy persons motivation, drive, and ambition. Free handouts aren't so good for federal and state budget deficits either. It's time we fix " the system" and reinforce the values of work and personal responsibility for one and one's own!
3
The United States is virtually the only modern industrial nation with this legacy of trying to sort out the "undeserving" citizens among us for exclusion from various government assistance and support programs. Most nations simply assume that one's living presence as a citizen is enough to ensure they are covered for many things that Americans often fret over, like food, housing, and medical aid, as well as support in education, family rearing, and employment.
Only in the US has the common good become demonized as some sort of ubiquitous threat to the common person. That's why we can't have nice things that are basic to civilized existence in most countries.
The roots of this endless hunt for internal enemies of the public go deep, with McCarthyism only one stop along the way to such a perverse concept of public policy. The idea that what makes us weak are the weak whose needs must be ignored for the good of us all solves nothing. Unlike migrants who can be easily expelled, these "internal enemies" remain among us.
For the politicians who profit from the repulsive trade in such abusive stereotyping, the idea that "the poor will always be with us" means eternal vigilance to ensure tax dollars go to tax cuts, instead of support for basic human services.
They in turn encourage the public to see the powerless as a threat, excusing the wealthiest nation on earth from responsibility for its own.
If they must, let's start by testing the wealthy when they claim their tax cuts.
Only in the US has the common good become demonized as some sort of ubiquitous threat to the common person. That's why we can't have nice things that are basic to civilized existence in most countries.
The roots of this endless hunt for internal enemies of the public go deep, with McCarthyism only one stop along the way to such a perverse concept of public policy. The idea that what makes us weak are the weak whose needs must be ignored for the good of us all solves nothing. Unlike migrants who can be easily expelled, these "internal enemies" remain among us.
For the politicians who profit from the repulsive trade in such abusive stereotyping, the idea that "the poor will always be with us" means eternal vigilance to ensure tax dollars go to tax cuts, instead of support for basic human services.
They in turn encourage the public to see the powerless as a threat, excusing the wealthiest nation on earth from responsibility for its own.
If they must, let's start by testing the wealthy when they claim their tax cuts.
24
You don't know much about social services in other countries, do you? Every country with a robust safety net has a whole army of social workers to monitor its clients. You have health visitors who have the authority to remove children from homes where the parents are functioning well. You have involuntary confinement in mental institutions. You have monitoring and follow-up. I actually think all these are good things, though they may be abused. But if you depend on society's largesse , society has the right to make demands on you. I'd go further and remove kids from any home where the parents are using drugs or are incapable of providing a reasonable level of care.
1
And we don't have all that here?
And why such livid and unquestioning support for the very odd means of testing by urinalysis? It's a massively overfunded, invasive, rights- and soul-crushing government program that has manifestly failed to achieve any measurable positive change in the "problem" it's meant to address. Thought conservatives and even many liberals opposed such things - EXCEPT for the poor!?!
And "drug" testing? Which BTW is mostly pot. Which BTW is now legal in many states with more to come. Which BTW many rely on for various health issues especially those who can't afford or who don't have access to conventional healthcare (probably saving the public money). Which BTW the poor would be better off with than booze or ciggies. Are they testing for those, too? I suspect the answer to that question tells you more about politically powerful drug delivery cartels and those who support them than the promotion of drug-testing trial-by-urine schemes will, but they are certainly connected. Criminals, corporate or otherwise, hate competition.
The mania for sorting the "deserving" from the "undeserving" Americans continues unabated, like some sort of weird counter-humanity program.
In memory of Mark Leff, whose teaching shines here in the work of one of his students. Go Julilly!
And why such livid and unquestioning support for the very odd means of testing by urinalysis? It's a massively overfunded, invasive, rights- and soul-crushing government program that has manifestly failed to achieve any measurable positive change in the "problem" it's meant to address. Thought conservatives and even many liberals opposed such things - EXCEPT for the poor!?!
And "drug" testing? Which BTW is mostly pot. Which BTW is now legal in many states with more to come. Which BTW many rely on for various health issues especially those who can't afford or who don't have access to conventional healthcare (probably saving the public money). Which BTW the poor would be better off with than booze or ciggies. Are they testing for those, too? I suspect the answer to that question tells you more about politically powerful drug delivery cartels and those who support them than the promotion of drug-testing trial-by-urine schemes will, but they are certainly connected. Criminals, corporate or otherwise, hate competition.
The mania for sorting the "deserving" from the "undeserving" Americans continues unabated, like some sort of weird counter-humanity program.
In memory of Mark Leff, whose teaching shines here in the work of one of his students. Go Julilly!
2
Please don't tell Governor Walker and his cohort that Medicaid recipients who are treated well are more likely to vote than those who are treated poorly. It will only make them more determined to downgrade the level of care. Oh, they already know that? Right....
10
In my opinion, any drug test without implicit consent is unreasonable search and seizure. Basically blackmailing recipients will end up back firing.
11
"Implicit" consent? Do you understand that "implicit" means implied or without being directly expressed? Apparently not. Well, that could easily be an "implied" if not express condition for free access to a taxpayer funded program... Incidentally, the Fourth Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this...
Perhaps the op meant "informed consent?"
Drug testing pregnant women keeps them from obtaining prenatal care.
BTW, neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Constitution have little, if any, to do with most things anymore.
Drug testing pregnant women keeps them from obtaining prenatal care.
BTW, neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Constitution have little, if any, to do with most things anymore.
I did not mean informed consent, look up the word.
I've been subject to random drug testing my entire adult life in order to keep jobs. What's so special about this subject group?
8
A positive drug test is a signal that an individual needs more help getting on the right track, not less. Optimizing your output at a job is way different than optimizing public well-being.
8
End the inept War on Drugs and noone will be subjected to the invasive drug testing. It is a waste of resources, time and is an insult.
7
That is completely absurd. Why on earth do you permit your employer to take samples of your bodily fluids?? Just because you have suffered an indignity doesn't mean you have the right to take away other people's dignity.
5
To have a real debate on the issue of drugs and aid, the scope of the inquiry must not be narrowed to distract from an uncomfortable truth. Obviously someone should not be denied aid because of a drug addiction, however, I think drug use should be considered in evaluating where aid is best applied. Let's face it, there is only so much in the pot to help an ever expanding population. I'm a registered independent but typically vote democrat. I don't find it against liberal principles for someone's decision to use drugs to be counted as one of many factors in their eligibility for aid. For everyone drawing in aid, there is someone else who will go without- that's just how the system works without unlimited money. It's not a "conservative" question to ask how we can best apply our limited aid- as the pot get smaller and the pool gets bigger. Democrats are ignoring this and focusing on the ideal of having aid and money for everyone- which I think is a very long way off in this country. The real debate on this matter I don't hear anyone on the left bringing up, it's easier to over-simplify the issue to black and white, criticize, and then move on. But with drugs being ever more invasive and widespread, and the American working class getting squeezed down- someone needs to start talking about it.
3
There is a problem with your scarcity mentality. There are enough resources in the U.S. to provide healthcare for all for the entire nation WITHOUT drug testing if the rich and corporations paid their fair share of taxes and the military were proportionally cut.
MEDICARE FOR ALL CRADLE TO GRAVE.
MEDICARE FOR ALL CRADLE TO GRAVE.
7
If we recouped the money from the minimum wage bandit corporations whom have been subsidized by these Assistance programs we would have plenty of money to provide real service like single payer and rebuild our infrastructure and... Oh wait the GOP doesn't want the people to know they can use their government to make life better for all instead of better for some and worse for most of the rest.
3
I could support expanded drug testing for a wide variety of recipients of public dollars with one proviso. That is, that all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, including all support staff, be subject to the the same drug testing protocols. In addition, alcohol and tobacco should be added to the drugs tested for.
13
The real reason for drug testing is to create another government program. Programs for the poor create a lot of government jobs.
3
What is needed in the backwards inhumane U.S.A. is single-payer healthcare, Medicare For All and fire the parasitic health "insurance" companies. Now THOSE are jobs that should be eliminated!
For-profit "health insurance" companies are toxic workplaces.
I worked for one of the major U.S. health insurers and it was the most miserable meaningless jobs I had during my entire life. Hotel housekeeping was far more rewarding. Talk about wasted resources! I observed this sham from the inside.
On the customer side, I was insured by that same company through a Medicare Advantage plan a few years ago and was hospitalized with catastrophic illness. Such administrative waste was breathtaking. I was still receiving explanation of benefits statements a full year after discharge!
Talk about waste and inefficiency (and poor customer service)!
For-profit "health insurance" companies are toxic workplaces.
I worked for one of the major U.S. health insurers and it was the most miserable meaningless jobs I had during my entire life. Hotel housekeeping was far more rewarding. Talk about wasted resources! I observed this sham from the inside.
On the customer side, I was insured by that same company through a Medicare Advantage plan a few years ago and was hospitalized with catastrophic illness. Such administrative waste was breathtaking. I was still receiving explanation of benefits statements a full year after discharge!
Talk about waste and inefficiency (and poor customer service)!
2
This makes sense and would be the way to go, so that ain't happening.
3
Calling these tests degrading is right enough but will not sway those who support them. The whole point of this proposal is to degrade the poor. Walker and similar politicians find pleasure in that prospect.
20
This author's logic uses the fact that drug testing discourages Medicaid enrollment as an argument against the program. What she is missing is that reducing enrollment is exactly what the legislators enacting these policies set out to do.
We are in a crisis in which need far outpaces resources for Medicaid--the reality is that enrollment needs to decrease somehow. For some, drug testing is the answer. A more interesting article would outline potential cost benefits or deficits more thoroughly, which would be a much more convincing argument for or against drug testing.
We are in a crisis in which need far outpaces resources for Medicaid--the reality is that enrollment needs to decrease somehow. For some, drug testing is the answer. A more interesting article would outline potential cost benefits or deficits more thoroughly, which would be a much more convincing argument for or against drug testing.
4
Simple solution- Recoup the expenses of these hidden minimum wage bandit corporation subsidies from those corporations.
5
Not sure of the accuracy, but the author suggests that the expense of running a drug testing program is likely to cost more than what would be recouped from scaring away citizens in need of healthcare. And the needs-exceed-resources argument is only true if you don't believe that taxpayers should bare the burden of providing a safety net for those in need. The crisis is ideological, not financial.
2
"Enrolment needs to decrease somehow"...... And what do you suppose happens to the people who no longer are eligible for medical coverage? They don't just conveniently disappear somewhere. They suffer and die. Is that the kind of country you want to be?
5
Was anyone under the assumption that Republicans impose these drug-testing requirements to help Medicaid beneficiaries? It's strictly punitive -- a way to remind them they are a plague on society and lesser than the well-off.
11
It's a ruse. Walker's game here is not to help people get ready for work but rather to decrease expeditures and cut taxes for the rich. He and the other Republicans could not care less about helping the poor.
12
If we're testing everyone who receives government handouts, then let's start at the top with every businessman, contractor, farmer, politician, and lobbyist who benefits from receiving government contracts and subsidies.
What? They won't stand for the invasion of privacy? Too bad! They line their pockets with government money, make fortunes based on government contracts -- they're taking money from the American people, so make them prove that they aren't abusing drugs while also robbing the US Treasury blind!
Not going to happen, right? Because money equals power these days. And people who can steal enough government money have enough power to prevent others from interfering in their personal affairs, while people who haven't figured out how to steal enough money from the government get steamrolled.
What welfare recipients need to do is step up their game and start stealing big time, like the rich already do, and then they won't be subjected to the laws passed by the wealthy, most of them designed to oppress the poor and infringe upon their liberties, in order to keep them "in their place."
In the meanwhile the wealthy continue to ignore laws without penalty, and continue to enrich themselves on the backs of everyone else. And the complaints of the middle and working classes about the unfairness and injustice of this system fall on deaf ears.
What? They won't stand for the invasion of privacy? Too bad! They line their pockets with government money, make fortunes based on government contracts -- they're taking money from the American people, so make them prove that they aren't abusing drugs while also robbing the US Treasury blind!
Not going to happen, right? Because money equals power these days. And people who can steal enough government money have enough power to prevent others from interfering in their personal affairs, while people who haven't figured out how to steal enough money from the government get steamrolled.
What welfare recipients need to do is step up their game and start stealing big time, like the rich already do, and then they won't be subjected to the laws passed by the wealthy, most of them designed to oppress the poor and infringe upon their liberties, in order to keep them "in their place."
In the meanwhile the wealthy continue to ignore laws without penalty, and continue to enrich themselves on the backs of everyone else. And the complaints of the middle and working classes about the unfairness and injustice of this system fall on deaf ears.
17
Everyone should be entitled to basic medical care. Period. I don't care whether the person abuses drugs, is obese, or follows any other "lifestyle choice" that could affect their cost of care. It's not desirable for society to have people dying in the streets simply because they have failed the moral test du jour. The whole point of having a safety net is to catch people when they fall. Not just to catch the perfect people. To catch everyone.
32
drug testing for ALL people collecting social welfare benefits should be mandatory in order to keep the benefits. Its galling to see people on food stamps heavily tattooed and smoking cigarettes (not weed), both of which cost a small fortune. This is an abuse of our welfare system. If the drug test comes clean, then the person should get a refund on the cost of the test.
Nobody drug tested me for legal or" illegal" drugs when I obtained Medicare. What about medical marijuana?? Let's get real .
7
If you have money to buy drugs - then you shouldn't be receiving federal aid, it's as simple as that.
17
Sounds simple, doesn't it? But most people on drugs are addicted, they are not choosing this "lifestyle". Maybe some started out just experimenting but once addicted they are no longer in control.
Most addicted people needed pain killers after surgery or other medical problems. Once started, those that found they were addicted could not stop on their own. They need help to stop and there are a number of proven approaches to help them.
These are not inherently "bad people" who should be put in jail, they are sick and they need medical care to rid themselves of the sickness. That's where "Federal aid" comes in under the health care umbrella.
Just because they "have money to buy drugs" doesn't mean they want to spend it that way, they just have to feed the monster on their backs. Most throw every penny they can into the drug, leaving family poor, under fed and helpless. Medical assistance from the government is sometimes the only way out of this hole they find themselves in.
No sir, it is definitely not simple.
Most addicted people needed pain killers after surgery or other medical problems. Once started, those that found they were addicted could not stop on their own. They need help to stop and there are a number of proven approaches to help them.
These are not inherently "bad people" who should be put in jail, they are sick and they need medical care to rid themselves of the sickness. That's where "Federal aid" comes in under the health care umbrella.
Just because they "have money to buy drugs" doesn't mean they want to spend it that way, they just have to feed the monster on their backs. Most throw every penny they can into the drug, leaving family poor, under fed and helpless. Medical assistance from the government is sometimes the only way out of this hole they find themselves in.
No sir, it is definitely not simple.
5
But what about the families of people using illegal drugs? Are they supposed to suffer to prove your point?
3
Florida had drug testing of poor people on tanf until it was struck down by federal court. They are trying to revive it for anyone receiving assistance who has any kind of drug-related conviction. Beyond its unconstitutionality, studies demonstrated that a negligible number of people on assistance used drugs. This is meant to stigmatize poor people. This is stupid and cruel.
5
If you're generous enough to provide health care to people who are at 400% of the poverty level, you naturally expect something in return for your generosity. At a minimum you want to know that they're trying as hard as they can to work themselves out of poverty, and people on drugs have a much more difficult time getting and keeping employment.
Basically, the argument is that poor people should get free money paid for by everyone else with no strings attached. That's a losing one.
12
There are always strings attached, Dan. Like the ones strung from the arrows people like you sling at the poor for being unable to care for themselves.
Never mind, you wouldn't understand.
Never mind, you wouldn't understand.
The unspoken topic here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use.
it isn't. It is caused by minimum wage bandit corporations not paying a living wage and relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their corporate profits. Heck some of these corps would not even be in business if it weren't for the welfare and other subsidies paid to their employees.
The really insidious thing here is that this idea created by the wealthy centuries ago out of thin air to justify and excuse their callousness, of associating asking for help with moral failure and bad character has already worked on us.
it isn't. It is caused by minimum wage bandit corporations not paying a living wage and relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their corporate profits. Heck some of these corps would not even be in business if it weren't for the welfare and other subsidies paid to their employees.
The really insidious thing here is that this idea created by the wealthy centuries ago out of thin air to justify and excuse their callousness, of associating asking for help with moral failure and bad character has already worked on us.
7
magic,
You're pushing a strawman argument supported by a study out just this week:
"...[Seattle] is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.
The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.
On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-d...
___
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities - terms no longer used in the Federal Application Process, STILL define FISCAL policy.
You're pushing a strawman argument supported by a study out just this week:
"...[Seattle] is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.
The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.
On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-d...
___
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities - terms no longer used in the Federal Application Process, STILL define FISCAL policy.
2
No business has a right to life. It should rise or fall on its merits as long as they pay a living wage.
What your study proves is exactly what I am saying. These corporations have been subsidized by the taxpayers and cannot exist as a business without that subsidy. I suspect the losses you describe have more to do with the internal setup that sends all money to the top as fast as possible instead of seeing to it all needs are provided for first. If they had rightly failed soon after startup we would have a natural business environmental system in which the businesses that existed self support and those who cannot go out fast. There would be less need for Assistance programs.
What your study proves is exactly what I am saying. These corporations have been subsidized by the taxpayers and cannot exist as a business without that subsidy. I suspect the losses you describe have more to do with the internal setup that sends all money to the top as fast as possible instead of seeing to it all needs are provided for first. If they had rightly failed soon after startup we would have a natural business environmental system in which the businesses that existed self support and those who cannot go out fast. There would be less need for Assistance programs.
1
That analysis excluded data from employers with more than one location, i.e., Starbucks. More than 40% of Seattle workers are employed by business with more than one location. Also, large employers like Starbucks (McDonalds, etc.) had to raise their wages higher than smaller employers did, so the metrics in the data are all off. You can confirm all of this with the below links. Have a nice day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/27/seattle...
See also http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2017/Seattles-Minimum-Wage-Experiences-20...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/27/seattle...
See also http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2017/Seattles-Minimum-Wage-Experiences-20...
The white-Hispanic and black population of Wisconsin has remained between 20-21% over the last 4-5 years.
Posting announcements or sending out letters stating that "your next visit may include a random drug screening, please bring list of all Rx signed by your Dr. for your file" may be an effective incentive to curb abuse.
Posting announcements or sending out letters stating that "your next visit may include a random drug screening, please bring list of all Rx signed by your Dr. for your file" may be an effective incentive to curb abuse.
8
Abuse of what?
2
Who will pay for the drug testing? The State governments or the applicant? From what I understand, drug tests run about $30.00. If the state pays, that will add up quickly. If the applicant has to pay, that's $30.00 that can't be spent on food etc. Economically, it seems like foolish plan, but really one to punish the poor at someone's expense, their's or the state.
8
Why are so many Americans hooked on opiates to begin with?
9
Really?
When you're dealing with an overwhelming crisis where available resources are dwarfed by the need, you've got to triage. Later, when you've saved those best likely to survive, you move on to the next tier.
The addicts/alcoholics I know who got clean and stayed clean did so because the misery of addiction was worse than the misery of withdrawal and cravings. They themselves found the inner motivation to struggle towards health and the rebuilding of shattered lives.
Enough time, compassion and money has been wasted on those who endlessly relapse, and manage over the course of their own lives to destroy many, many others.
Yes--our society does not allocate monies wisely or equitably. But there's never enough money to pay for every service needed. You could tax all of us at a 90% level and still never have enough money.
Poor people throwing whatever limited funds they have down the toilet by purchasing drugs aren't wise users of our tax dollars.
You care so much? Pay for them privately. You don't want to? Neither do I.
PS: Very inexpensive and highly-effective treatments for withdrawal exist. They're not widely used because nobody profits from them. Look into it.
When you're dealing with an overwhelming crisis where available resources are dwarfed by the need, you've got to triage. Later, when you've saved those best likely to survive, you move on to the next tier.
The addicts/alcoholics I know who got clean and stayed clean did so because the misery of addiction was worse than the misery of withdrawal and cravings. They themselves found the inner motivation to struggle towards health and the rebuilding of shattered lives.
Enough time, compassion and money has been wasted on those who endlessly relapse, and manage over the course of their own lives to destroy many, many others.
Yes--our society does not allocate monies wisely or equitably. But there's never enough money to pay for every service needed. You could tax all of us at a 90% level and still never have enough money.
Poor people throwing whatever limited funds they have down the toilet by purchasing drugs aren't wise users of our tax dollars.
You care so much? Pay for them privately. You don't want to? Neither do I.
PS: Very inexpensive and highly-effective treatments for withdrawal exist. They're not widely used because nobody profits from them. Look into it.
12
Well said!
1
State benefits are supposed to be a safety net until you can get back on your feet. For drug users living off the safety net is a convenience and a way of life.
8
Yesterday a commenter who worked in
the financial industry made an impt
point. He said that any nation 20t in
debt, does NOT need to be giving TAX
CUTS to anyone!
Instead, they need to pay down their
debt.
That should be where we put our focus,
paying down our debts, reducing military
spending, Medicaid for all, repairing
infrastructure, job training...
Checking applicants applying for assist-
ance for drug usage is not a top priority
in my opinion.
the financial industry made an impt
point. He said that any nation 20t in
debt, does NOT need to be giving TAX
CUTS to anyone!
Instead, they need to pay down their
debt.
That should be where we put our focus,
paying down our debts, reducing military
spending, Medicaid for all, repairing
infrastructure, job training...
Checking applicants applying for assist-
ance for drug usage is not a top priority
in my opinion.
7
How about recouping the hidden subsidy the GOP has been giving the minimum wage bandit corporations via assistance programs? That's got to be well over $20T since 1980.
9
As a healthcare advocate, I can tell you first hand that this is inhumane, arrogant, ignorant and completely illogical.
Let's look at the nation's opioid epidemic. It led by prescription drug addiction, not heroin. The poor don't have access to generous prescription pads as do those with assets. Should we drug test all of the soccer moms to see who is taking too much Vicodin? How about we drug test every member of Congress and the Administration? They're governing our land and their paychecks are government funded, so don't we have a right to know if their abusing drugs?
Assuming that there are so many poor people on drugs that all should be drug tested in order to get Medicaid is myopic, denigrating, discriminatory and flat out embarrassing.
Let's start the drug tests of all elected officials with Scott Walker. He's a state employee, receiving a government pay check. I think everyone in Wisconsin has a right to know what he's smoking.
Let's look at the nation's opioid epidemic. It led by prescription drug addiction, not heroin. The poor don't have access to generous prescription pads as do those with assets. Should we drug test all of the soccer moms to see who is taking too much Vicodin? How about we drug test every member of Congress and the Administration? They're governing our land and their paychecks are government funded, so don't we have a right to know if their abusing drugs?
Assuming that there are so many poor people on drugs that all should be drug tested in order to get Medicaid is myopic, denigrating, discriminatory and flat out embarrassing.
Let's start the drug tests of all elected officials with Scott Walker. He's a state employee, receiving a government pay check. I think everyone in Wisconsin has a right to know what he's smoking.
31
I don't agree with Walker's proposed policy. However, I must point out that nowadays no one receives open-ended opiate or Vicodin prescriptions - most docs won't prescribe even milder pain meds. People who need these meds (and there are people who need them) must go to pain clinics, where they receive random drug tests, must bring in all of their prescription meds (yes, including blood-pressure meds), and must have these counted out by a PA or a nurse. First-time patients at the pain clinic here are drug tested even if they have no pain prescriptions and have been referred for spinal injections. So, yes - the soccer mom taking Vicodin is in fact drug tested, if she's acquiring it legally.
5
if you accept benefits you have no right to privacy. the Left always tries to conflate the two.
_______
my sole sympathy is for the woman who was abused in the gov't benefits office. remember this abuse rises from government employees who deep down know their government jobs serve no useful purpose . nobody would hire them in the private sector because of their poor work habits.
_______
my sole sympathy is for the woman who was abused in the gov't benefits office. remember this abuse rises from government employees who deep down know their government jobs serve no useful purpose . nobody would hire them in the private sector because of their poor work habits.
5
My favorite benefit is the carried interest deduction. That is one sweet, sweet benefit.
11
Where is the evidence of poor working habits? Do you have studies to cite?
8
Driving on public roads = Benefit -> Should the public have a right to know what is in your vehicle? Where you are going? Who is with you?
Clean water from the tap = Benefit -> Should the public have the right to know how you use it?
The Post Office= Benefit -> Should the public have the right to know what is in your letter? Who is sending you things?
Any number of other publicly provided or subsidized benefit could go here. All touch on our privacy at some level.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that privacy is a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Be careful what you wish for! I grant you, in some cases there should be reasonable limitations on the privacy of users of publicly provided benefits (security screenings to get on airlines, drivers licenses and vehicle registration...). These are the costs of living in a modern democracy. But in most cases it would be a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare to weed out all of the "undesirable users" of our public benefits. And this doesn't even account for the moral, social, and historical reasons for not doing so, let alone the amorphous and undefined category of "undesirable users".
Clean water from the tap = Benefit -> Should the public have the right to know how you use it?
The Post Office= Benefit -> Should the public have the right to know what is in your letter? Who is sending you things?
Any number of other publicly provided or subsidized benefit could go here. All touch on our privacy at some level.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that privacy is a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Be careful what you wish for! I grant you, in some cases there should be reasonable limitations on the privacy of users of publicly provided benefits (security screenings to get on airlines, drivers licenses and vehicle registration...). These are the costs of living in a modern democracy. But in most cases it would be a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare to weed out all of the "undesirable users" of our public benefits. And this doesn't even account for the moral, social, and historical reasons for not doing so, let alone the amorphous and undefined category of "undesirable users".
5
Just another way to divide and conquer.
6
This is the same governor who signed a bill requiring ID cards for voting and at the same time curtailed the hours the government offices that issue those cards, and that are nearest the places where poor people live.
11
Having an addiction is not against the law. It should not be treated like a crime. When people are down you help them out, you don't kick them out.
10
Apparently not Republicans.
7
You think we should be forced to help people who refuse to help themselves forever? I don't and I won't pay for it. You can if you want.
If you can't pass a drug test you are probably not going to be able to get a job. If you don't have a job you are going to be poor and need healthcare. So isn't it redundant to test again to qualify for Medicaid?
4
"Under Wisconsin’s proposal, people who use drugs will not automatically lose benefits, but they will be forced to undergo screening, testing or treatment, or all three, to maintain eligibility..." Perfect, test them and those that fail get into treatment, there is nothing wrong with that approach.
9
Nothing wrong ??
For One; What if you need cannabis to save your eyesight ?
For One; What if you need cannabis to save your eyesight ?
2
If we were really concerned about public safety, we'd drug test people who buy guns and people seeking drivers' licenses.
18
Not so much.
1
Drug test the Senate and Congress.
11
So no one with a thing for poppy seed bagels could drive. Makes sense to me.
2
" Medicaid recipients are more likely to participate in elections and other forms of politics when they live in states that have expanded coverage or that offer a wider scope of benefits, like dental and vision services. The opposite is true for beneficiaries who live in states that have restricted benefits and services."
That's why those states restrict benefits. If more of the population voted the do nothing republicans would be voted out of lucrative jobs.
That's why those states restrict benefits. If more of the population voted the do nothing republicans would be voted out of lucrative jobs.
6
Please. Give us a break. If I'm unable to work because I"m on drugs, should my lifestyle be subsidized by hard-working taxpayers? Today's over-the-top bleeding hearts (and once I was regularly accused of being a 'bleeding heart liberal') need to step back and take a look at what we've spawned in the US by our failure to expect individuals to be accountable for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions. We can't afford to take care of everyone; let's take care of those who are at least willing to help themselves.s
11
Let's test the logic: if I'm poor, what am I doing spending money I don't have on drugs instead of my medical care, rent, supporting my kids and so on? This policy of giving people who want to do drugs (and places to do them) free medical care so they can use their money to buy drugs is the PROBLEM! Same with homelessness; we've made it ok in our society to be a dead beat and have done so, for so long that the problem has only gotten worse. This does't fix anything -- it's trying to put out the fire by pouring on gasoline!
3
Your anger should be focused on the minimum wage bandit corporations the GOP has been subsidizing with the wage laws and work laws that force those employees on to Assistance programs for decades.
Otherwise the false assumptions you have made here are exactly what mentioning the idea of drug testing applicants was meant to get you to infer and throw exactly that much emotional weight and moral outrage into that inference without a single thought interfering. You are ready for your next assignment GOPer.
Otherwise the false assumptions you have made here are exactly what mentioning the idea of drug testing applicants was meant to get you to infer and throw exactly that much emotional weight and moral outrage into that inference without a single thought interfering. You are ready for your next assignment GOPer.
3
One of the richest countries in the world "can't afford to take care of everyone"? The US of A could, indeed, "take care of everyone". It's a matter of priorities. Other countries do or at least try. Sounds like America has throw-away people.
5
My understanding is that companies make a killing off drug testing. There is always someone who makes money off taking advantage of low-income people.
17
Yup. And drug tests don't work well. Stay off those poppyseed bagels, you "addicts."
5
Scott Walker has a public policy plan: If you're on Medicaid and want to get high in Wisconsin, get pregnant, get someone pregnant, and get yourself a child. Home free! After all, mothers and fathers are such more responsible drug abusers than single folk with no family responsibilities.
This is what happens when public policy is not public policy but a way of pandering to voters' prejudices with thoughtless punitive measures targeting stereotypes. The result is utterly dysfunctional systemic incentives.
This is what happens when public policy is not public policy but a way of pandering to voters' prejudices with thoughtless punitive measures targeting stereotypes. The result is utterly dysfunctional systemic incentives.
5
How about drug testing members of Congress before they get their deluxe health benefits?
20
If we are going to stop testing folks getting money for free from the tax payer, then we should stop testing those who have to work for their money who's tax m oney is used to give to these drug users. If you didn't work for your check, you're getting tested. Period. THis should be the law of the land. If you don't want tax payer money, money from folks who had to get tested, used all the drugs you want, on your own dime. Tax payer money IS being diverted to drugs by many folks who get SSDI. Not by all, but by many. It's a fact.
3
Citation please?
2
sounds like more of an 'alternative fact'....
The difference between the affluent and welfare class is that the former can abuse drugs without being a liability to the system because they can afford to pay for their own health insurance.
Medicaid recipients are obviously struggling, so the question is, why would they elect to make their own lives harder by using recreational drugs?
Medicaid recipients are obviously struggling, so the question is, why would they elect to make their own lives harder by using recreational drugs?
1
Pain, generally speaking. Emotional or physical pain.
7
Your statement that 33% of Medicaid participants are black and Hispanic perpetuates the perception that only "those" people receive benefits and therefore legitimizes the stigma against other ethnic groups. Perhaps some articles focusing on the 67% of whites receiving these services might help expand awareness that more white people by the numbers use these services. Help dispel the myth of the ethnic poor please!
5
This results in many drug users NOT going to use community medical services and spreading disease and mayhem.
Who benefits from any of this constant drug testing and surveillance? The medical industry of course.
Having to be drug tested every 30 days to receive meds is terrible and criminalizes legitimate patients, including the elderly who need them.
Who has the time and energy to go the medical center once a month for a pee test to get a refill? This is what is expected in MA today.
Who benefits from any of this constant drug testing and surveillance? The medical industry of course.
Having to be drug tested every 30 days to receive meds is terrible and criminalizes legitimate patients, including the elderly who need them.
Who has the time and energy to go the medical center once a month for a pee test to get a refill? This is what is expected in MA today.
8
Walker's "thinking" is similar to those who say all Muslims are potential terrorist. In his "eyes" he believes that people without children who need medicare are all likely to be drug addicts. So a positive test results would boot them out of medicare. Great. So now they get sick and they go to a hospital where they still have to be taken care of. Now the tax payer still has to pay for that service. People are not going to stop being addicts because they need medicare. Addiction is a disease in itself. Why doesn't the governor propose a program that encourages addicts to get treatment instead of creating a program that further alienates these people who have fallen into the demise of addiction. Ah. But that would actually require a thing called compassion. If you are going to test for drugs, why not make middle class people who are addicted to opiods also get tested for drugs. They do drive under those conditions and threaten the actual lives of many people on the road. Maybe they should all be drug tested before getting or renewing their licences. Naturally that won't happen because many of these people vote, while many minorities, including the poor, do not vote. As such they are treated as second class citizens upon whose backs the budget is "balanced."
1
To make sense of this mess, it helps to understand that Governor Walker says this is about one thing, but it’s really about something else.
What he says it’s about is helping people to get off drugs and to get back in the workforce. What it’s really about is an attempt by him to send a message to his faithful that he’s battling against stereotypical goof-offs who don’t want to work and instead are happy to sponge off freebie government benefits, even while they lay about the house doing drugs.
Except, of course, as this excellent article points out, his proposal is totally counterproductive to that. Somebody who’s on drugs is less likely to seek treatment if, ironically, one of the conditions of gaining the healthcare benefits that would finance the treatment is to have to take a drug test. Illogical, you might say, but hey, taking drugs isn’t about being logical.
And this is happening at the worst possible time, when drug abuse and overdoses are skyrocketing, yet the ACA (i.e., “Obamacare”) has finally provided a practical way to finance drug treatment for those who need it.
So to sum up, like so much of what Governor Walker and President Trump do, it’s all show for the benefit of their groupies, even if it’s destructive to the values they claim they adhere to. Like most Americans, I’m waiting for the day when our political leaders once again do things to really help our people rather than to score political points.
What he says it’s about is helping people to get off drugs and to get back in the workforce. What it’s really about is an attempt by him to send a message to his faithful that he’s battling against stereotypical goof-offs who don’t want to work and instead are happy to sponge off freebie government benefits, even while they lay about the house doing drugs.
Except, of course, as this excellent article points out, his proposal is totally counterproductive to that. Somebody who’s on drugs is less likely to seek treatment if, ironically, one of the conditions of gaining the healthcare benefits that would finance the treatment is to have to take a drug test. Illogical, you might say, but hey, taking drugs isn’t about being logical.
And this is happening at the worst possible time, when drug abuse and overdoses are skyrocketing, yet the ACA (i.e., “Obamacare”) has finally provided a practical way to finance drug treatment for those who need it.
So to sum up, like so much of what Governor Walker and President Trump do, it’s all show for the benefit of their groupies, even if it’s destructive to the values they claim they adhere to. Like most Americans, I’m waiting for the day when our political leaders once again do things to really help our people rather than to score political points.
5
It is a simple fact that you can not force an addict to sobriety. Threats, shaming, withholding funds, kicking addicts out of their home - families have tried all these manipulations and more to try to get their loved ones into treatment. It does not mean that we stop trying to 'help' but an addict must come to their own decision often after much painful experiences.
I will not get into a full discussion of the disease and treatment of addiction but wish to point out Governor Walker's clearly uninformed and mean policy does nothing to help an addict. The requirement does nothing but add to the stigmatization of the poor in our society as undeserving people and further segregate them.
Going to the doctor for healthcare is not the same as applying for a job.
I will not get into a full discussion of the disease and treatment of addiction but wish to point out Governor Walker's clearly uninformed and mean policy does nothing to help an addict. The requirement does nothing but add to the stigmatization of the poor in our society as undeserving people and further segregate them.
Going to the doctor for healthcare is not the same as applying for a job.
8
One thread here is that poor people got there through no fault of their own. OK, let's say that's true. There is no way this extends to drug use.
3
Many addicts in the current opioid crisis are people who received legal prescription painkillers for on the job injuries. Because opioids are terrible for pain management, and better chronic pain treatments option like cannabinoids often are not available, these patients are forced to take more and more opioids to manage their chronic pain, which leads almost inevitably to addiction. Unable to get relief from their prescription, many will turn to heroin, or now fentanyl, which is extremely powerful and often deadly. These people are no more to blame for their addiction than the pharmaceutical industry or federal drug enforcement policy is.
4
I clicked on the Recommended button 500 times, but it only gave me one Recommend. Just thought you should know.
3
"There is no way this extends to drug use."
So when the poor kid who has suffered tremendously traumatic abuses of all kinds due to that poverty and the circumstances it inflicts tries a beer as all kids eventually do and discovers as if by magic that it makes the pain go away. He or she is to blame for "making that choice" to drink the beer that eventually leads to a drug addiction the next time? or is it the first time?
At what point in time do you take into account the outsize effect of what is for most kids a passing normal stage of life on this poor kid do to the trauma he or she has endured through no fault of their own?
So when the poor kid who has suffered tremendously traumatic abuses of all kinds due to that poverty and the circumstances it inflicts tries a beer as all kids eventually do and discovers as if by magic that it makes the pain go away. He or she is to blame for "making that choice" to drink the beer that eventually leads to a drug addiction the next time? or is it the first time?
At what point in time do you take into account the outsize effect of what is for most kids a passing normal stage of life on this poor kid do to the trauma he or she has endured through no fault of their own?
2
Scott Walker, my governor, is using this as a way to cut more people off assistance. He doesn't really care about the people of Wisconsin or he would have taken the Medicaid money when the ACA was enacted. He also turned down stimulus money for the state. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He is all about the 1%. Unfortunately, there are many Wisconsinites who think like he does. He is also starving public and higher education in our state. Our roads are a mess and tourism is one of our biggest industries. He claims to be a jobs governor. But, he continues to hinder internet expansion into our rural areas making new business start ups impossible outside of the lager cities. Satellite Internet is almost as slow as dial up in much of Wisconsin. That affects our rural K-12 students too.
Don't taken anything this man says at face value. There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda. It's name is spelled KOCH BROTHERS.
Don't taken anything this man says at face value. There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda. It's name is spelled KOCH BROTHERS.
9
It's going to cost more to test than the savings from finding people who need treatment, especially if you include the costs of treating those you do find. Fiscally speaking, drug testing is a disaster for states and a windfall for testing companies.
7
Walker - one of the most dishonest of all the lying Republican politicians - claims that his warrantless search program is only to get people receiving government money eligible to work. Of course, the testing requirement will also apply to Medicaid recipients who already hold jobs, and those who are disabled and not physically able to work. And, it doesn't apply to contractors and their employees who have business with the State. They are assumed to be above all that.
Walker is not only crooked, he's stupid. Back when Obama offered increased Medicaid to the States, our genius governor turned it down. He said he wasn't sure it would continue to be funded by the federal government. Well, now that has come to pass thanks to his fellow Republicans, BUT, states like Wisconsin are going to be penalized even more than states that accepted the expansion. They will be disproportionately negatively impacted by the trillion dollar cut in Medicaid, according to analysis of the proposed repeal language. At least his best friends, the Koch's will be happy.
What a jerk.
Walker is not only crooked, he's stupid. Back when Obama offered increased Medicaid to the States, our genius governor turned it down. He said he wasn't sure it would continue to be funded by the federal government. Well, now that has come to pass thanks to his fellow Republicans, BUT, states like Wisconsin are going to be penalized even more than states that accepted the expansion. They will be disproportionately negatively impacted by the trillion dollar cut in Medicaid, according to analysis of the proposed repeal language. At least his best friends, the Koch's will be happy.
What a jerk.
11
The sooner the US moves toward a system similar to Canada or Europe the better. Drug testing? Do you know how many people are smoking marijuana, over-consuming alcohol, taking unnecessary drugs legal and illegal? Americans are some of the least healthy people on the planet and better healthcare, not more "sickcare", would go a long way to alleviating much unnecessary suffering.
2
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed, and love of power."
-P.J. O'Rourke
13
The real question to me is: what happens after they're tested? I oppose testing with the purpose of removing people from the assistance rolls, leaving the needy high and dry if they happen to use drugs. I would be fine with requiring that anyone seeking assistance who tests positive for drug use, go through rehab (paid for through the assistance program) before they can receive normal assistance.
The authors have forgotten the political element of the Medicaid equation: state officials and legislators have to fit their state Medicaid program into the budget, and make it palatable to taxpayers and voters. Seeing that their dollars are going to people who are not creating a problem at the same time they are attempting to solve one is a way of doing that. It may not make sense to experts in public health, but you can't ignore the political balancing act. The writers' final conclusion that drug-testing "jeopardizes our democracy" by chasing away people from learning about government is wrong because it ignores the other, more common ways people interact with their state, such as obtaining drivers' licenses or other forms of I.D., filing taxes and registering property. I would suggest, in fact, that it's better that people learn "firsthand" about governments by seeing what it takes, in addition to what it provides.
1
A thought--while I don't think I've agreed with Scott Walked on any other issue ever, this does not strike me as unreasonable. They policy in question does not automatically disqualify those who test positive for drugs.
The flip side of tax-funded health care is that since the government is subsidizing it, the government gets a certain say over public health. It cannot moderate your lifestyle--banning pizza or mandating gym attendance would be governmental overreach--but since it is paying for your healthcare regardless of what you do, it has a vested interest in getting you to avoid doing things that will only cause health problems, which it will then have to pay for. In this vein, the government has every right to test people for drugs, and it has every right to force Medicaid recipients into treatment--treatment that it also pays for. I think that "more drug addicts exposed to treatment" is the sort of thing that we want.
Personally, I think that anti-drug policies are a more than reasonable trade-off for government subsidized healthcare. If you don't, then you should really be pushing for the return of the pre-ACA insurance market. I won't be joining you in that endeavor.
A question--what does the diabetic woman in Chicago have to do with the rest of the article? I was unaware that anyone in the country had ever had a pleasant interaction with our government. That doesn't strike me as a sympathetic reason to forgo healthcare.
The flip side of tax-funded health care is that since the government is subsidizing it, the government gets a certain say over public health. It cannot moderate your lifestyle--banning pizza or mandating gym attendance would be governmental overreach--but since it is paying for your healthcare regardless of what you do, it has a vested interest in getting you to avoid doing things that will only cause health problems, which it will then have to pay for. In this vein, the government has every right to test people for drugs, and it has every right to force Medicaid recipients into treatment--treatment that it also pays for. I think that "more drug addicts exposed to treatment" is the sort of thing that we want.
Personally, I think that anti-drug policies are a more than reasonable trade-off for government subsidized healthcare. If you don't, then you should really be pushing for the return of the pre-ACA insurance market. I won't be joining you in that endeavor.
A question--what does the diabetic woman in Chicago have to do with the rest of the article? I was unaware that anyone in the country had ever had a pleasant interaction with our government. That doesn't strike me as a sympathetic reason to forgo healthcare.
5
Then you have really bad government. My interactions with government at the state and county levels here in WA has always been good from when my husband and I put up our house to when my children and I had to go on Medicaid after his death. The closest I ever had to a problem was when I needed to get a copy of a child's birth certificate and they wanted my birth name rather than my current name, and a simple question resolved that.
The difficulty with forcing treatment is that the consensus is that it doesn't work. Indeed if the addict is also otherwise in bad health, they may not have the mental or physical energy to devote to controlling their addiction. Chronic illnesses like addiction require a lot of energy to manage, particularly when they are stigmatized as much as addiction is. I have diabetes and can find that difficult to manage, my understanding is that addiction is even worse. Getting someone in contact with the health care system may also prove to them that someone cares about them, giving them incentive to work on the addiction too.
The difficulty with forcing treatment is that the consensus is that it doesn't work. Indeed if the addict is also otherwise in bad health, they may not have the mental or physical energy to devote to controlling their addiction. Chronic illnesses like addiction require a lot of energy to manage, particularly when they are stigmatized as much as addiction is. I have diabetes and can find that difficult to manage, my understanding is that addiction is even worse. Getting someone in contact with the health care system may also prove to them that someone cares about them, giving them incentive to work on the addiction too.
3
Is there any language in Walker's proposal that suggests the government will provide the drug rehab program while continuing to cover the Medicaid recipient?
1
Jennie--if the hope is that by exposing the addicted to healthcare services, they will feel more comfortable managing their addictions, then how is this policy not exactly what we all want? At worst, the addiction treatment does nothing. At best, someone learns how to seek help. Frankly, I don't consider the argument that drug-testing might make people feel bad to be valid. I could understand the outrage in the article if drug use made users entirely ineligible for Medicaid, but that's clearly not the case.
Jaime--drug addiction rehabilitation and treatment are covered by Medicaid. As the point of the policy seems to be that those who go to treatment stay on Medicaid, why would Medicaid not pay for it?
Jaime--drug addiction rehabilitation and treatment are covered by Medicaid. As the point of the policy seems to be that those who go to treatment stay on Medicaid, why would Medicaid not pay for it?
1
I do not see any problem with the idea of withholding government benefits, or making their acquisition more difficult, to those who have demonstrated their contempt for the legal system by engaging in illegal behavior on an ongoing fashion.
While I personally favor the removal of all drug laws, until these substances are made legal those who violate existing law have made a choice and must pay the price for said choice.
While I personally favor the removal of all drug laws, until these substances are made legal those who violate existing law have made a choice and must pay the price for said choice.
3
Sure. As long as we also do this for millionaires and those who receive massive tax breaks and the like. "Government benefits" don't come only in the form of welfare -- if we drug-tested the people and families who stand to benefit the most from the proposed Trumpcare tax cut, I'm sure we'd find plenty of folks who use drugs (given that drug use is fairly consistent across racial lines). Are we going to withhold the "government benefit" of these tax cuts?
7
But they could, perhaps, be alcoholics--which is legal?
Andrew - I would love to see that as well.
2
The drug testing industry consumes millions of taxpayer dollars, mostly in support of the prison-industrial complex which costs us billions. The money could be used much more productively to address problems in our society.
12
As an African American who grew up poor and has had the benefit of medicaid during hard times in my life, I am proud to be a tax paying citizen and have the opportunity to pay it forward. I obtained a wonderful affordable 4 year CUNY education, and have a small consulting firm with my husband, and together we pay 5 figure taxes on a low 6 figure combined income and about $1000 a month together on insurance premiums, even though neither of us have any health problems or preexisting conditions, yet!
That said, I have been drug tested for jobs. Typically you are given notice and I've known people who smoked marijuana to get around it with flushes. They typically smoked MJ and did not do hard drugs, and from what I understand, hard drugs leave your system in days. We don't have a mj epidemic in America, we have an opioid epidemic and in some places still a meth crisis. If the purpose of drug testing is to get people help, then by all means lets do it. Even if it's just a methadone program. It would also help to dispel the myth that drug addiction is mostly an affliction of minorities. Instead of worrying about offending individuals, the best solutions should be based on what will help the most people in an effective, but cost efficient way.
Side note. When I was growing up in the South Bronx in the late 80's, 90's, it was not uncommon to see very nice cars, with well dressed, white drivers/passengers purchasing drugs.
That said, I have been drug tested for jobs. Typically you are given notice and I've known people who smoked marijuana to get around it with flushes. They typically smoked MJ and did not do hard drugs, and from what I understand, hard drugs leave your system in days. We don't have a mj epidemic in America, we have an opioid epidemic and in some places still a meth crisis. If the purpose of drug testing is to get people help, then by all means lets do it. Even if it's just a methadone program. It would also help to dispel the myth that drug addiction is mostly an affliction of minorities. Instead of worrying about offending individuals, the best solutions should be based on what will help the most people in an effective, but cost efficient way.
Side note. When I was growing up in the South Bronx in the late 80's, 90's, it was not uncommon to see very nice cars, with well dressed, white drivers/passengers purchasing drugs.
16
wcdessertgirl, thank you for your comment. As long as people believe that poverty and bad decisions are made only by those people (code for African American or others that aren't white, middle class, rich or whatever), they will favor as many punitive measures as possible to keep budgets low and cut programs. Until they are personally afflicted or affected they will not understand that most illnesses don't care who you are and that goes for addiction, mental illness, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other ills.
Another side note: I've seen African American parents take more time and trouble with their children than the affluent white parents do in the village I live in. I've also experienced more acceptance from African Americans when it comes to my autistic brother than I have from our supposed peer group. There's no doubt about it that many self proclaimed liberal whites are anything but liberal when it comes to people who are different.
Another side note: I've seen African American parents take more time and trouble with their children than the affluent white parents do in the village I live in. I've also experienced more acceptance from African Americans when it comes to my autistic brother than I have from our supposed peer group. There's no doubt about it that many self proclaimed liberal whites are anything but liberal when it comes to people who are different.
6
It is the way of the world. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If we want health care paid for by government, then elected officials who represent us get to dictate the terms of coverage.
2
Well this is not health care paid for by government. It is a hidden subsidy given to the minimum wage bandit corporations by the GOP.
The unspoken topic here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use. It is caused by the failure to pay a living wage or provide proper benefits. This was one of the feats of the first reagan admin where they created all sorts of laws to allow minimum wage bandit corporations to underpay and over work people while not giving the pay or benefits anyone working that hard deserves. The taxpayer subsidizes these bandits profit margins often creating the profit for corps on the decline.
I suspect many of these corporations could not be in business at all without this taxpayer subsidy. Which by good capitalist Conservative rules they should not be except those rules aren't really meant to be applied to "us" are they now?
The unspoken topic here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use. It is caused by the failure to pay a living wage or provide proper benefits. This was one of the feats of the first reagan admin where they created all sorts of laws to allow minimum wage bandit corporations to underpay and over work people while not giving the pay or benefits anyone working that hard deserves. The taxpayer subsidizes these bandits profit margins often creating the profit for corps on the decline.
I suspect many of these corporations could not be in business at all without this taxpayer subsidy. Which by good capitalist Conservative rules they should not be except those rules aren't really meant to be applied to "us" are they now?
Gov. Scott Walker, Another BIG Government republican. Always prying into our lives.
9
Unless you are on parole, operating heavy machinery/driving a school bus/flying an airplane, or perform pediatric brain surgery, there is no legitimate reason to drug test ANYONE. End of discussion. Mandatory drug testing violates our 4th Amendment rights.
They tried this in Wisconsin, I believe...and absolutely NO welfare recipients tested positive. Not. A. Single. One.
The Republican hypocrisy of preaching against the "nanny state" yet sticking its business in our personal lives as a caveat for assistance continues to drown in cognitive dissonance.
They tried this in Wisconsin, I believe...and absolutely NO welfare recipients tested positive. Not. A. Single. One.
The Republican hypocrisy of preaching against the "nanny state" yet sticking its business in our personal lives as a caveat for assistance continues to drown in cognitive dissonance.
23
You might add "driving a car" to those activities that require sobriety. And testing to ensure that sobriety.
2
Perhaps the Liberal hypocrisy of preaching that everyone is equal yet taking money from one group of Americans to shower on the poor and the needy continues to drown us in cognitive dissonance.
2
"Mandatory drug testing violates our 4th Amendment rights."
Only if the State walks up to you and says "Hey, I want to test you for drug use."
But if someone walks up to the State and says "Hey, give me some free money" then the State can demand that the person get tested for drug use.
Kind of like you walking into an ER and demanding oxycontin, and the doctors there deciding to check whether you're just trying to get another fix.
Only if the State walks up to you and says "Hey, I want to test you for drug use."
But if someone walks up to the State and says "Hey, give me some free money" then the State can demand that the person get tested for drug use.
Kind of like you walking into an ER and demanding oxycontin, and the doctors there deciding to check whether you're just trying to get another fix.
Should we not drug test elected politicians? Seems they live outside reality as they can't see it when it's slapping them in the face. We all know who the real drug dealers are in this country built on lies. We lie to ourselves in order to justify our beliefs which the main steam media has worked so hard to craft in conjunction with their editorial manipulator'$. Just watch CBS, NBC or any of the others, then watch Democracy Now. Then lie to yourself?
8
I believe that all laws enacted by Congress and signed by POTUS should be applied first to all politicians and every person receiving cash directly from the government, for six months, before the laws are imposed on the rest of America. This includes all government workers and welfare recipients.
3
These sorts to proof of moral decency tests are passive aggressive ways of enforcing prejudicial belief's without ever having to state them clearly in the open or prove them as well. It relies on assumptions and inferences that disappear under scrutiny.
13
If Walker really wants to identify drug addicts to help them, he could build better wrap-around services to address the core issues: mental illness, homelessness, poverty...maybe then preparing some to re-enter the workforce.
If Walker wants to use his carrot/stick policy to appear tough on drug abuse while simultaneously trimming the state Medicaid costs, it might look good on paper but it inevitably shifts the problems of drug addiction to another government agency, or worse, the limited and overcrowded non-profit services
C'mon, Wisconsin, Walker isn't known for his charitable legislation. This proposal doesn't provide any incentives for drug addicts other than desperate alternatives, i.e., drug prostitution, petty crime, increases in uncovered emergency room visits, undetected diseases...and taxpayers still pick up the tab.
If Walker wants to use his carrot/stick policy to appear tough on drug abuse while simultaneously trimming the state Medicaid costs, it might look good on paper but it inevitably shifts the problems of drug addiction to another government agency, or worse, the limited and overcrowded non-profit services
C'mon, Wisconsin, Walker isn't known for his charitable legislation. This proposal doesn't provide any incentives for drug addicts other than desperate alternatives, i.e., drug prostitution, petty crime, increases in uncovered emergency room visits, undetected diseases...and taxpayers still pick up the tab.
6
"...he could build better wrap-around services to address the core issues: mental illness, homelessness, poverty..."
Funny, Liberal government policies and programs were supposed to have done that already. And for some reason, they still haven't worked? Isn't the definition of insanity "keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome"?
Funny, Liberal government policies and programs were supposed to have done that already. And for some reason, they still haven't worked? Isn't the definition of insanity "keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome"?
2
You're right. If they were "liberal" policies in the first place, they were too little too late. Politicians look for quick fixes on either side of the aisle. They go for re-election policies. They end up with watered down legislation that just pushes the problem down the road.
IMHO, this is not a partisan problem. Walker's proposal is a near-sighted attempt at trimming Wisconsin Medicaid costs. As a taxpayer, I'd like to trim those costs as well, but shifting the problems of drug addiction ends up costing us more as this problem continues to grow. Pay now, pay later. At what cost?
IMHO, this is not a partisan problem. Walker's proposal is a near-sighted attempt at trimming Wisconsin Medicaid costs. As a taxpayer, I'd like to trim those costs as well, but shifting the problems of drug addiction ends up costing us more as this problem continues to grow. Pay now, pay later. At what cost?
3
Really? You expect Obamacare to have already solved all mental illness in the US in just a few years, with inadequate numbers of mental health professionals? Homelessness and poverty have never been adequately addressed at all. If you haven't tried something, you certainly can't say it's been tried over and over.
3
Scott Walker needs to be tested for drugs. He certainly needs to be tested
for hallucinatory drugs as he hallucinates about 95% of the policies he thinks
about. From treating public employees like dirt to drug testing for Medicaid
beneficiaries he is a man who treats people shamefully. If Scott Walker wants
to run for governor again he should be drug tested before he is allowed to run.
for hallucinatory drugs as he hallucinates about 95% of the policies he thinks
about. From treating public employees like dirt to drug testing for Medicaid
beneficiaries he is a man who treats people shamefully. If Scott Walker wants
to run for governor again he should be drug tested before he is allowed to run.
7
If you are going to drug test people because they receive money from government programs then you need to drug test every one who benefits from taxes. This would include federal government employees and state employees in programs that receive fed funding. Congreemen and their staff should be tested. The Supremes and their staff. The President, probably the person who needs it most, and his staff should be tested. Testing in private industry on any government contract should be tested. If you dive on a federal highway or receive mail you should be tested.
That list includes the majority of folks in the US. EVERYONE benefits from tax dollars. This would be the only fair way to do this.
That list includes the majority of folks in the US. EVERYONE benefits from tax dollars. This would be the only fair way to do this.
9
This is not surprising as Wisconsin is #1 in the nation in racial inequality. Only 6% of Wisconsinites are black, but 50% of prison inmates are blacks. I completely agree with the authors that drug testing stigmatizes and harms the poor. It is a racist program that is aimed at black people. Scott Walker idolizes Ronald Reagan who brought the racist concept of "Welfare Queen" to the American psyche. This program is aimed at the black population of Wisconsin. Why doesn't Scott Walker call for drag-nets around Wisconsin supper clubs, and have the police give breathalyzer tests for alcohol to all the white people. You would find a high number of drunk drivers. Alcohol is as great a problem in Wisconsin, if not more, than drug usage by Medicaid recipients. Several years ago, I sent Gov. Scott Walker two books to read, which explain in depth the truth about inequality to blacks in our justice system. "Punishing Race" by Michael Tonry, and "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander. It is obvious he never read them or his compartmentalized conservative mind just ignores the facts and truth and he believes his own biased thinking. He also demonstrates the fine art of Republican conservative cruelty, as he is a strong supporter of the effort to repeal "ObamaCare", transferring $600 billion in wealth to enrich the already rich by cutting health care for the elderly and needy.
6
This is a Catch-22. In order to get drug treatment to get drug free, you have to be drug free.
12
There is an underlying presumption on the part of Conservatives that poor people have chosen a lifestyle based upon incentives in the social safety net that encourages slovenly behavior that is reinforced across generations. Liberals believe that the poor are all victims of a society that for a variety of reasons dealt them a bad hand and that the poor must toil at three jobs while walking an hour each way to work. Unfortunately, neither side is correct. A more rigorous look at social policies, their effect, their incentives and disincentives coupled with a non-partisan view of behaviors and culture that affect success needs to be done. When a population of people are consumers of tax payer services, there is a legitimate public interest in bounding these programs. Frankly, I dont support drug testing though widespread drug usage is a major impediment to workers. However, I do find that research into poverty is often done with an agenda and this is not of value
31
The knowledge is known. The causes of poverty are known. How it affects generational growth and development of children is known. Remember there is something in the bible about "unto the 7th generation.." which makes reference to this fact of human development.
Anyway if a poor family had a living wage job and the education in how to live well that they lack and the self esteem that comes from knowing the things they do not as well as a way to deal with the shame of not knowing and the pain of feeling stupid after finding out what they haven't known and then the anger of having that info kept from them by people who knew they needed it but never gave it and so on and so on and so on.
If long term jobs became available the majority would pull up and we would not see most of them again. But there is a core of people who lack the most basic knowledge of how to be a person never mind how to live in a modern society.
It is very complex and the people with the ability to fix it don't want to give up the income keeping and spreading poverty lets them have.
Anyway if a poor family had a living wage job and the education in how to live well that they lack and the self esteem that comes from knowing the things they do not as well as a way to deal with the shame of not knowing and the pain of feeling stupid after finding out what they haven't known and then the anger of having that info kept from them by people who knew they needed it but never gave it and so on and so on and so on.
If long term jobs became available the majority would pull up and we would not see most of them again. But there is a core of people who lack the most basic knowledge of how to be a person never mind how to live in a modern society.
It is very complex and the people with the ability to fix it don't want to give up the income keeping and spreading poverty lets them have.
2
"If long term jobs became available the majority would pull up and we would not see most of them again. But there is a core of people who lack the most basic knowledge of how to be a person never mind how to live in a modern society. "
I meant to mention here that this sort of ignorance takes more than one or two generations to correct.
I meant to mention here that this sort of ignorance takes more than one or two generations to correct.
I generally agree with what you are saying but would argue that both conservatives and liberals understand that not all poor people utilizing public assistance programs are purely victims or entirely at fault personally for their circumstances. The difference, as I see it, is that conservatives would rather cut off support to people truly in need due to circumstances beyond their control in order to ensure nobody is gaming the system while liberals are willing to support the less-than-sympathetic portion of the population that take advantage of these services in order to ensure that all of those that are truly in need can access the assistance they need. Personally, I generally lean towards the liberal side and view view it in terms of Blackstone's formulation (It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer).
3
Start with tobacco users. There are 10 Million smokers on Medicaid. Disqualifying them from the program or reducing their benefits could save an enormous sum of money for the taxpayers who would no longer be on the hook for expensive medical treatments due to a self-inflicted condition.
The Surgeon General's report on smoking and health was issued in 1964. That's a year before Medicaid started. The time has come to make brutally hard decisions about medical care as it relates to poor lifestyle habits.
The Surgeon General's report on smoking and health was issued in 1964. That's a year before Medicaid started. The time has come to make brutally hard decisions about medical care as it relates to poor lifestyle habits.
6
Swell idea, Dan.
Then we can refuse medical care for folks who don't exercise at least three times per week; consistently drink more than two cocktails or four glasses of wine per day; fail to eat adequate fruits and veggies; don't get at least eight hours of sleep per night; fail to get in out of the cold or rain; don't use sunblock; wear goggles when using power equipment, and have BMI's in the overweight/obese ranges.
Think of how much money we'd save then!
Then we can refuse medical care for folks who don't exercise at least three times per week; consistently drink more than two cocktails or four glasses of wine per day; fail to eat adequate fruits and veggies; don't get at least eight hours of sleep per night; fail to get in out of the cold or rain; don't use sunblock; wear goggles when using power equipment, and have BMI's in the overweight/obese ranges.
Think of how much money we'd save then!
6
Then the first brutally hard decision should be to recoup the costs of medicaid and all assistance programs from the corporations whom they are actually a hidden subsidy for.
1
Okay peeing in a cup is NOT an invasion of your privacy and in the second paragraph they basically stated that they are okay with drug addicted people to to be on Medicaid. I don't want part of my pay check to fund more drug abuse. If businesses can have random drug tests at any point why can't the government. Why do I get fired for having drugs in my system while at work yet people who are receiving aid from tax payers are allowed to continue on using drugs. Completely disagree with this article.
51
Then I think you should be advocating that the minimum wage bandit corporations start paying us back for the subsidy they have been getting from us via food stamps, medicaid, welfare and so on.
3
You'd rather part of your pay check fund drug testing that reveals less than 1% of the people on Medicaid take illegal drugs? How do you feel about government waste? Cutting people off from health care that can treat drug addiction because they're addicted to drugs makes absolutely no sense. That would be like cutting people off from cancer treatment because they have cancer.
Oh, wait....that's exactly what McConnell and his buddies want to do. Never mind.
Oh, wait....that's exactly what McConnell and his buddies want to do. Never mind.
3
Brandon, reread the article. The misguided and wasteful drug testing referred to is to get Medicaid which your paycheck deductions pay for, but not a cash payment program. It is a health insurance program which btw covers prescription drugs including abusable narcotics and amphetamines. If denied Medicaid, those with the disease of substance addiction will not to get treatment and will continue to obtain drugs illicitly. The real waste of your tax dollars is the "war on drugs", a 40+ year failed effort that costing taxpayers Trillions of dollars, and is basically a jobs program for law enforcement and the prison-industrial complex. "Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually and... treatment has been shown to reduce associated health and social costs by far more than the cost of the treatment itself. and is also much less expensive than incarcerating addicted persons... the average cost for 1 full year of methadone maintenance treatment is approximately $4,700 per patient, whereas 1 full year of imprisonment costs approximately $24,000 per person...addiction treatment reduces drug use and its associated health and social costs... every dollar invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft. When savings related to healthcare are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1." https://source.wustl.edu/2016/09/cost-incarceration-u-s-1-trillion/
4
Drug test Congress first.
11
Because the poor should always be treated like royalty, should be showered with gifts they didn't earn and don't deserve, and ordinary people should be forced to pay them.
Right, Jamila? Right Julilly?
Right, Jamila? Right Julilly?
4
You do realize that most of the poor in the US are white, right? And that most people who are poor and able-bodied do work?
Do you also reject public education for the children of poor parents? Because it's a gift they haven't earned? Should they be banned from using roads because it's a gift they haven't earned? Do you understand that ill-health can cause poverty? That it is a significant cause of poverty? That getting people healthy means they can start to work and work more effectively (thus earning more wages)? That providing health care for families increases the chances their children will grow up healthy and productive members of society? That reducing ill-health reduces the chances of infectious epidemics, which can spread throughout the population? Health is a public good for all citizens, if your neighbors are healthy, then you are less likely to become ill and your community will be stronger overall.
Do you also reject public education for the children of poor parents? Because it's a gift they haven't earned? Should they be banned from using roads because it's a gift they haven't earned? Do you understand that ill-health can cause poverty? That it is a significant cause of poverty? That getting people healthy means they can start to work and work more effectively (thus earning more wages)? That providing health care for families increases the chances their children will grow up healthy and productive members of society? That reducing ill-health reduces the chances of infectious epidemics, which can spread throughout the population? Health is a public good for all citizens, if your neighbors are healthy, then you are less likely to become ill and your community will be stronger overall.
5
Now you are just being silly.
2
A physician I work with says that 70% of the babies born in the hospital where he works, are drug tested positive, meaning that they are born addicted to the drugs their mothers are on. This is a HUGE problem that no one wants to talk about. These babies are born with a litany of medical issues, all borne by you and me the US taxpayer. What is wrong with this picture? And this hospital is not in a rural area but in a city with 75,000 people.
10
A positive drug test does not indicate addiction.
That number sound so high I have to question it. Have you submitted this data to the Times or any other news organization?
It might be possible in the areas where the GOP has helped big pharma create the opioid epidemic but I think the public would have been informed of such a tragic situation in Richmond whether it be Virginia or California.
That number sound so high I have to question it. Have you submitted this data to the Times or any other news organization?
It might be possible in the areas where the GOP has helped big pharma create the opioid epidemic but I think the public would have been informed of such a tragic situation in Richmond whether it be Virginia or California.
4
Why don't you name this hospital, Anita? If the 70% is accurate, then there must be a public record of it.
Or is this an alternate fact?
Or is this an alternate fact?
1
According to a remarkably quick Google search, the NIH (at drugabuse.gov) said in 2012 that an infant addicted to opioids was born every 25 minutes in the United States, a rate that had increased by a factor of 5 since 2000. This cost hospitals approximately 1.5 billion dollars, and 81% of that was picked up by Medicaid. So, considering that opioid use and addiction has sky-rocketed in recent years, and depending on location, those numbers do not strike me, at least, as entirely implausible.
(Surely, you are capable of Googling this yourselves next time?)
At any rate--that's quite a lot of money. I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't cover children born addicted to drugs, or their parents, but I just don't see the issue with testing and mandatory treatment.
(Surely, you are capable of Googling this yourselves next time?)
At any rate--that's quite a lot of money. I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't cover children born addicted to drugs, or their parents, but I just don't see the issue with testing and mandatory treatment.
If people would stop thinking of the poor as animals, and start thinking of them as fellow citizens who "there for the grace of God go I" - none of this would be happening. And Scott Walker should remember his scouts oath when he proposes laws!
33
I don't see why people on public assistance can't choose? Do you want help or do you want drugs? Fairly simple decision in my book.
16
Well Michael, then you don't understand addiction's power to turn what may have initially been a (bad) choice into a debilitating compulsion. There's lots of factual information available out there if you care to read any books besides your own.
8
Addiction is first of all a series of bad choices. Are we not responsible for our choices? No, I guess not. To many addicts and those "in recovery" seem to want to give their demographic a pass.
Interesting how the same people who don't want people to register their guns because it's an invasion of privacy have no problem invading the privacy of people who need Medicaid. Also, the argument that "if you're law abiding" you shouldn't mind taking a drug test - but don't try that argument for registering your gun!
38
How about we add a requirement for the minimum wage bandit corporations who are getting a subsidy from the taxpayer via all assistance programs pay back that subsidy to the taxpayers to this drug test requirement?
2
pesky problem of that constitution thing.
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. Then let the states enforce them.
Treat the vulnerable as criminals makes them victims of a cruel and contemptuous GOP party belief that those without choose their path, that those will illness lived a risky life and that those in need refuse to do for themselves.
These sorts of policies are going to Make America Shameful Again.
Treat the vulnerable as criminals makes them victims of a cruel and contemptuous GOP party belief that those without choose their path, that those will illness lived a risky life and that those in need refuse to do for themselves.
These sorts of policies are going to Make America Shameful Again.
15
I agree with the commenter who wrote elsewhere that this emphasis on "personal responsibility" is just a justification for people who don't want to feel any empathy or responsibility for the poor and disadvantaged. It permits them to walk away guilt-free, clutching their precious tax dollars (before they're taken for defense spending).
I'd also note that under that cruel philosophy, this policy makes little sense. If people on Medicaid and other forms of welfare are truly so lazy, self-serving, and irresponsible, there's an easy way for them to avoid the drug tests -- have a kid! (The drug testing requirement is, according to the article, only going to be imposed on adults without children.) Isn't this what conservatives always imagine is happening in areas where people want more benefits?
I'd also note that under that cruel philosophy, this policy makes little sense. If people on Medicaid and other forms of welfare are truly so lazy, self-serving, and irresponsible, there's an easy way for them to avoid the drug tests -- have a kid! (The drug testing requirement is, according to the article, only going to be imposed on adults without children.) Isn't this what conservatives always imagine is happening in areas where people want more benefits?
6
Perhaps we should drug test all people who receive the mortgage interest deduction.
20
..or to get a driver's license..
4
This actually makes more sense, drugged driving is actually dangerous others. Perhaps a yearly random drug test for all licensed drivers?
*joke*
*joke*
3
My point is why not just test everybody who receives anything from the government regardless of their socioeconomic status. This is obviously just another way of punishing the poor for being poor. Maybe there's a little racism thrown in.
There's no particular utility to this requirement other than to humiliate and damage people in need.
There's no particular utility to this requirement other than to humiliate and damage people in need.
3
There is a very arrogant assumption here that only poor people have addiction problems, and that making it more difficult to get benefits will allow the rest of us to feel superior. The trouble with that assumption is that addiction is not a problem of the poor, nor is it a problem so simple to fix. Are we stupid enough to believe that if we hold out Medicaid benefits like some kind of carrot, that our nations drug problems will be solved? It is so much more complicated than that. People with addictions need deep mental health support, safe housing, and a supportive community to get to the other side. Cutting them off from minimal health benefits accomplishes nothing.
8
Nasty! Vindictive! The worst kind of Puritans!
With the exception of a few shining examples, humans have generally disrespected the poor; the misfortunate have been stigmatized and blamed for their own misfortune---that and/or "bad blood," "the sins of the fathers..." They had to be kept in their places and examples needed to me made,"pour encourager les autres." America was better than that. But now, the worst kind of human, red in virtual tooth and claw, is king of the du'hill. A century of civilization is eroded.
With the exception of a few shining examples, humans have generally disrespected the poor; the misfortunate have been stigmatized and blamed for their own misfortune---that and/or "bad blood," "the sins of the fathers..." They had to be kept in their places and examples needed to me made,"pour encourager les autres." America was better than that. But now, the worst kind of human, red in virtual tooth and claw, is king of the du'hill. A century of civilization is eroded.
6
The far right - of whom Scott Walker is a prime example - believe that being poor is a sin. They just really don't want poor people to exist, and believe that their impoverished condition is a result of "bad choices." This thinking is, for the most part, absurd. Most poor people got that way because they had poor parents, are members if a racial or ethnic minority, and/or have health issues. Sure - a few choose to not work or choose jobs with low pay. But most people (poor or rich) want to have more money, are willing to work for it, and are willing to defer short term gain for long term success.
So - this kind of horrible legislation is right in line with the radical thinking of people like Scott Walker. Punish the poor! They don't deserve basic liberties!
So - this kind of horrible legislation is right in line with the radical thinking of people like Scott Walker. Punish the poor! They don't deserve basic liberties!
8
If Walker gets his way, perhaps the governor should have been drug tested too - before taking the oath of office. How about a drug test for millionaires and billionaires before they get a tax cut? Does POTUS-elect and incoming members of Congress get a drug test? They receive compensation from tax payers after all.
Revoking Medicaid to someone who comes in for treatment of opioid addiction - how Republican!
Revoking Medicaid to someone who comes in for treatment of opioid addiction - how Republican!
6
This is yet another draconian effort to punish people for being poor. Hey, its your fault your life didn't work out well and now we, the public, are going to make you pay and pay just to survive. Don't like it? Too bad.
People who are unemployed and/or locked in poverty are more likely to use drugs than the general population. Despair, disappointment and depression are strong indicators of someone who would turn to drugs for some sense of temporary relief or comfort. Hitting people when they're down, that's the American way? If we demonize the poor enough, we don't have to care at all what happens to them, as long as it is out of sight.
This appears to be just a boldfaced effort to knock people out of benefits to "save money", which ultimately doesn't work because society winds up paying in one way or another. The bills always come due, even if it is for the criminal justice system and putting people in jail which, on average, costs as much or more per year than Harvard college.
People who are unemployed and/or locked in poverty are more likely to use drugs than the general population. Despair, disappointment and depression are strong indicators of someone who would turn to drugs for some sense of temporary relief or comfort. Hitting people when they're down, that's the American way? If we demonize the poor enough, we don't have to care at all what happens to them, as long as it is out of sight.
This appears to be just a boldfaced effort to knock people out of benefits to "save money", which ultimately doesn't work because society winds up paying in one way or another. The bills always come due, even if it is for the criminal justice system and putting people in jail which, on average, costs as much or more per year than Harvard college.
10
They are not punished for being poor, Doug. They are given an incentive to get off drugs.
2
No, an incentive would be a carrot. This is adding a beating to an already beaten person. You can't make a car with a dead battery start by draining the oil, you need to give it energy.
4
You bring up a good point, many people are using the drugs available to them to treat their mental health issues. That these drugs are not as effective as prescription drugs, and also cause addiction is not their fault.
3
If 70 million people are on Medicaid and the drug tests were 99% accurate, you'd have 700,000 false readings. If you assume they mistakes are equally divided between false positives and negatives, you have 350,000 people losing benefits because of false positives.
As the accuracy of the tests decline --- let's say you assume they are 95% accurate, which still looks good ---you have 3.5M false readings or 1.75 million people with false positives.
My guess would be if the person with the false positive doesn't fit the stereotype of a drug user --- a neatly dressed, white-haired, white woman --- she'd find it easier to get a retest than someone who better fits the stereotype of a drug user. Woe betide the young black man with a false positive!
As the accuracy of the tests decline --- let's say you assume they are 95% accurate, which still looks good ---you have 3.5M false readings or 1.75 million people with false positives.
My guess would be if the person with the false positive doesn't fit the stereotype of a drug user --- a neatly dressed, white-haired, white woman --- she'd find it easier to get a retest than someone who better fits the stereotype of a drug user. Woe betide the young black man with a false positive!
4
Given given the example of Flynt, Mi. - how about testing for lead instead?
9
Why not the ones with children seems many are using Medicaid as their insurance of choice while not getting married. Having children and not working to keep yourself qualified is the American way
6
This article is generally correct about the effects of drug testing. It also points out the total hypocrisy of Republicans that claim they want to keep government out of the business of the people.
On a grander scale worth fight, however, it needs to be understood that leaving this issue up to states, and using state medicaid as a replacement for a national system, is a losing game. It isn't worth fighting for a better medicaid program anymore. It is also obvious why state-based single-payer systems like the one California was trying to pass are a bad idea.
A federal single-payer health system is the proper solution, it would be wildly sustainable, affordable and popular if done properly, and this is the only health care program worth fighting for anymore. Nothing else is worth the fight, including the ACA. The Republican plans will fail to pass, but not because of a grass roots fight. As bad as these plans are, they fail the test of any semi-rational person.
On a grander scale worth fight, however, it needs to be understood that leaving this issue up to states, and using state medicaid as a replacement for a national system, is a losing game. It isn't worth fighting for a better medicaid program anymore. It is also obvious why state-based single-payer systems like the one California was trying to pass are a bad idea.
A federal single-payer health system is the proper solution, it would be wildly sustainable, affordable and popular if done properly, and this is the only health care program worth fighting for anymore. Nothing else is worth the fight, including the ACA. The Republican plans will fail to pass, but not because of a grass roots fight. As bad as these plans are, they fail the test of any semi-rational person.
20
Thank you, Dave. Well said. When I volunteered to walk door to door to gather signatures in support of the ACA in 2009, there was also a group of supporters for single-payer healthcare. I dropped out of that group because though I felt they were pursuing the correct solution long-term, I wanted to see ANY improvement to the current and inhumane chaos that was U.S. "healthcare" and so elected to volunteer for implementation of the ACA for immediate relief.
Now in 2017 the incompetent and cruel Republicans have proved that the single-payer supporters' position was correct all along. However, the ACA was a step towards that ultimate goal, and I am proud of that effort on the part of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and our representatives and Senators and countless volunteers like me.
Now in 2017 the incompetent and cruel Republicans have proved that the single-payer supporters' position was correct all along. However, the ACA was a step towards that ultimate goal, and I am proud of that effort on the part of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and our representatives and Senators and countless volunteers like me.
2
Do some research on the NHS in the UK
It is a good idea to let those willing to experiment with addicting drugs know that if they get hooked, things will change regarding their medical care. States HAVE to try new things to deal with the flood of drugs and its effects on citizens.
What should not happen is the loss of food assistance to homes where an adult is using drugs. The victim in that case is the child. If some states still want to take this assistance from the homes affected by addiction, then the kids should be removed and placed in foster care.
Just about anything beats government-sponsored child malnutrition.
What should not happen is the loss of food assistance to homes where an adult is using drugs. The victim in that case is the child. If some states still want to take this assistance from the homes affected by addiction, then the kids should be removed and placed in foster care.
Just about anything beats government-sponsored child malnutrition.
4
The government may not place children in foster care as a punishment for a parent who fails to pass a drug test. And the issue in this column is about the Medicaid that was extended to single people without children.
I also wonder about your disdain for anyone who might ever try a potentially addicting drug. Alcohol is the biggest one - and causes tremendous hardship, health problems and accidents - so only serving teetotalers would drastically reduce the Medicaid budget. And as for marijuana - usually one of the drugs tested for - it is still unclear that it is physically addicting. The issue is will we treat those with life destroying addictions as patients, or as criminals or outcasts - along with identifying what treatments actually work.
I also wonder about your disdain for anyone who might ever try a potentially addicting drug. Alcohol is the biggest one - and causes tremendous hardship, health problems and accidents - so only serving teetotalers would drastically reduce the Medicaid budget. And as for marijuana - usually one of the drugs tested for - it is still unclear that it is physically addicting. The issue is will we treat those with life destroying addictions as patients, or as criminals or outcasts - along with identifying what treatments actually work.
1
If we're going to drug test Medicaid, why not all other government social programs as well. Drug test any recipients of a large estate, subject to the current estate tax. Drug test those members of banks who received large bailouts during the financial crisis. Drug test all of those who would receive a large tax break through passage of the American Health Care Act.
13
if drug testing and forced treatment for drug users is a good thing, why not just require everyone to do it, or make it a condition of accessing any public service. It makes no sense to impose this as a condition to accessing medicare but nothing else. And why just target drugs? What about tobacco, alciohol, obesity?
5
One of the unrecognized challenges is that withholding Medicaide does not always have the biggest impact on the recipient, but rather on the caregiver. This move would punish caregivers as much as the drug user. The way the current system works , for the most part, patients receive care regardless of their ability to pay. If they have no other way to pay Medicaide gives their provider some payment, if they don't have Medicaide no payment is usually received.
9
In case this hasn't been pointed out already:
"Drug testing also jeopardizes our democracy. For many of the more than 70 million Americans who rely on Medicaid, state-run programs, like Wisconsin’s Badgercare, are their closest contact with the state. This is how people learn firsthand about government."
Exactly. Some of us may remember the dust-up in 2002 over the WSJ editorial that called the poor "lucky duckies" because they pay little or no Federal income tax. Why was this wrong, according to the WSJ? Because it led the poor to see government as a friend rather than an enemy. See Paul Krugman's column on the subject:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/opinion/hey-lucky-duckies.html?refere...
"Drug testing also jeopardizes our democracy. For many of the more than 70 million Americans who rely on Medicaid, state-run programs, like Wisconsin’s Badgercare, are their closest contact with the state. This is how people learn firsthand about government."
Exactly. Some of us may remember the dust-up in 2002 over the WSJ editorial that called the poor "lucky duckies" because they pay little or no Federal income tax. Why was this wrong, according to the WSJ? Because it led the poor to see government as a friend rather than an enemy. See Paul Krugman's column on the subject:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/opinion/hey-lucky-duckies.html?refere...
2
Citizens NEED to know that other people are paying their medical or other bills.
The last fifty years have been an experiment in ignorance about costs of government programs, but the people getting help HAVE to understand that this help they are getting is part of why everyone's taxes are so high.
Responsibility is always a good thing.
The last fifty years have been an experiment in ignorance about costs of government programs, but the people getting help HAVE to understand that this help they are getting is part of why everyone's taxes are so high.
Responsibility is always a good thing.
4
Addiction is a disease, period. Our understanding of the physical and mental issues that surround addiction have progressed over the last few decades, but the belief that it is some type of moral depravity is still very strong.
Fro centuries people with Hansen's Disease (leprosy) were stigmatized and shunned by religious edict as being, somehow, unclean. We now know it is an infection that can be easily treated.
Refusing care for epilepsy or heart disease will not cure these conditions. It will not cure addiction. Prison will not cure epilepsy or heart disease. It will not cure addiction.
Let us now move into the twenty first century.
Fro centuries people with Hansen's Disease (leprosy) were stigmatized and shunned by religious edict as being, somehow, unclean. We now know it is an infection that can be easily treated.
Refusing care for epilepsy or heart disease will not cure these conditions. It will not cure addiction. Prison will not cure epilepsy or heart disease. It will not cure addiction.
Let us now move into the twenty first century.
11
Good grief, huge difference between the conditions you state and a druggie
I have a friend with six kids. They cost my town 120k a year to educate. My friend's tax bill is 10k and 80% goes to the schools. The subsidy from her neighbors' taxes is 94%. When all the kids are graduated over 20 years, the total bill will be $1.5 million dollars and her contribution 160k (100 years of property tax gets her halfway to the bill).
She does not work. People like me who went to parochial school and have no kids never took a dime in public education money, and we subsidize her kids.
Should she be means tested? Some people think you'd have to be on drugs to have six kids. Should she be drug tested?
Someone please explain to me the difference between her education subsidy and a health care subsidy, or Medicaid. And then tell me why some deserve drug testing while others do not.
She does not work. People like me who went to parochial school and have no kids never took a dime in public education money, and we subsidize her kids.
Should she be means tested? Some people think you'd have to be on drugs to have six kids. Should she be drug tested?
Someone please explain to me the difference between her education subsidy and a health care subsidy, or Medicaid. And then tell me why some deserve drug testing while others do not.
7
Six students in public schools do not cost 120K per year. On average, most school districts spend between 5 and 11 thousand per student per year. Your figures are off. Educating children is not a subsidy from one group of people to another, it is an investment in the future of the nation. The District of Columbia spends one of the highest amounts per student at 18K per year. California spends on average just over ten thousand per student, per year.
I have no respond to your question at the end.
I have no respond to your question at the end.
14
Few people who cite another person's financial position/tax liability rarely have all the information necessary to make these assertions.
Government subsidized Public Education provides benefits to the state & individuals. Education leads to employment which reduces crime, & increases public health. Some founding fathers (Adams & Jefferson) believed that education was central to the success of democracy. A well educated public has means that people are able to understand, research & evaluate ideas which lead to a population that can make informed decisions. Education increases political and civic participation! Trump is trying to privatize education though.
If the US considered healthcare similarly, we would have single payer health care. Trump is trying to dismantle the closest thing we have to single payer (the ACA) which tries to ensure the health of the general populace. A healthy populace is of equal benefit to us. You're smart. Figure it out.
The primary problem with drug testing people who receive public benefits is that it is a waste of money 99% of the time. Poor people use drugs 1/10th the rate of the general population. It is time to stop this insanity.
Iv'e no doubt you receive some service from government that you do not pay the total cost. By your logic you too should be drug tested. You aren't special because you went to private school. You are privileged. It was a choice. It does not mean you do not benefit from others being educated with tax $$.
Government subsidized Public Education provides benefits to the state & individuals. Education leads to employment which reduces crime, & increases public health. Some founding fathers (Adams & Jefferson) believed that education was central to the success of democracy. A well educated public has means that people are able to understand, research & evaluate ideas which lead to a population that can make informed decisions. Education increases political and civic participation! Trump is trying to privatize education though.
If the US considered healthcare similarly, we would have single payer health care. Trump is trying to dismantle the closest thing we have to single payer (the ACA) which tries to ensure the health of the general populace. A healthy populace is of equal benefit to us. You're smart. Figure it out.
The primary problem with drug testing people who receive public benefits is that it is a waste of money 99% of the time. Poor people use drugs 1/10th the rate of the general population. It is time to stop this insanity.
Iv'e no doubt you receive some service from government that you do not pay the total cost. By your logic you too should be drug tested. You aren't special because you went to private school. You are privileged. It was a choice. It does not mean you do not benefit from others being educated with tax $$.
5
Suppose you test for mental illness, rather than drug abuse, and deny benefits unless those who test positive consent to psychological treatment. What if they also have diabetes and for some reason don't want the psych treatment? You deny treatment of the diabetes?
Same thing with drug abuse. If you're sincere in wanting to help them and our society, you don't twist their arm like this.
Also, I like the point made by another commenter suggesting that we test for use of alcohol, which is said to be more addictive than marijuana.
As for the commenters who compare this to routine employment tests, they forget that that leaves a choice -- there other employers you can approach if you want to avoid the drug tests. Many people lack such options when it comes to healthcare.
Same thing with drug abuse. If you're sincere in wanting to help them and our society, you don't twist their arm like this.
Also, I like the point made by another commenter suggesting that we test for use of alcohol, which is said to be more addictive than marijuana.
As for the commenters who compare this to routine employment tests, they forget that that leaves a choice -- there other employers you can approach if you want to avoid the drug tests. Many people lack such options when it comes to healthcare.
13
Unless employment involves public safety there is no justification for testing whatever.
6
Amen to this. Drug addiction is a disease that no one wants, and that can afflict anyone, no matter the income. There is no "them" and "us" here, as if those who have become addicted are other sort of being than ''us" the righteous. If we drug test for Medicaid, then we should drug test for tax breaks and every other way in which middle-class and wealthy people benefit from government policies. Before they make decisions on our health care, maybe every member of Congress should have to pass a drug test. This is just another way to humiliate the poor.
Not everyone who gets high is an addict.
Using mind altering substances is common and normal to all animals on the planet.
The unspoken topic here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use.
it isn't. It is caused by minimum wage bandit corporations not paying a living wage and relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their corporate profits. Heck some of these corps would not even be in business if it weren't for the welfare and other subsidies paid to their employees.
Using mind altering substances is common and normal to all animals on the planet.
The unspoken topic here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use.
it isn't. It is caused by minimum wage bandit corporations not paying a living wage and relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their corporate profits. Heck some of these corps would not even be in business if it weren't for the welfare and other subsidies paid to their employees.
3
"...submit to degrading invasions of privacy."
Every year of my US Air Force Officer career I was required to be drug tested along with all the rest of the USAF. Was that "...degrading invasions of privacy."? We didn't think so. Just part of the job.
But now people requesting free medical care from the same government find a drug test to be "...degrading invasions of privacy."
How can a Physician properly diagnose and prescribe medication without knowing what drugs are in the patients system that might affect the diagnosis or worse interact with prescribed medication resulting in harm or even death to the patient?
And yes I do assume that many people seeking free medical care probably do spend their money on drug addictions. Sorry liberals....that is just the history of America.
Every year of my US Air Force Officer career I was required to be drug tested along with all the rest of the USAF. Was that "...degrading invasions of privacy."? We didn't think so. Just part of the job.
But now people requesting free medical care from the same government find a drug test to be "...degrading invasions of privacy."
How can a Physician properly diagnose and prescribe medication without knowing what drugs are in the patients system that might affect the diagnosis or worse interact with prescribed medication resulting in harm or even death to the patient?
And yes I do assume that many people seeking free medical care probably do spend their money on drug addictions. Sorry liberals....that is just the history of America.
13
Sorry Ed, false equivalency. You were drug tested in the Air Force because you had to work with aircraft, ammunition, heavy equipment, engage in combat, etc., things the military does where you HAVE TO BE clean and sober. Being asked to be drug tested just to receive Medicaid benefits is just downright mean spirited and stigmatizing as the article points out.
1
Absolutely, but you're being far to limited in your scope. Really, all people receiving Medicare should also be tested. Same goes for the police. Oh, and all politicians should definitely be tested. Most of all, and I'm certain we agree on this, the President should be tested, perhaps hourly. How else can you explain his erratic behavior?
"And yes I do assume that many people seeking free medical care probably do spend their money on drug addictions."
Ah, no.
Ah, no.
2
Don't test poor people for drug abuse. Let them continue to indulge in the recreational drugs which landed many of them into their dire straits in the first place and keep them out of treatment programs thereby perpetuating their misery. Good idea.
You want public money? Clean yourself up or at least make an effort. Do that and then maybe you won't be needing public money anymore and you will be able to stand on your own two feet and contribute to society and your family.
What is the argument in favor of perpetuating drug abuse?
You want public money? Clean yourself up or at least make an effort. Do that and then maybe you won't be needing public money anymore and you will be able to stand on your own two feet and contribute to society and your family.
What is the argument in favor of perpetuating drug abuse?
11
Actually, this is a cost benefit issue: it costs MORE to administer the tests than it "saves" by identifying drug abusers. Out of a finite amount of dollars, is this really the best use of funds?
Also, what in the end do we do with drug addicts and alcoholics who are not able to work: we pay for emergency room care, often on a revolving door basis. They make up some of the homeless population. Many of them have chronic mental illness. So screen away, but screen for everything- do a complete exam - and instead of screening out, send them to treatment.
Also, what in the end do we do with drug addicts and alcoholics who are not able to work: we pay for emergency room care, often on a revolving door basis. They make up some of the homeless population. Many of them have chronic mental illness. So screen away, but screen for everything- do a complete exam - and instead of screening out, send them to treatment.
5
Drug testing is not even anywhere near cost effective and it alienates people, 6 ID'ed for a million Dollars spent! The best thing Scott Walker and his uptight Republicans can do for Wisconsin is leave and leave soon or the middle class will become poorer and poorer and the rich of course, -------.
8
Sounds like a HUGE additional expense!
2
Yup!. In true GOP form they have sought expanded government, an excuse to spend more money by using a false moral argument and looking down on people. Rest assured the drug testing corps who will benefit will be GOP approved maybe even owned by some of the pols who voted on the legislation.
2
Another reason not to drug test poor people is that "drug tests" are, in practice, "marijuana tests." That's because most drugs are no longer detectable if a user stays clean for a few days, but marijuana is detectable for a much longer amount of time. So drug testing in practice would end up penalizing poor people who smoke marijuana.
5
It might therefore occur to to the prospective medicaid applicant that spending one's apparent limited income on marijuana isn't any better an idea than spending it on any other drug.
1
As others have noted, drug testing is not just for the poor. In any heavy industry, you are subject to random drug tests all the time. I've been tested dozens of times. It is inconvenient and I wish it wasn't necessary but I don't feel stigmatized. Just because someone feels stigmatized is not a valid reason not to drug test.
I understand why I am drug tested it is a matter of safety in the work place; however, from reading this article I didn't get a clear understanding of what the government wants to achieve by drug testing this group of people
The government needs to tell people precisely what the objective of the drug test is.
Is it to identify people who need treatment?
Is it to deny benefits to people using drugs?
Unless you have an objective for this activity then it is a waste of everyone's time and money.
I understand why I am drug tested it is a matter of safety in the work place; however, from reading this article I didn't get a clear understanding of what the government wants to achieve by drug testing this group of people
The government needs to tell people precisely what the objective of the drug test is.
Is it to identify people who need treatment?
Is it to deny benefits to people using drugs?
Unless you have an objective for this activity then it is a waste of everyone's time and money.
9
Yes and in most states EMPLOYEES who test positive for drugs are given the chance to seek treatment. Their health insurance isn't taken away.
3
If I can be drug tested each year for my job, the delicate poor can be drug tested for government benefits........
Who are they to be exempt just because they are at the bottom of the heap?
Who are they to be exempt just because they are at the bottom of the heap?
4
'Of all the ways to help Americans with drug problems, ...'
Believe me, Scott Walker has no interest in helping Wisconsin citizens with drug problems.
Believe me, Scott Walker has no interest in helping Wisconsin citizens with drug problems.
10
You buried the lead. Drug testing people who get public assistance is a policy intentionally designed to humiliate people and, time after time, has proven to be a waste of money. This is part of the broader GOP agenda to stereotype poor people and push the false perception that public assistance beneficiaries are shiftless black and brown people.
15
When confronted with the numbers of unfortunates who live poorly and die early, one would think that such problems would solve themselves by attrition; but we know that is not the case. In our present culture with all its positive aspects, the negative aspects will continue to spawn new poverty and more unnecessary death and suffering. The problems will not die off. The actual situation is that our policies and attitudes simply open more opportunity for our irresponsible and lazy government to fuel our worst problems.
You have to submit a sample whenever you apply for a job nowadays. I don't know anyone who's chosen permanent jobless over having a screening.
We should absolutely drug test them and ANYONE who requests benefits that the taxpayer pays for.
If you can't stay clean, you get no help!
How weak must one be to not only need the government to survive but be unable to cope a day without drugs.....?
If you can't stay clean, you get no help!
How weak must one be to not only need the government to survive but be unable to cope a day without drugs.....?
1
why aren't our entire congress, the "presidents" and his enablers, certain governors and elected officials drug tested? the findings, i'm sure, would be very eye-opening.
1
Mandatory random drug AND alcohol tests for all politicians at the federal level would disqualify at least one well-known loudmouth from SC.
We should also have mandatory release of tax returns.
We should also have mandatory release of tax returns.
11
The JAMILA MICHENER and JULILLY KOHLER-HAUSMANN suggestion is very revealing.
Why should poor people have to follow the law and not burden tax payers with their self induced health and financial problems? Is this not what legitimate charities and self help organizations should and will do?
Better yet let's carve out an even more lucrative benefit for minorities and expand all entitlements until the enslavement of the entire US population is complete and we are all under government control. Perhaps then we can compete with Europe in the race to no middle class or even China and Russia in the individuality meritocracy subjugation sweepstakes.
Why should poor people have to follow the law and not burden tax payers with their self induced health and financial problems? Is this not what legitimate charities and self help organizations should and will do?
Better yet let's carve out an even more lucrative benefit for minorities and expand all entitlements until the enslavement of the entire US population is complete and we are all under government control. Perhaps then we can compete with Europe in the race to no middle class or even China and Russia in the individuality meritocracy subjugation sweepstakes.
7
The implicit racial bigotry of the Republican Party rears it's hideous head once again. The drug testing for Medicaid eligibility favored by "C" student, college dropout, misogynist and homophobe, Scott Walker, is a cynical effort to curry favor with the Republican base, and cater to the chronic racism which afflicts the Republican Party. It is an almost absolute certainty that the Republican position on any safety net issue will adversely effect the minority community. Recently, there has been a notable exception which proves the racism allegation, the universal Republican concern over opioid addiction, an overwhelmingly "white" issue.
4
I'm confused - did Walker say they were only drug testing minorities?
2
I personally don't see a problem with drug testing. The financial health of Medicaid is being threatened for the millions that really need it. If you are on drugs many misuses their benefits which then cause problems to the whole system.
If you are on drugs and need Medicaid, then the person should be required to enroll in a drug program. They can get off drugs and probably have fewer health problems, which would help the Medicaid system.
Health insurance is expensive and w all need to help keep costs down so that ALL can have access to health needs when needed.
If you are on drugs and need Medicaid, then the person should be required to enroll in a drug program. They can get off drugs and probably have fewer health problems, which would help the Medicaid system.
Health insurance is expensive and w all need to help keep costs down so that ALL can have access to health needs when needed.
This is one of those exceedingly rare times when I agree with the Republicans. Income should not be a basis for testing or not testing. Not all poor people are deserving of a free ride at the expense of the truly needy ones.
1
Routine drug testing of elected officials at all levels of government makes more sense. Medicaid recipients poor decisions mainly effect themselves and their families, but elected officials make choices that effect us all.
1
People with insurance through their jobs get help from the government through tax relief. The Employer Sponsored Insurance exclusion cost the federal government an estimated $260 billion in income and payroll taxes in 2017 making it the single largest tax expenditure. Some of the comments seem to begrudge the poor fewer and cheaper benefits.
3
Too much nuance for most Republicans to comprehend, but if we had drug testing for Medicaid, then let's have it for SBA loan borrowers and all other borrowers who receive the governmental benefit of guaranties or reduced interest costs. And, while we are at it, let's test every legislator and his or her staff; oh, why not the executive branch occupants. If we have a principle that governmental benefits mean drug testing, make it universally apply or apply to no one.
31
I do not believe that "every legislator and his or her staff" are receiving government benefits. Those that do receive such benefits should be tested, no matter their position.
2
Perhaps, so let's limit the testing to those that receive a salary or office space or any other "benefit" in the largest sense of the term.
1
it would make sense to add to the list student loan borrowers.
I'm a physician in Wisconsin. The Medicaid landscape here is more dismal than has been appreciated by national news outlets. Governor Walker is very proud of his decision to reject the ACA subsidies and but consequently insecure about the criticism that he receives for that decision. As such, the governor is working hard to put policies in place that restrict access to care, so that he can then turn around and boast about our annual Medicaid surplus (it was $300 million this year). In addition to drug testing, he has also imposed restrictions like ED copays, health risk assessment requirements, and eligibility time limits. To some fiscal conservatives, this all sounds good on paper; however, the working poor and those living in poverty often have limitations in terms of transportation, health literacy, ability to get time off work, etc. Exploiting these barriers is intentional. Governor Walker's standard line is that "We should treat public assistance more like a trampoline than a hammock." As an emergency physician on the front lines, I am seeing unnecessary suffering as Medicaid recipients (or non-eligibles) postpone or skip primary care due to inability to meet eligibility requirements. Hammocks, it turns out, are much safer than trampolines.
7
People are poor for both reasons they didn't choose (dysfunctional parent(s), limited cognitive ability, etc) and reasons they contributed too (lazy, breaking the law, etc). Those reasons can easily interact with each other. Once poor, though, it's hard to escape those bonds.
That said, personal responsibility for one's actions undoubtedly plays a role in their economic status. If govt provides carrots (programs) to help people out of poverty, then it's reasonable to provide a stick (loss of programs). Bottom line: tying an expensive govt program like medicaid to drug testing isn't asking too much. It's not degrading or mean-spirited; it's ensuring people are motivate to carry their share of the bargain for getting free assistance.
That said, personal responsibility for one's actions undoubtedly plays a role in their economic status. If govt provides carrots (programs) to help people out of poverty, then it's reasonable to provide a stick (loss of programs). Bottom line: tying an expensive govt program like medicaid to drug testing isn't asking too much. It's not degrading or mean-spirited; it's ensuring people are motivate to carry their share of the bargain for getting free assistance.
3
Scott, another reason people are poor is because they are injured, unable to work, and/or lack of jobs. Somehow your comment excludes any non-behavioral aspects of poverty. It doesn't take a lifetime of dysfunctional family to be poor, and many rich people are lazy for heaven's sake! Pretty simplistic thinking, Scott.
3
I can understand drug testing employees like airline pilots, truck drivers, doctors, and others. But drug testing people who are poor makes no sense especially if a positive result threatens any assistance they receive. It makes even less sense when a lack of treatment facilities and personnel is factored in. The only way drug testing the poor makes sense if it's being used to deny people benefits or keep people away in an effort to hold down costs. Given who Governor Scott Walker is and what he's done to Wisconsin I don't think it's unrealistic to say that he is more interested in not spending money on poor people than he is in seeing to it that residents of Wisconsin receive benefits that their lack of income entitles them to. It's truly disgraceful the way the GOP treats Americans who are not rich. The moral failing here is not the fact that some poor people use drugs but that people in power want to deprive others of access to medical care and treatment for a myriad of illnesses.
5
I do want to help the deserving poor..."deserving" being the operative word.
Why should we taxpayers provide healthcare to people that spent money on drugs that should have been spent on their families or even their own good health?
They made poor decisions now I have to work overtime TO PAY FOR THEIR BAD DECISIONS? Only at the point of a gun barrel held by the IRS.
Why should we taxpayers provide healthcare to people that spent money on drugs that should have been spent on their families or even their own good health?
They made poor decisions now I have to work overtime TO PAY FOR THEIR BAD DECISIONS? Only at the point of a gun barrel held by the IRS.
1
Do you know the complete history of the people you don't want to support? Is it preferable to allow them to die in the streets or to continue to create other problems? I'm not happy about it either but anyone of us can become the undeserving poor or drug addict that we say we don't want to help. Some of their bad decisions were made precisely because they are poor, not because they're undeserving or bad. Think about it before you decide whose life is worth saving.
5
Not so long ago in Wisconsin you could follow the money right back to ALEC, its republican members and the lobbyists for big pharma who see lucrative profits in taxpayer funded drug testing despite any compelling cost-benefit analysis. Except in 2016 Wisconsin republicans gutted campaign finance laws to hide sources of corporate donations. Let's also drug test legislators, they're on the taxpayer dime and have full disclosure on who finances their campaigns.
7
"Governor Walker’s administration claims that doing so will “help people get healthy so they can get back in the work force.”
Classic conservative bias and duplicity.
"help people get healthy" by threatening their lives and livelihoods.
Just like "we help people get insurance" by taking their insurance away and raising their rates.
"help people enter the work force" (as if that is an unalloyed good for anyone but employers and investors) by taking away the less-than-minimal supports that might allow them to find, schedule, prepare for, and and attend job interviews.
"help make America great" by foreclosing all education options except trade school.
"protect the environment" by gutting the agency charged to do so and hiding or destroying priceless data to prevent our newly educated public from knowing too much.
For those who placidly defend these intrusive prejudicial schemes as "Drug testing simply tells them to abide by the law of the land before receiving benefits from the government of that land", to quote a commenter:
I'd maybe buy that biased argument, but you'd have to agree to drug test bond traders and bank presidents, doctors and lawyers, judges and Senators before they reap the even more massive government handouts you all take for granted every day.
Their drug tests would have to administered in dingy, beige block basement bathrooms with an unkempt attendant watching their every move. I could really get behind something like that.
Classic conservative bias and duplicity.
"help people get healthy" by threatening their lives and livelihoods.
Just like "we help people get insurance" by taking their insurance away and raising their rates.
"help people enter the work force" (as if that is an unalloyed good for anyone but employers and investors) by taking away the less-than-minimal supports that might allow them to find, schedule, prepare for, and and attend job interviews.
"help make America great" by foreclosing all education options except trade school.
"protect the environment" by gutting the agency charged to do so and hiding or destroying priceless data to prevent our newly educated public from knowing too much.
For those who placidly defend these intrusive prejudicial schemes as "Drug testing simply tells them to abide by the law of the land before receiving benefits from the government of that land", to quote a commenter:
I'd maybe buy that biased argument, but you'd have to agree to drug test bond traders and bank presidents, doctors and lawyers, judges and Senators before they reap the even more massive government handouts you all take for granted every day.
Their drug tests would have to administered in dingy, beige block basement bathrooms with an unkempt attendant watching their every move. I could really get behind something like that.
8
Sure, make drug testing a condition for receiving federal hand outs. Then tax credits to corporations to keep them in the states, subsidies to teh defense and oil industry, farm subsidies, and any other individuals working at those companies or accepting a deduction for their various positions would have to take a test.
It does raise a question as to how coke-fueled the frat boy capitalist flunkie mortgage market players were during the bubble.
Maybe with drug tests they wouldn't have driven the global economy off the cliff.
It does raise a question as to how coke-fueled the frat boy capitalist flunkie mortgage market players were during the bubble.
Maybe with drug tests they wouldn't have driven the global economy off the cliff.
5
It should be a sufficient argument against this to note that this drug testing offends the dignity of the individual. That it is not says a lot about the attitude of Americans toward those who need help. The attitude is not one of compassion, but of punishment. This is simply a mean policy with little to no substantive benefit to the public and no benefit to the recipient.
There are a lot of substantive arguments against this. One I would note is that since this proposal apparently exempts people with children, Wisconsin is creating an incentive for people to have children. I wonder if Wisconsin Republicans, who seem to have a fear of "those people", have really thought this aspect through...
There are a lot of substantive arguments against this. One I would note is that since this proposal apparently exempts people with children, Wisconsin is creating an incentive for people to have children. I wonder if Wisconsin Republicans, who seem to have a fear of "those people", have really thought this aspect through...
5
Many illegal drugs can affect a Physicians diagnosis and medication prescription which could adversely affect the health or even the life of the patient.
My Doctor always asks if I have ingested anything not prescribed or purchased "over the counter". And I am glad he cares!!
My Doctor always asks if I have ingested anything not prescribed or purchased "over the counter". And I am glad he cares!!
1
My doctor asks me about the types of drugs I use at each visit as well...but then again I'm not forced to submit a urine sample just in case I may be lying.
In my experience, people are more forthcoming with this information when the relationship with their care provider helps them feel cared for and safe. I just can't agree that shame-based inquiry and treatment is the best way to help people.
In my experience, people are more forthcoming with this information when the relationship with their care provider helps them feel cared for and safe. I just can't agree that shame-based inquiry and treatment is the best way to help people.
1
Only in this disgusting country. When we grant subsidies to large corporations, or bailed out the financial institutions that led our economy to the brink, we don't ask their leaders to take semi-annual drug tests. But we always insist that the least advantaged among us provide proof that our precious dollars are being spent with measurable efficacy.
12
So, professors, virtually all of us who are employed had to undergo drug testing before we could be hired, and many of us have compulsory drug testing during our employment. And drug abuse is a serious public health abuse with, as your point out, more people dying from drug abuse than from car accidents. But in your view, the persons whose health care we pay for (since as employed persons we pay taxes) are somehow having their dignity assailed because they might face drug tests to be on various forms of public assistance? Welcome to the real word. No such thing as something for nothing.
6
why are we drug testing anyone? If someone's sobriety or competence is in question, a mental status exam should sort the issue out. As the authors point out, these tests are an egregious invasion of privacy and a colossal waste of money.
6
While I am a staunch Democrat, opinions expressed in articles such as this one make Democrats look foolish. Why wouldn't it be a good idea to drug test Medicaid and Public Assistance recipients and require they get treatment and stop using? It is better public policy to just have the public fund their drug using behavior which is likely impacting their ability to live independently and contribute to society? The Democratic Party can't win elections and one reasons is the type of thinking in this article.
7
Because as noted in the article, it's not a good use of resources. Millions spent testing to find a handful of users. Not a good return, except for those looking to mete out humiliation and punishment to the Medicaid population at large.
10
Most companies require drug testing as a condition for employment. Why is that not humiliating punishment. Furthermore, the strawman argument feigning concern over the programs cost aside, if the overwhelming majority of applicants are apparently drug free what's the objection.
1
Why not random drug and alcohol (especially alcohol) testing for all politicians?
4
There should not, cannot, must not be any condition attached to receiving health care in a civilized country. Everybody must receive adequate and equal care from the day of their birth until they die. It can be done, if people understand that socialized medicine does work. I grew up with it in Austria, I know. I miss it dearly!
9
The article should recognize that many of these mandatory drug testing programs, made mandatory for entry into government assistance programs, were struck down by the courts. They were simply ruled to be illegal and unconstitutional.
And, then there is the essential problem that one would then be barred from programs to get OFF drugs because one has been ON drugs.
The proponents of these ideas must be the same "pro-lifers" who support the death penalty and detest sensible gun restrictions ... and who fail to think about the children and helpless who are dependents in a family headed by someone with a drug problem ...
And, then there is the essential problem that one would then be barred from programs to get OFF drugs because one has been ON drugs.
The proponents of these ideas must be the same "pro-lifers" who support the death penalty and detest sensible gun restrictions ... and who fail to think about the children and helpless who are dependents in a family headed by someone with a drug problem ...
4
What drugs will be tested for? I have no problem testing for opioids like heroin or for cocaine, truly dangerous drugs with no redeeming value and both associated with violent criminality. These people than need help and must have incentive to stay in a rehab program. Leave marijuana out of the testing as full legalization is imminent in most rational states and the herb has legitimate medical and recreational use with less harm than alcohol. To minimize any stigma please apply same tests to anyone whose salary comes from my tax dollars.
4
While we should not support addiction, mere mild drug use like marijuana,or alcohol for that matter is an escape from the misery of poverty.
If the government wants to save money they can eliminate MY drug testing 9 times a year, due to chronic pain at a savings of at least 4000$.
I can assure you I take and use my drugs properly but for some reason they feel the need to test.
If the government wants to save money they can eliminate MY drug testing 9 times a year, due to chronic pain at a savings of at least 4000$.
I can assure you I take and use my drugs properly but for some reason they feel the need to test.
1
Yes, but you don't understand. The proposal to drug test Medicaid recipients isn't about what is effective and what isn't. It's about being cruel to poor people. Because, as we all now know, with ample proof to back it up, there is nothing that makes republicans so happy as the opportunity to be cruel to poor people.
13
Drug test legislators who want to drug test the poor. My guess is that they will score in double digits, not less than 1%.
3
Why stop at drug-testing? We could save even more money by forcing people on a scale and comparing the result to their height.
1
I had to undergo constant drug testing, random drug testing, in my sensitive job. It's not an invasion of privacy or demeaning and it should be instituted in all 50 states immediately if you want the government, the other residents of the U.S., to take care of you.
4
So did I, and it is offensive and demeaning. Just because you personally don't feel that way, don't assume everyone does.
10
Let's drug test CEOs before their companies can get tax breaks or government contracts.
8
It's quite an exaggeration to state that drug testing threatens our democracy. We should coddle drug addicts. When I've worked for Fortune 500 employers, I had to undergo drug testing. My taxes support Medicare, which I don't benefit from and instead purchase my own insurance because I'm self-employed. I am much worse off under Obamacare: my premiums shot up and my benefits decreased markedly. I'm an ardent supporter of universal health care, which we should have just like every other civilized country does. However, I'm not that sympathetic to drug users. They know what they're getting into when the CHOOSE to use drugs. The money spent on these people would be better spent treating those with illnesses they did choose to get. Why should I have to pay for drug addicts' choices?
6
The opioid drug user is frequently introduced to various pain killing drugs by their doctors. Unfortunately most of these drugs can be quite addictive and the line between just enough and too much is razor thin. Much of the abuse stems from drug companies pushing these drugs on doctors and patients alike through aggressive marketing tactics including ads directed at the public. Chances are that many of them were in medicade,when this happened. Just drug testing a person using painkillers legitimately, doesn't prove they're an addict.
20
Most states have registries that can be checked to see if someone has a legal prescription for a controlled substance.
Louise Banks, That would be illegal and against HIPPA rules.
1
Scott Walker is a clever boy. In the previous election he effectively hung his hat on ACT10 which eliminated collective bargaining with 'overpaid' public employees. The neglected rural/Trump type of voter swallowed the bait and sent him to Madison. Similarily, drug testing aid recipients, will effectively serve as his divisive hook to the same category of voter this time around.
It costs good money and it finds few drug users. Efficiency is an argument everyone ought to be able to comprehend.
4
"If Gov. Scott Walker gets his wish, Wisconsin will be the first state that requires adults without children to undergo drug testing if they want to receive Medicaid. Other states could follow his plan."
This seems perfectly reasonable - no need to test parents for druuugggs because we all no that no adults with children would do druugggs ever.
Why waste valuable time and resources testing a demographic group that we all know would never do druugggs.
Stupid is bad.
Stupid and mean is worse.
This seems perfectly reasonable - no need to test parents for druuugggs because we all no that no adults with children would do druugggs ever.
Why waste valuable time and resources testing a demographic group that we all know would never do druugggs.
Stupid is bad.
Stupid and mean is worse.
2
Homeless and other poor should be tested. Many are mentally ill, drug addicts, etc. Nothing is wrong with testing. It can prevent hepatitis and other diseases. It is a lifesaving benefit to the citizens who work and are productive in this country.
1
A welfare-recipient who chooses to take the test, OF COURSE, is unlikely to fail the test. The recipient knows the test will reveal the drug use and only takes it when she or he expects to pass. This fits perfectly with the drop in program usage in states that tested. The real reason Michener and Kohler-Hausmann oppose the testing is not because would-be recipients don't use drugs, but because they DO use drugs, and Michener and Kohler-Hausmann want them to come forward and receive benefits anyway. It's ok to make that argument, but they should make it openly rather than pretending that the testing has no point.
2
There is a fixed amount of money available for Medicaid programs so We the People need to know the money is going to help people in need of medical care. We also need to point out the majority (2/3rds), by the authors statement, of Wisconsin's Medicaid recipients are white. Or better yet, say X number of human beings are on Medicaid. We need to stop pushing racial stereotypes.
So here is the problem. Badger Bob has lived a good clean life but was diagnosed with cancer where as Tootie Snootie is addicted to being addicted. Who will get the limited care dollars? Many will say Badger is more deserving. Drug testing is a potential tool for determining who gets those limited dollars.
Sadly, the richest country in the world cannot save everyone and at the current rate, we won't even be able to save half of those in need of care. Of course we could if taxes were raised and we had single player.
So here is the problem. Badger Bob has lived a good clean life but was diagnosed with cancer where as Tootie Snootie is addicted to being addicted. Who will get the limited care dollars? Many will say Badger is more deserving. Drug testing is a potential tool for determining who gets those limited dollars.
Sadly, the richest country in the world cannot save everyone and at the current rate, we won't even be able to save half of those in need of care. Of course we could if taxes were raised and we had single player.
If course we can. Crying poor is just a Republican way of moving more money to the rich and the warlike.
3
Look at the Florida experience on this. They spent a fortune and found something like there or four people who had smoked marijuana. The governor transferred the ownership of the testing lab to his wife to avoid conflict of interest.
The real product of this was to create a new generation of "welfare queens" - a group of people who are not ripping off the system, but can be made to appear as grifters.
This is an incredibly (nothing is incredible anymore) cynical pocket-stuffer.
The real product of this was to create a new generation of "welfare queens" - a group of people who are not ripping off the system, but can be made to appear as grifters.
This is an incredibly (nothing is incredible anymore) cynical pocket-stuffer.
2
The FAA requires drug testing for airline pilots. I've never heard of anyone complaining that pilots are unfairly stigmatized.
1
"people who use drugs will not automatically lose benefits, but they will be forced to undergo screening, testing or treatment, or all three, to maintain eligibility"
Sounds like sound healthcare policy to me. And, I am a physician who works with many Medicaid patients who abuse drugs.
Continue advocating stupid far left wing policy and we are inviting another term of Trump. Time for liberals and democrats to get real.
Sounds like sound healthcare policy to me. And, I am a physician who works with many Medicaid patients who abuse drugs.
Continue advocating stupid far left wing policy and we are inviting another term of Trump. Time for liberals and democrats to get real.
2
The authors bring up something about blacks and Hispanics. Why? Like do they think that the sort of people who support Scott Walker will think less of drug testing if they are told that it targets blacks and Hispanics? NO. They will support it even more.
The better argument is simply that we all depend on government funded programs, schools, roads, driver licenses, etc. Do we really want the government to have the power to drug test all of us? After all, why not require all licensed drivers to submit to random drug testing; how about if you want to go to school; or get a tax break?
The better argument is simply that we all depend on government funded programs, schools, roads, driver licenses, etc. Do we really want the government to have the power to drug test all of us? After all, why not require all licensed drivers to submit to random drug testing; how about if you want to go to school; or get a tax break?
1
If a group, like a state or federal legislature, can compel drug testing on another group, like Medicaid recipients, both the compelling and compelled groups should be required to be tested pari passu.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Right this way to the bathroom, Governor Walker. The drug testing monitor will see you now...
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Right this way to the bathroom, Governor Walker. The drug testing monitor will see you now...
3
"Drug testing is costly, invasive and ineffective", but that will not deter advocates for Big Brother, such as Gov. Walker. These self-styled "Libertarians" & "Conservatives" are merely throwing red meat to the poorly informed citizens whose ignorance & gullibility they rely on. People call for "personal responsibility" & "consequences for one's actions", when it involves the poor. Why not extrapolate such thinking to the general population, & drug test ALL citizens who enjoy living in our "Great" & "Free" Nation, especially the wealthy. Anyone who knows a young stock trader, banker or hedge fund manager knows of their affinity for various legal substances.
If they receive handouts from taxpayers via tax laws that favor them, than it's only fair they give up their personal freedoms just as they expect those in poverty to do. Drug test the entire freaking Nation, and drag all of us down to the same level !
If they receive handouts from taxpayers via tax laws that favor them, than it's only fair they give up their personal freedoms just as they expect those in poverty to do. Drug test the entire freaking Nation, and drag all of us down to the same level !
4
Will there ever be any limit to the schemes of the Republican Party in their quest to weed out those most in need of health care?
Remember the great epidemics of plague, influenza and other dangerous diseases that did not discriminate between color of skin or political affiliation that swept countries less than 100 years ago. And what about more recent diseases such as Polio and HIV?
Untreated sick people are a huge risk to the population in general.
Remember the great epidemics of plague, influenza and other dangerous diseases that did not discriminate between color of skin or political affiliation that swept countries less than 100 years ago. And what about more recent diseases such as Polio and HIV?
Untreated sick people are a huge risk to the population in general.
3
What drugs are they testing for? Prescription meds? -- If so, then at what point do we also blame the healthcare providers for approving and feely dispensing? (I recently witnessed a nurse or tech asking a patient who had no symptoms whatsoever of pain - we had been talking for the last hour or so - what her "level" was. Without a moment's hesitation, she said "7." Bingo - hand out the tablets. This was in a nursing home. Where is the incentive for helping people get off these drugs?
Are we talking about marijuana? Oh please. Get over that already. Heroin? - How on earth would it help to cut someone from medicaid -- do you think these people really want to be addicts?
This makes no sense at all. (And yes, previous efforts re: food program have proven costly with no benefit at all to anyone)
Are we talking about marijuana? Oh please. Get over that already. Heroin? - How on earth would it help to cut someone from medicaid -- do you think these people really want to be addicts?
This makes no sense at all. (And yes, previous efforts re: food program have proven costly with no benefit at all to anyone)
3
I live in a state that requires drug testing for employment. Failing a drug test will cost you unemployment benefits. This is how it's been done for the last two decades and employees accept that this is just part of the employment process. Frankly it's not a big deal.
Doing drug tests for those who are using government aid will identify people who are abusing drugs and need help. We have a drug epidemic in this country that we need to address. As long as the drug test is being used to help people get the help they need this shouldn't be an issue.
Doing drug tests for those who are using government aid will identify people who are abusing drugs and need help. We have a drug epidemic in this country that we need to address. As long as the drug test is being used to help people get the help they need this shouldn't be an issue.
20
We have an addiction issue in this country. Moral judgment will never cure it. Nor will withholding of health care.
3
I also live in Oregon and it is a very big deal. Drug testing to obtain benefits you have already earned enrages many people and makes many believe that the government is the enemy. As to the drug epidemic, let me just pick one fact for you.
According to the CDC, excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death. This dangerous behavior accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006–2010, and accounted for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20–64 years.
That death rate is well over double the death rate for opioids. Alcohol has no therapeutic use. Opioids do. But the booze industry spends billions on marketing and god knows how much on bribes for politicians.
According to the CDC, excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death. This dangerous behavior accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006–2010, and accounted for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20–64 years.
That death rate is well over double the death rate for opioids. Alcohol has no therapeutic use. Opioids do. But the booze industry spends billions on marketing and god knows how much on bribes for politicians.
2
Yeah, good old Oregon. So glad I escaped. Toxic workplaces and invasive and ineffective drug testing and no healthcare for low-income workers whose employers do not pay for healthcare.
New Mexico is far more humane (and sunny!). Healthcare for the poor has always beden provided by UNMH (unlike OHSU) for low-income workers here in New Mexico, even prior to Medicaid expansion, which was very successful here.
New Mexico is far more humane (and sunny!). Healthcare for the poor has always beden provided by UNMH (unlike OHSU) for low-income workers here in New Mexico, even prior to Medicaid expansion, which was very successful here.
Thank you for writing this. From 30 years of working with vulnerable populations, I can tell you the reason the GOP continually tries to push drug testing is simply a futile attempt to prove the unprovable--that people are poor because of their own bad choices. Not because of globalization of the economy, income inequality, access to education, racism, etc. It would be a happy day at Scott Walker's house if he could drug test anyone who benefits from a means-tested program and found half with some substance in their system. But time and again, these testing programs are shown to be an ineffective waste of tax dollars, nothing more but a way for conservatives to try to justify their selfishness and cruelty.
136
They are poor by act of will of the wealthy. They stay poor by acts of will by the wealthy. Like all systems of subjugation the effects of it often induce the victims to self subjugate without even realizing it. Ad infinitum
In this case it is the unspoken premise that is the point of raising the idea at all. The unspoken Premise here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use and lack of character/morality.
It isn't. It is caused by minimum wage bandit corporations not paying a living wage and relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their corporate profits. Heck some of these corps would not even be in business if it weren't for the welfare and other subsidies paid to their employees.
In this case it is the unspoken premise that is the point of raising the idea at all. The unspoken Premise here is the idea that somehow the need for medicaid is caused by drug use and lack of character/morality.
It isn't. It is caused by minimum wage bandit corporations not paying a living wage and relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their corporate profits. Heck some of these corps would not even be in business if it weren't for the welfare and other subsidies paid to their employees.
3
So, there are no people who are poor because of bad choices? That's ridiculous.
I agree with every word you said. Whenever I read the latest spate of republican rhetoric, my brain automatically replies with this phrase from the inimatable Charles Dickens: "Oh, to hear the insect on the leaf complaining about the too much life of his brothers in the dust."
2
Why does the government think that drug use automatically equates to abuse? The last time I checked, the addiction rate for drugs like marijuana is about 9%, with alcohol clocking in at 15%. I personally know a lot more people with drinking problems than marijuana use problems. I know, let's come up with a test to see if you've used alcohol in the last month! Then we'll see how quickly legislators drop this provision.
90
While they're at it, they should test for nicotine.
This is a great argument, essiecab. Thanks, I will add this to my arsenal when talking to the cruel and duncy who just like to feel better about themselves by dumping on the poor.
I agree with the authors that drug-testing should not be a condition for receiving Medicaid. That said, much of their reasoning is specious at best.
First, let's dispense with the nonsense that drug testing is costly and stigmatizes people. It's not. Businesses routinely test job applicants for drug use. Such testing is invasive and insulting, but not costly and so long as its applied to everybody, it doesn't stigmatize anyone.
The authors are obviously focused on the potential for racist generalizations about those who are denied aid because of drug use. That's understandable. Poor minorities, just like poor white people, have enough of a load to carry without adding to their burden. The reality is that the majority of these drug users are not going anywhere in life for a lot of personal choice reasons and for some an equal measure of racial barriers. For them, drug use is a way to escape the boredom of an empty life. So long as they refrain from crime and are civil, let them have their drugs and allow them their benefits. From the cold view of data, its a lot less expensive to society than the cycle of crime and prison we have now.
Finally, the notion that democracy is jeopardized by drug testing is just laughable. Democracy is jeopardized by uninformed citizens who vote for narrow emotional or ideological dogma or vote for brazenly self interested financial returns. True of republicans favoring trickle down and true of democrats favoring hand outs.
First, let's dispense with the nonsense that drug testing is costly and stigmatizes people. It's not. Businesses routinely test job applicants for drug use. Such testing is invasive and insulting, but not costly and so long as its applied to everybody, it doesn't stigmatize anyone.
The authors are obviously focused on the potential for racist generalizations about those who are denied aid because of drug use. That's understandable. Poor minorities, just like poor white people, have enough of a load to carry without adding to their burden. The reality is that the majority of these drug users are not going anywhere in life for a lot of personal choice reasons and for some an equal measure of racial barriers. For them, drug use is a way to escape the boredom of an empty life. So long as they refrain from crime and are civil, let them have their drugs and allow them their benefits. From the cold view of data, its a lot less expensive to society than the cycle of crime and prison we have now.
Finally, the notion that democracy is jeopardized by drug testing is just laughable. Democracy is jeopardized by uninformed citizens who vote for narrow emotional or ideological dogma or vote for brazenly self interested financial returns. True of republicans favoring trickle down and true of democrats favoring hand outs.
17
Drug testing may be inexpensive for companies. But for someone on welfare/food stamps/Medicaid paying for that test (and the Republicans always insist they should pay for the test) means choosing which other essential item they must go without that week/month. And as we've seen in Florida, government is frequently in bed with the drug testing companies (Doesn't Gov Scott's wife own the company Florida welfare recipients were forced to use?)
6
Your reasoning for why we should not implement drug testing is the most elucidating rationale I've ever heard. This actually changed my mind.
2
Drug testing is an unnecessary waste of resources and is indeed insulting. If single-payer healthcare were to be implemented, the "drug problem" in the U.S. would pretty much vanish. Just like the "homeless problem" would vanish if the homeless were given housing. Utah proved that.
The U.S.A., thanks to conservatives, utilizes cruelty and the scarcity mentality as social policy.
Not enough resources to go around! Yet there are six-star generals who have never seen combat receiving egregious salaries and retirement pensions and CEOs who could not possibly in several lifetimes work hard enough to "deserve" their millions and billions in salaries and perks. Proven capital offenders receive millions of dollars of appeals.
There is a surplus of resources in the U.S.A., just not the moral will to redistribute them humanely. An inexcusable way to manage a so-called civilized nation.
And that is why I am a lifelong Democrat.
The U.S.A., thanks to conservatives, utilizes cruelty and the scarcity mentality as social policy.
Not enough resources to go around! Yet there are six-star generals who have never seen combat receiving egregious salaries and retirement pensions and CEOs who could not possibly in several lifetimes work hard enough to "deserve" their millions and billions in salaries and perks. Proven capital offenders receive millions of dollars of appeals.
There is a surplus of resources in the U.S.A., just not the moral will to redistribute them humanely. An inexcusable way to manage a so-called civilized nation.
And that is why I am a lifelong Democrat.
2
"the spectacle of calling for drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect." Don't suggest this non-sense. I am a college educated professional who works for a large bank. And every employee of the bank was drug tested as a condition of taking the job. It is routine. Rather than being considered an invasion of privacy, it is a reasonable request by an employer to make sure they are not hiring people with a drug problem.
People on Medicaid or other programs receive these benefits because society has decided to provide the poor with necessities. If it's reasonable for an employer to drug test employees, isn't it just as reasonable for society to ask someone who wants public benefits to make sure they are likewise obeying the law ?
As the article even concedes, people who are found to use drugs will not lose benefits. Rather, they will "undergo screening, testing and treatment". How horrible !? Isn't this exactly the kind of consideration of drug abuse as a health issue rather than legal violation that liberals have been urging for years ! But now, they do not even want to make sure that people get treatment.
The counter-argument that Michener offers that "beneficiaries already feel stigmatized" is a small consideration when weighed against getting people the treatment they need.
People on Medicaid or other programs receive these benefits because society has decided to provide the poor with necessities. If it's reasonable for an employer to drug test employees, isn't it just as reasonable for society to ask someone who wants public benefits to make sure they are likewise obeying the law ?
As the article even concedes, people who are found to use drugs will not lose benefits. Rather, they will "undergo screening, testing and treatment". How horrible !? Isn't this exactly the kind of consideration of drug abuse as a health issue rather than legal violation that liberals have been urging for years ! But now, they do not even want to make sure that people get treatment.
The counter-argument that Michener offers that "beneficiaries already feel stigmatized" is a small consideration when weighed against getting people the treatment they need.
22
No it isn't reasonable. The people in Medicaid are by definition poor. Thus drug testing will create a general impression that they are drug users -- somewhat skin to the 'welfare queen' of the Reagan era. Stigmatizing poverty is a longstanding conservative tactic.
8
Let's never forget that the "War on Drugs" has nothing to do with curtailing drug use, but rather to channel that use to those drugs which society approves. When underprivileged folks need to medicate against this hard world, they’re called weak, criminal, and addicts, and put in jail. When it’s ad execs, lawyers, or talk radio hosts, they’re given prescriptions, called victims, and given treatment. One thing homelessness and poverty take away is the ‘closed door’ behind which more affluent people can conceal their weaknesses. The 60,000 deaths this year from prescription drugs show us what's behind those doors.
Let’s call this what it is: an effort to strip the disadvantaged of a further layer of dignity. It’s transparent, to the point, and effective. We need to look in the mirror and understand that in the war on drugs, just as in any other war, Walt Kelly’s lines are apt: “We have met the enemy…”
Let’s call this what it is: an effort to strip the disadvantaged of a further layer of dignity. It’s transparent, to the point, and effective. We need to look in the mirror and understand that in the war on drugs, just as in any other war, Walt Kelly’s lines are apt: “We have met the enemy…”
73
What naive rock does Walker live under. Drugs, opiates, and pain meds are everywhere - used by every strata of society. Why in the world would he want to create barriers & stigmas to make it harder for those needy people to get help. Unlike what our AG says - drugs are not done by bad people (actually Jeff Sessions said "only bad people smoke marijuana")
One reason for the exploding problems with pain meds is they relieve the pain so many are experiencing in a hopeless world... people that have allowed drugs to rule their life are not some fun loving partiers - they are our fellow citizens who have fallen into having a drug run & in many cases destroy their life. We can not turn our back on our brothers & sisters - in many cases you or me.
One reason for the exploding problems with pain meds is they relieve the pain so many are experiencing in a hopeless world... people that have allowed drugs to rule their life are not some fun loving partiers - they are our fellow citizens who have fallen into having a drug run & in many cases destroy their life. We can not turn our back on our brothers & sisters - in many cases you or me.
58
"Of all the ways to help Americans with drug problems, threatening their Medicaid eligibility is among the worst options."
Yes, this is true. Obviously the Republicans have no desire to "help" people with drug problems. They simply are looking for any excuse to kick people off of Medicaid. in order to channel more money into tax cuts for the bloated rich.
Because of the stigma attached to drug addiction, Republicans are hoping that people will accept the notion that addicts should be punished for their affliction by being denied health care.
Yes, this is true. Obviously the Republicans have no desire to "help" people with drug problems. They simply are looking for any excuse to kick people off of Medicaid. in order to channel more money into tax cuts for the bloated rich.
Because of the stigma attached to drug addiction, Republicans are hoping that people will accept the notion that addicts should be punished for their affliction by being denied health care.
7
The NY Times is wrong. "...drug testing marks people who rely on the government as inherently suspect." No. Drug testing simply tells them to abide by the law of the land before receiving benefits from the government of that land. Force childless adults to be responsible for themselves? Not if the NY Times has its say. I suggest that the governor of Wisconsin offer free drug treatment and counseling for any potential Medicaid recipient who needs it. Then give them Medicaid when clean.
8
Which drugs are we talking about? Beer? Nicotine? Prescribed pain killers? Sugar? Drugs that would allow white people to take benefits away from brown people, I suspect.
10
If memory serves Florida used drug testing as a requirement to draw unemployment - despite it being an insurance program -and the results showed they used drugs at a lower rate than the general population. It was also criticized because the Republican (go figure) Governor had toes to the company that was doing the testing.
44
Florida used drug testing as an eligibility requirement for TANF cash benefits. The results were as you described: the rate of positive tests was lower than the general population. The state scuttled the TANF drug tests after the requirement was challenged in court and found unconstitutional.
15
Unemployment benefits are not a government handout. The benefits are paid for in advance by employers. To the drug testing to benefits is just a government rip off.
1
" While flexibility has at times allowed some states to expand services, others like Arizona, Kentucky and Maine are now attempting to impose conditions, such as time limits or work requirements, that would shrink the program."
" When this happens, the public becomes less willing to support such programs and people become less willing to use them, even in times of desperate need. All of this makes the program increasingly vulnerable to further cuts and eventual dismemberment."
god forbid we should shrink any government program and make people more personally responsible for their circumstances.
" When this happens, the public becomes less willing to support such programs and people become less willing to use them, even in times of desperate need. All of this makes the program increasingly vulnerable to further cuts and eventual dismemberment."
god forbid we should shrink any government program and make people more personally responsible for their circumstances.
6
We are a nation of children, growing and learning. When all children are raised in a level playing field, then you may have the right to judge their level of personal responsibility.
10
You might want to check the definition of addiction. Most addicts don't want to be what they've become. But kicking a drug habit is extremely difficult - ask anyone trying to quit smoking. Moralizing and putting barriers in the way of treatment is counter productive to the goal of getting addicts off drugs and back into the economic mainstream.
4
When a couple marries, its health care costs almost always go down. And before Obamacare, single adults were ineligible for Medicaid in most states. Now, Mr. Walker wants to drug test single adults to qualify for Medicaid.. Why married couples should get valuable health care benefits as compared with single adults is beyond me. I don't much like paying a penalty because I stopped arguing with my ex-wife.. Is my health less important since I became single? And is there a good reason I pay so much to insure your kids?
19
I believe that health care is a right, and that all rights entail responsibility. We all have a responsibility to care for our bodies, and do what we can to optimize our health. That includes eating properly and exercising. It does not include using drugs.
12
How many people with mental retardation do you know, Michael, who can be successfully taught how to care for their bodies and how to eat properly? How many people with no marketable skills can be "responsible" in your apparent sense of responsibility?
If some of these people you obviously don't know exist use drugs -- and few with whom I work do -- so what? Life for them is pretty bad all around; folks like you can't make it much worse.
Think about it.
If some of these people you obviously don't know exist use drugs -- and few with whom I work do -- so what? Life for them is pretty bad all around; folks like you can't make it much worse.
Think about it.
1
Do you drink alcohol, coffee, or other stimulants? Smoke? Over-eat?
1
I am beginning to get the feeling that republican politicians are not only generally misinformed, and beholding to the money class but are genuinely bad people.
95
really, just beginning?
5
You trust the government to spend your money better than you would? It is almost impossible to fairly redistribute income. But simple things like illegal behavior can be a start.
Applying for Medicaid isn't the same as applying for a job, and people shouldn't have to beg for medical care and be shamed for it.
This is a thinly disguised effort to deny healthcare to those in need. Medicaid users are often not in a position to support or oppose government policies by organizing themselves to be heard. As such, they can be abused by politicians without fear of retribution. The same is true for voter ID laws.
This is another power game, pure and simple.
This is a thinly disguised effort to deny healthcare to those in need. Medicaid users are often not in a position to support or oppose government policies by organizing themselves to be heard. As such, they can be abused by politicians without fear of retribution. The same is true for voter ID laws.
This is another power game, pure and simple.
78
Where did the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions and acceptance of the consequences disappear to?
38
Let me be clear. Personal responsibility is not a stand alone, mutually exclusive concept. One can be responsible and still get sick. One can do all the right things but still have flaws and weaknesses. Conservatives do not own "personal responsibility." I believe in it as much as anyone else but it is not always relevant when it comes to health issues.
As for taking drugs, it depends on if you believe it is an illness or not. Some people are more susceptible to addiction. In some cases, doctors are to blame for freely and easily prescribing as in the case of opioids. (and sure, pharma companies to for exploiting both doctors and patients).
As for taking drugs, it depends on if you believe it is an illness or not. Some people are more susceptible to addiction. In some cases, doctors are to blame for freely and easily prescribing as in the case of opioids. (and sure, pharma companies to for exploiting both doctors and patients).
26
"Some people are more susceptible to addiction."
And some people are better able to hide their addiction behind trappings of success and responsibility, or buy their way out of arrests and convictions.
Its just heartbreaking that, when we finally reach consensus there is an "opioid epidemic' exclusively because we can't hide the damage among the elites and the executives, there are still Republicans who believe the problem is the lazy, stupid, probably black 'welfare families' of the inner city.
The bias, the racial enmity is plain and it is absolute, even though the evidence suggests the biggest problems are at the top.
Still, the welfare queen and her Cadillac continue to circle Capitol Hill.
And some people are better able to hide their addiction behind trappings of success and responsibility, or buy their way out of arrests and convictions.
Its just heartbreaking that, when we finally reach consensus there is an "opioid epidemic' exclusively because we can't hide the damage among the elites and the executives, there are still Republicans who believe the problem is the lazy, stupid, probably black 'welfare families' of the inner city.
The bias, the racial enmity is plain and it is absolute, even though the evidence suggests the biggest problems are at the top.
Still, the welfare queen and her Cadillac continue to circle Capitol Hill.
4
I agree. We shouldn't also force them to work.
But most importantly we should also stop using taxpayer dollars to support them.
But most importantly we should also stop using taxpayer dollars to support them.
15
If health care is considered a human right (it is, isn't it?) then the only reason for testing for the presence of drugs or any intoxicant is to confirm a diagnosis of addiction. Wait. This the the US. Health care isn't a human right and addiction isn't a health issue but an individual moral failure. Perhaps what is needed is a dose of morality instead of medical treatment. Can I get an amen?
13
I don't consider health care a human right. Are you willing to pay for mine?
I think people have a right to basic healthcare. The problem is determining what is adequate. When a person benefits without any cost to them they want the most possible care. And who in government is to deny this, government officials are rarely physicians. If a person with end stage cancer wants to spend $100,000 to get possibly 1-2 months of additional life let them feel free to do so. Otherwise it might be better to spend the money on basic healthcare for children. No resources are unlimited, and who should decide? The free market is the best way to distribute limited resources, people pay for what they value. When someone else pays the entire system is distorted. This is why healthcare and education both cost so much.
I think people who take government assistance should be stigmatized, after all they are taking other people's money. The stigma involved is one reason people should want to work harder not to need hand outs. Imagine if everyone who was government disability had to wear a sign stating this. The public would realize how much waste is in the system as they see healthy appearing people not working, at other taxpayer's expense. Before the start of the "great welfare society and social safety net" people who really needed help received charity but they had to ask for it which is a very humbling experience and people would do all they could not to because of the stigma associated with the experience. Today with our "entitlement culture" there is no stigma associated with taking other people's money. In fact it is encouraged under the guise of "income redistribution" I know this may sound mean or cruel but I consider this "tough-love", the message we should be sending is "You need to work for what you get, nothing is free." But the way our government works currently it seems that when a person receives money from the government they are not taking another person's money because our government is so big. And the people running our government have NO INCENTIVE to deny anyone any benefit because with more handouts and more money comes more power and job security. Great System.
32
You neglect to realize it is big business, and government that manipulate our economy, creating boom and bust cycles that leave millions destitute. Moral responsibility begins with those who break the system and prosper by it.
46
I await your catalogue of job-opportunities accompanied by the list of qualifications required for each class of job. And then tell us which jobs are available in our inner cities for educationally-deprived young men, and which jobs are available in the rust belt for returned vets who can't escape that 1000-yard stare.
40
How about those getting corporate bailouts, subsidies, tax cuts also be required to submit to drug tests? The level of drug use is the same or higher in this part of the population just not scrutinized or criminalized at the same rate. They also are receiving other people's money. Oh, and corporations are individuals according to Citizens United so let's apply the same rules!
19
In order to be hired for a new job most people have to undergo a drug test. Why then is it considered unreasonable for applicants for Medicaid to be required to have the same treatment?
56
I don't think that it's reasonable to have to take a drug test for employment & have not, in fact, ever done so. What is the proof that it helps? Yet businesses keep doing it. Luckily, there are many organizations that understand that drug testing is costly and not useful, and I work for one of them. And no, I've never used illicit drugs.
5
One can choose to forego a drug test for a job and try to find a potential employer who doesn't require testing.
One cannot choose to forego Medicaid if one is otherwise eligible and in need.
One cannot choose to forego Medicaid if one is otherwise eligible and in need.
4
Dear Mr. Adams:
Do you know that the single largest group of Medicaid recipients are nursing home residents?
How would you propose to drug test them?
I evaluate children as young as 7 years old for various mental health conditions. Most of them receive Medicaid. Who would you drug test in this instance? The parents, the children, the school teachers (maybe the teachers are supplying them with drugs?)
In an age of fake news, people develop very strange beliefs.
Do you know, by the way, that the rate of illegal drug use among Medicaid recipients is far lower than that of the general population?
Following your logic, we might drug test all those Republican politicians, like Scott Walker, who have been "hired" by Charles Koch. Come to think of it, perhaps we might ask every politician who supported this health care boondoggle to undergo, not just a drug test, but a psych eval.
I'm willing to step up and do my part. Send them to me and I'll conduct an evaluation.
Happy to help out!
www.remember-to-breathe.org
Do you know that the single largest group of Medicaid recipients are nursing home residents?
How would you propose to drug test them?
I evaluate children as young as 7 years old for various mental health conditions. Most of them receive Medicaid. Who would you drug test in this instance? The parents, the children, the school teachers (maybe the teachers are supplying them with drugs?)
In an age of fake news, people develop very strange beliefs.
Do you know, by the way, that the rate of illegal drug use among Medicaid recipients is far lower than that of the general population?
Following your logic, we might drug test all those Republican politicians, like Scott Walker, who have been "hired" by Charles Koch. Come to think of it, perhaps we might ask every politician who supported this health care boondoggle to undergo, not just a drug test, but a psych eval.
I'm willing to step up and do my part. Send them to me and I'll conduct an evaluation.
Happy to help out!
www.remember-to-breathe.org
7
A thought: drug testing for ALL who impact the federal treasury - from home mortgage deductions, carried interest loopholes and corporate subsidies to Medicaid. I imagine the notion of drug testing would be quickly dumped.
182
Agreed. If college taught me anything, it's that wealthy people do drugs just as much as the poor.
9
Drug testing the poor receiving aid appears an integral part of the political messaging on the right - and like most of this messaging, it has little connection with reality.
As the author points out, this low income population consistently tests as having a much lower usage of illegal substances that the general population - for obvious reasons, given that recreational drugs are typically quite expensive in comparison to alcohol, and this population is poor - and yet the testing requirements continue to spread throughout Red America.
These policies are ultimately intended to stigmatize poverty and those receiving governments assistance, in as effort to shield the 'wealth creators' who fund Republican messaging efforts from paying anything close to their fair share of taxes.
Given the fundamentally dishonest economic shell game that is at the core of contemporary conservative politics, as noted most recently by David Brooks in a recent column in this paper, I argue that it would much more appropriate to drug test wealthy contributors to the Republican Party, and the dupes who fall for this messaging - inasmuch these groups are much more likely to be able to afford expensive recreational drugs, and that one probably needs to be high on something to either have the stomach to gut your own country for purely financial reasons or to buy into this ludicrous messaging.
As the author points out, this low income population consistently tests as having a much lower usage of illegal substances that the general population - for obvious reasons, given that recreational drugs are typically quite expensive in comparison to alcohol, and this population is poor - and yet the testing requirements continue to spread throughout Red America.
These policies are ultimately intended to stigmatize poverty and those receiving governments assistance, in as effort to shield the 'wealth creators' who fund Republican messaging efforts from paying anything close to their fair share of taxes.
Given the fundamentally dishonest economic shell game that is at the core of contemporary conservative politics, as noted most recently by David Brooks in a recent column in this paper, I argue that it would much more appropriate to drug test wealthy contributors to the Republican Party, and the dupes who fall for this messaging - inasmuch these groups are much more likely to be able to afford expensive recreational drugs, and that one probably needs to be high on something to either have the stomach to gut your own country for purely financial reasons or to buy into this ludicrous messaging.
101
Or, more likely, the thought that a positive drug test could eliminate one's vital welfare benefits might make screened recipients less likely to use drugs. I think this is a more likely reason, and certainly worth the cost of screening.
Plus, how is it a bad thing for needing government assistance to be shameful? I certainly think it is - it demonstrates that the recipient has objectively failed to provide for themselves.
Plus, how is it a bad thing for needing government assistance to be shameful? I certainly think it is - it demonstrates that the recipient has objectively failed to provide for themselves.
5
You "think," QED? Have any evidence besides your prejudices toward the poor? Your hunch is not dispositive of anything, and reality doesn't favor your opinion, but I hope you are adequately shamed for using all the government benefits you take advantage of at tax time!
2
I donate regularly to our local Food Bank..our provincial govt...hard right wing..had not increased welfare rates in a decade...and Vancouver is so called world class expensive to live. I have been critized by people saying..those people spend their money on cigarettes and beer..and by extension..drugs. My answer is always: who am I to judge someone else.
1
The NHS can cut benefits to not only drug addict but alcoholics and those who are obese (imagine that in the U.S) because they say “long-term conditions such as drug addiction and alcohol dependence, or obesity, can seriously affect people’s chances of taking up and remaining in rewarding employment”.
The U.K, with its national health care system, tries to treat dependency as a personal and societal problem; wants to push people to get treatment that they provide and get them back to work for the good of the general welfare. We need to do the same.
The U.K, with its national health care system, tries to treat dependency as a personal and societal problem; wants to push people to get treatment that they provide and get them back to work for the good of the general welfare. We need to do the same.
37
That would require a preventive maintenance healthcare system rather than the push them off a cliff system we have here.
5
The [UK] NHS is now part of a Tory legacy that gave them Grenfell Tower and midnight exodus from multiple unsafe buildings. Maybe the residents of the Tower should have been drug-tested?
4
I know someone who was on BadgerCare in Wisconsin. He was in his 20s so all he got from BadgerCare was a flu shot. He would have passed on the flu shot if there were any extra paperwork or a drug test. But we want as many people as possible to get flu shots so they don't get everyone else sick right?
"Healthy" people in their 50s and 60s on Medicaid often get statins and cancer screening in addition to flu shots. The statins and cancer screening are supposed to reduce future health care costs, Medicare etc. and save taxpayer funds.
"Healthy" people in their 50s and 60s on Medicaid often get statins and cancer screening in addition to flu shots. The statins and cancer screening are supposed to reduce future health care costs, Medicare etc. and save taxpayer funds.
15
Screening for drug use will apparently not prevent people from getting Medicaid, but require them to undergo treatment if they test positive. I'm struggling to see the harm in this.
As to stimatizing them, all kinds of people undergo routine drug testing for different reasons, such as employment.
As to stimatizing them, all kinds of people undergo routine drug testing for different reasons, such as employment.
49
First of all, if you think that positive drug tests will only result in those people getting the treatment they need (which depending upon their drug usage may be none at all), you need to think again. That's not why Republicans want to do this. And furthermore, why have we allowed 'routine drug testing' to become routine for employment? Theft is a huge problem in the workplace---perhaps we should allow potential employers to search our home for stolen goods before we are employed? How about a peek at your full medical history or your genetic predispositions? After all without that, businesses might lose money! This is about stigmatizing the poor and legitimizing our inequitable economic system and nothing else.
8
People's health is directly affected by the packaging and food companies that sell more preservatives than food. It is one thing to lose one's health, it is another to lose one's dignity as well.
The GOP is a party devoid of compassion and humanity "in gold they trust". Because of their lack of intelligence and ability to problem solve they resort to backward measures which are easy to dictate. I hope they dissolve into nothingness in the near future .They have overstayed their welcome.
It is time to elect a new leadership that inspires even the most downtrodden to want to change on their own, something I've seen and done. I know it works. Anyone who thinks for a second that they're going to dictate to me how I should live or behave would be in for a rude awakening, if they tried to impose their will on me. The measures Mr. Walker and his likes are trying to impose would lead straight to a massive revolution in the US. He happened to be one of the dullest and mediocre politician have ever come across.
The GOP is a party devoid of compassion and humanity "in gold they trust". Because of their lack of intelligence and ability to problem solve they resort to backward measures which are easy to dictate. I hope they dissolve into nothingness in the near future .They have overstayed their welcome.
It is time to elect a new leadership that inspires even the most downtrodden to want to change on their own, something I've seen and done. I know it works. Anyone who thinks for a second that they're going to dictate to me how I should live or behave would be in for a rude awakening, if they tried to impose their will on me. The measures Mr. Walker and his likes are trying to impose would lead straight to a massive revolution in the US. He happened to be one of the dullest and mediocre politician have ever come across.
26
But, of course, only those peons who can't afford legal narcotics.