Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Moar States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare

In Florida, people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession.
 
The law, the most far-reaching in the nation, provoked a lawsuit last month from the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the requirement represents an unreasonable search and seizure.
 
Motherfuckers want money, too bad pass the test.. Not like they have any other responsibilities.
 
PICK3 said:
The law, the most far-reaching in the nation, provoked a lawsuit last month from the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the requirement represents an unreasonable search and seizure.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that this would no doubt spark lawsuits from the ACLU. lol. Fucking figures.

Either way, they'll be on assistance. If they fail the drug test, then they will need to be put into a gov't paid rehab program...of course. Then, when they're clean again they go back on assistance. And the cycle continues.
 
ceo said:
I was going to say that this would no doubt spark lawsuits from the ACLU. lol. Fucking figures.

Either way, they'll be on assistance. If they fail the drug test, then they will need to be put into a gov't paid rehab program...of course. Then, when they're clean again they go back on assistance. And the cycle continues.
Click to expand...

Consuming even moar plunkey tax dollars
 
Well, I'm ambivalent about this one. I guess I have some compassion for those with addiction that render them incapable of work. On the other hand, I understand the concern that people have about funding the purchase of illegal drugs through tax dollars. I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.
 
cap gunz said:
Well, I'm ambivalent about this one. I guess I have some compassion for those with addiction that render them incapable of work. On the other hand, I understand the concern that people have about funding the purchase of illegal drugs through tax dollars. I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.
Click to expand...

At the very least there funds should be cut.
 
I think putting the funds on a debit card that could only be spent at certain places would curb abuse and not force those with addictions into the streets or into stealing/robbing for drugs/alcohol. I think that funding rehabs would probably come out to be a net gain for our country, besides just being the humane and compassionate thing to do.
 
ceo said:
I was going to say that this would no doubt spark lawsuits from the ACLU. lol. Fucking figures.

Either way, they'll be on assistance. If they fail the drug test, then they will need to be put into a gov't paid rehab program...of course. Then, when they're clean again they go back on assistance. And the cycle continues.
Click to expand...

^^^^ Exactly! Revolving door!
 
cap gunz said:
I think putting the funds on a debit card that could only be spent at certain places would curb abuse and not force those with addictions into the streets or into stealing/robbing for drugs/alcohol. I think that funding rehabs would probably come out to be a net gain for our country, besides just being the humane and compassionate thing to do.
Click to expand...

Wrong, people will trade diapers for drugs. They will trade anything they can buy for drugs. They do drugs, they get their funds cut. They have no other responsibilities at all. Nothing!
 
I have a pretty liberal mentality but umm, when it comes to this I have to agree with the lawmakers. Plenty of companies these days require you pass both a piss test and a credit check to get a job.

I do think forcing the welfare recipients to pay for the test, when they're already on a fixed income, is kind of shitty though. Sometimes good people fall on hard times through no fault of their own, especially in the current economic climate.
 
musclemom said:
I have a pretty liberal mentality but umm, when it comes to this I have to agree with the lawmakers. Plenty of companies these days require you pass both a piss test and a credit check to get a job.

I do think forcing the welfare recipients to pay for the test, when they're already on a fixed income, is kind of shitty though. Sometimes good people fall on hard times through no fault of their own, especially in the current economic climate.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The states can pay for the tests, they will save money longterm.
 
lartinos said:
I agree with you. The states can pay for the tests, they will save money longterm.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people will actually fail the test...to make it worth the states paying to test everyone? Maybe they wouldn't save money...idk. I heard it was easy to fake those tests.
 
cindylou said:
I wonder how many people will actually fail the test...to make it worth the states paying to test everyone? Maybe they wouldn't save money...idk. I heard it was easy to fake those tests.
Click to expand...

People fail all the time, people on drugs tend to fuck up anything.
They can't control themselves. Less people claim for assistance when there is a known test as well. It is win win for society and will make some addicts change their ways or atleast
Do less drugs. It would save a ton of money. Put the money saved towards rehab services. Even towards correctional facilities.
 
musclemom said:
I have a pretty liberal mentality but umm, when it comes to this I have to agree with the lawmakers. Plenty of companies these days require you pass both a piss test and a credit check to get a job.

I do think forcing the welfare recipients to pay for the test, when they're already on a fixed income, is kind of shitty though. Sometimes good people fall on hard times through no fault of their own, especially in the current economic climate.
Click to expand...
If the test is negative they get reimbursed for it.
 
lartinos said:
Wrong, people will trade diapers for drugs. They will trade anything they can buy for drugs. They do drugs, they get their funds cut. They have no other responsibilities at all. Nothing!
Click to expand...


yeah, I suppose so. Like I said, I'm ambivalent on that issue. It is complex and seems like there is no perfect answer.
 
nangiggles said:
If the test is negative they get reimbursed for it.
Click to expand...
That'll take a month or so, easy.

I grew up on welfare. You generally run out of money before the end of the month under the best of circumstances. The $25 or $50 for a urine drug screen (I could be over estimating) could mean the difference between someone paying utilities that month or not.
 
musclemom said:
That'll take a month or so, easy.

I grew up on welfare. You generally run out of money before the end of the month under the best of circumstances. The $25 or $50 for a urine drug screen (I could be over estimating) could mean the difference between someone paying utilities that month or not.
Click to expand...

Plunkey says if it takes a month or 2 ... that's what it takes.

Plunkey says nobody is "entitled" to a free ride.

I'm just the messenger.




just sayin'
 
Plunkey says proper taxpayer savings are irregardless of life circumstances
 
musclemom said:
That'll take a month or so, easy.

I grew up on welfare. You generally run out of money before the end of the month under the best of circumstances. The $25 or $50 for a urine drug screen (I could be over estimating) could mean the difference between someone paying utilities that month or not.
Click to expand...

If they pass the test, reimburse them for the cost and throw-in an additional $100.

Taxpayers will still be vastly better off.
 
mrplunkey said:
If they pass the test, reimburse them for the cost and throw-in an additional $100.

Taxpayers will still be vastly better off.
Click to expand...
Have you EVER relied entirely on welfare? I have. Do you know what it's like to live on an extremely tight fixed income? There is only so much money, period. As I said, you ask someone on a highly fixed income pay for a urine drug test, and there's a good chance they miss paying their electric bill that month. More and more utility companies are charging you if the bill is late and are turning off services sooner and sooner and charging you if they've turned off services and need to turn them back on. Expecting welfare recipients to pay for their own drug screens is cruel and demeaning. Trust me on this, the govt. has managed to make asking for help when you need it already demoralizing enough as it is.

By all means, if they fail the drug screen, penalize them, prosecute them even, but there is no reason to charge people when a significant bulk discount contract could easily be worked out between the state and the lab.
 
musclemom said:
Have you EVER relied entirely on welfare? I have. Do you know what it's like to live on an extremely tight fixed income? There is only so much money, period. As I said, you ask someone on a highly fixed income pay for a urine drug test, and there's a good chance they miss paying their electric bill that month. More and more utility companies are charging you if the bill is late and are turning off services sooner and sooner and charging you if they've turned off services and need to turn them back on. Expecting welfare recipients to pay for their own drug screens is cruel and demeaning. Trust me on this, the govt. has managed to make asking for help when you need it already demoralizing enough as it is.

By all means, if they fail the drug screen, penalize them, prosecute them even, but there is no reason to charge people when a significant bulk discount contract could easily be worked out between the state and the lab.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the: "Reimburse them for the cost" part?

You argued there may be a delay between the out of pocket expense and the reimbursement. So I sweetened the deal by throwing in an additional $100 on TOP of the reimbursement.

Yet that's still not good enough for you. So let's sweeten the deal once more. The first test is 100% free. Once you pass the first test, you've got an additional $100 in your pocket -- more than enough to pay for the second test (200%-400% more, actually). And then, with every test you take, you make another 100%-300% on your cash. Where else would anyone find 100% to 300% reimbursement in 30-60 days?

So are you in now? Can we count on your support?
 
mrplunkey said:
Them smokes is a right, not an indulgence.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Seriously...

I hear some of my employees always bitching that they only have $40 or whatever to last them til payday. Yet god forbid they stop smoking.

Hell, we had to change pay periods from monthly to bi monthly cuz the majority couldnt make their paychecks last a month.
 
Look, my point is not the reimbursement, my point is the timing. If you hit a person whose on a fixed income with an unexpected expense they have to scramble, in ways that most people who have a better income, don't have to. If you've never lived on a narrowly fixed income, you don't grasp it, short and sweet.

I didn't say I was against testing, I think charging for the tests is unnecessary, especially if you're going to throw in things like bonuses for clean tests, that's just stupidity. Make them free, just assure they are done under controlled conditions, I think that should be sufficiently degrading (a controlled urine drug screen means you have to piss under observation).

Actually, a hair sample would probably be better if you want to get technical, that shows exposure over a period of time
 
musclemom said:
Look, my point is not the reimbursement, my point is the timing. If you hit a person whose on a fixed income with an unexpected expense they have to scramble, in ways that most people who have a better income, don't have to. If you've never lived on a narrowly fixed income, you don't grasp it, short and sweet.

I didn't say I was against testing, I think charging for the tests is unnecessary, especially if you're going to throw in things like bonuses for clean tests, that's just stupidity. Make them free, just assure they are done under controlled conditions, I think that should be sufficiently degrading (a controlled urine drug screen means you have to piss under observation).

Actually, a hair sample would probably be better if you want to get technical, that shows exposure over a period of time
Click to expand...

Then someone who thinks they might test positive would probably take the test anyway thinking: "What the heck, at least it doesn't cost me anything to take a shot at getting the money."

Don't believe me? Employees fail job application tests all the time. WTF were they thinking?
 
mrplunkey said:
Then someone who thinks they might test positive would probably take the test anyway thinking: "What the heck, at least it doesn't cost me anything to take a shot at getting the money."

Don't believe me? Employees fail job application tests all the time. WTF were they thinking?
Click to expand...
In the meantime you throw off the cash flow of the decent people. Honestly, you're being a dick just for the sake of being a dick.

Why do so many assume all who are on welfare are greedy, lazy useless pieces of human waste? All I can say is this board seems to be loaded with people who have no experience with life handing you a shit sandwich despite all efforts on your behalf for life to go otherwise :whatever:

You're just mean. I hope to god nobody ever treats your children or grandchildren with such a lack of empathy. Of course, what concerns for their futures do they have? You've taken care of them, right? Given them good educations, trust funds, life insurance.

See, nobody gave me anything, no start in life other than not smothering me in my crib. No education, no after school activities. My interests were considered frivolous and certainly nothing to pursue after high school. My clothes came from a 2nd hand store most of my life. I never owned furniture that didn't come from bulk trash collection day until I was in my late 20s.

Let them eat cake, right Plunk :supercool
 
musclemom said:
In the meantime you throw off the cash flow of the decent people. Honestly, you're being a dick just for the sake of being a dick.

Why do so many assume all who are on welfare are greedy, lazy useless pieces of human waste? All I can say is this board seems to be loaded with people who have no experience with life handing you a shit sandwich despite all efforts on your behalf for life to go otherwise :whatever:

You're just mean. I hope to god nobody ever treats your children or grandchildren with such a lack of empathy. Of course, what concerns for their futures do they have? You've taken care of them, right? Given them good educations, trust funds, life insurance.

See, nobody gave me anything, no start in life other than not smothering me in my crib. No education, no after school activities. My interests were considered frivolous and certainly nothing to pursue after high school. My clothes came from a 2nd hand store most of my life. I never owned furniture that didn't come from bulk trash collection day until I was in my late 20s.

Let them eat cake, right Plunk :supercool
Click to expand...

How does:

1) Offering the first test FREE

2) Paying them $100 PER TEST to produce a positive result

3) Then requiring them to use $25 to $50 to take another test so they can get ANOTHER $100

negatively impact cash flow? That's called a guaranteed positive cash flow situation (unless you flunk the test).

If someone wants to provide me my start-up capital and then a business with 50% to 75% margins at zero inventory or overhead, I'm in.
 
Unfortunate people take advantage of the system.

I knew someone who collected a disability cheque from the military, butt was gainfully employed as a laborer. How can you be disabled & work in a laborious position :confused:

He lived with a woman (marrying doesn't fit the equation) who worked at "the club" (cash under the table), butt also got govmint assistance.

Additionally, they had (3) "special needs" children who each collected a govmint cheque.

This guy never didn't have a pocket full of $100 bills.
 
cap gunz said:
do you assume that they all smoke and drink with the money?
Click to expand...

Not all of them, but I do think a vast majority of them probably do. Even if it isn't smokes or whiskey I bet there is something they are spending their money on that isn't a necessity. Cell phone, Cable TV, Internet, etc


All too often I hear and see someone complaining they're broke w/a cigarette hanging out of their mouth, a smart phone in their hand, etc. STFU w/your complaining if you're going to be stupid w/your money.
 
Loan me the 5-axis processor so that I may construct a new moar powerful Teh Jacket
 
mrplunkey said:
How does:

1) Offering the first test FREE

2) Paying them $100 PER TEST to produce a positive result

3) Then requiring them to use $25 to $50 to take another test so they can get ANOTHER $100

negatively impact cash flow? That's called a guaranteed positive cash flow situation (unless you flunk the test).

If someone wants to provide me my start-up capital and then a business with 50% to 75% margins at zero inventory or overhead, I'm in.
Click to expand...
If the test is free, then there's no problem and no need for any other cash incentive IMO :whatever:

I said I personally don't have a problem with a negative urine drug screen, to be administered at the state's discretion, as a contingency upon which welfare is awarded. My problem was with expecting people who are already on a fixed income paying the bill for the drug screen with money they may not have, that's it.

I thought I made that clear from the outset.

Frankly, I'll be fucked if I want to pay for some crack head to get food stamps (hey, I'm self employed but I pay taxes, too) so they can barter food for a rock when I've got an adult stepdaughter, with genuine disabilities, who can't legitimately get help!
 
miplank said:
Not all of them, but I do think a vast majority of them probably do. Even if it isn't smokes or whiskey I bet there is something they are spending their money on that isn't a necessity. Cell phone, Cable TV, Internet, etc


All too often I hear and see someone complaining they're broke w/a cigarette hanging out of their mouth, a smart phone in their hand, etc. STFU w/your complaining if you're going to be stupid w/your money.
Click to expand...

I don't know too many people who couldn't cut back. The amish would think our electricity habit is ridiculous. haha
 
miplank said:
Seriously...

I hear some of my employees always bitching that they only have $40 or whatever to last them til payday. Yet god forbid they stop smoking.

Hell, we had to change pay periods from monthly to bi monthly cuz the majority couldnt make their paychecks last a month.
Click to expand...

This is commonplace around the country. People blow their money of shit.
 
lartinos said:
This is commonplace around the country. People blow their money of shit.
Click to expand...

and i'm perfectly fine w/that when you have the funds to do so.


But if you're living from paycheck to paycheck and spending your money on unnecessary things then stfu.
 
miplank said:
and i'm perfectly fine w/that when you have the funds to do so.


But if you're living from paycheck to paycheck and spending your money on unnecessary things then stfu.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that. Before I had children, I got my nails done and hair done all the time, paid for dry cleaning every time I wore a suit, etc. Now, I haven't had my nails done professionally in 4 years. I wear my suits at least twice and hang them up when I get home, and my hair is down past my waist. I blow all my money on Fisher Price and Disney movies. :worried:
 
what I dont get is the continuity of welfare, I dont get how people live off welfare, they should really get damn jobs, even if it's minimum wage, but having welfare, EBT, etc the whole 9 yards for over a couple of months or a year seems wrong, it's one thing to need help but it's another to fully support a person who can work, THAT is what maked me mad, woman and men who are able to work and they just sit and collect welfare, unemployment, etc I loved unemployment back in the day when you went to an office and had to explain to a person what you have done and where you have gone to get employed, it's easier to lie to a computer/online than to have that psychological pressure of a person...
 
I just feel if I received a govnmint check I wood be moar connected to teh Springer viewing experience


just sayin'
 
cap gunz said:
I can't disagree with that. Before I had children, I got my nails done and hair done all the time, paid for dry cleaning every time I wore a suit, etc. Now, I haven't had my nails done professionally in 4 years. I wear my suits at least twice and hang them up when I get home, and my hair is down past my waist. I blow all my money on Fisher Price and Disney movies. :worried:
Click to expand...
I had my nails and hair done every week in Costa Rica.... now I wear a pony tail :worried:
 
PICK3 said:
I may have a few little unclaimed bastards running around somewhere

thx 4 supporting them Plunkey :wavey:
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe a kid popped out of Mr. Long John's asshole.

Just sayin'
 
musclemom said:
In the meantime you throw off the cash flow of the decent people. Honestly, you're being a dick just for the sake of being a dick.

Why do so many assume all who are on welfare are greedy, lazy useless pieces of human waste? All I can say is this board seems to be loaded with people who have no experience with life handing you a shit sandwich despite all efforts on your behalf for life to go otherwise :whatever:

You're just mean. I hope to god nobody ever treats your children or grandchildren with such a lack of empathy. Of course, what concerns for their futures do they have? You've taken care of them, right? Given them good educations, trust funds, life insurance.

See, nobody gave me anything, no start in life other than not smothering me in my crib. No education, no after school activities. My interests were considered frivolous and certainly nothing to pursue after high school. My clothes came from a 2nd hand store most of my life. I never owned furniture that didn't come from bulk trash collection day until I was in my late 20s.

Let them eat cake, right Plunk :supercool
Click to expand...

Nature versus Nurture, nature always wins... Apathy versus Empathy, apathy always wins...
 
nangiggles said:
what I dont get is the continuity of welfare, I dont get how people live off welfare, they should really get damn jobs, even if it's minimum wage, but having welfare, EBT, etc the whole 9 yards for over a couple of months or a year seems wrong, it's one thing to need help but it's another to fully support a person who can work, THAT is what maked me mad, woman and men who are able to work and they just sit and collect welfare, unemployment, etc I loved unemployment back in the day when you went to an office and had to explain to a person what you have done and where you have gone to get employed, it's easier to lie to a computer/online than to have that psychological pressure of a person...
Click to expand...
I'm only going to talk about "assumed" honest people, the bad case scenarios:

Young children create a problem regarding work. If you don't have a skill set that enables you to be employed and making sufficient money for day care, and you don't have family who are capable of watching your kids, depending on the age of the kids you could be stuck on welfare for quite a while (and don't assume child support is covering that. If you're uneducated/unskilled, odds are the people you have relationships with are, as well. Child support is based on the income of both parents).

For others it can be a physical/mental health issues. My stepdaughter cannot find work after being unemployed for more than a year. Nobody wants to hire her, she can't even get an interview. She has a terrible work record (5 jobs in less than 2 years). Combine that with the fact the economy really hasn't rebounded very much in this region, there are tons of people looking for work. Why even bother bringing her with her shitty work record in when there's people out there who have good, solid work histories. When she does interview her Asperger's doesn't exactly do her any favors. To strangers she does not read as cheerful, enthusiastic or even engaged.

Finally, there is a certain age group (generally, 50 and over) who are fighting a losing battle. Frankly, people coming out of high school and college are willing and capable of doing their jobs relatively competently for substantially lower pay. Companies do not like to hire someone to do a job they have done previously but pay them a reduced rate. They know it probably will generate anger and resentment on the part of the employee. Much easier to take the green 20-something who thinks $25k a year with no benes is awesome instead of the experienced 50-something who used to do the same job for another company, but at the time got $45k, full benes and 4 weeks paid.
 
See MM those examples you mentioned I completely understand, what I hate are those who mooch off the system so they dont even have to try...
 
I think its perfectly fair. Us hard-working individuals have to pass a drug test to EARN money. I think it's only fair for them to take a drug test to TAKE our money.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 
musclemom said:
I'm only going to talk about "assumed" honest people, the bad case scenarios:

Young children create a problem regarding work. If you don't have a skill set that enables you to be employed and making sufficient money for day care, and you don't have family who are capable of watching your kids, depending on the age of the kids you could be stuck on welfare for quite a while (and don't assume child support is covering that. If you're uneducated/unskilled, odds are the people you have relationships with are, as well. Child support is based on the income of both parents).

For others it can be a physical/mental health issues. My stepdaughter cannot find work after being unemployed for more than a year. Nobody wants to hire her, she can't even get an interview. She has a terrible work record (5 jobs in less than 2 years). Combine that with the fact the economy really hasn't rebounded very much in this region, there are tons of people looking for work. Why even bother bringing her with her shitty work record in when there's people out there who have good, solid work histories. When she does interview her Asperger's doesn't exactly do her any favors. To strangers she does not read as cheerful, enthusiastic or even engaged.

Finally, there is a certain age group (generally, 50 and over) who are fighting a losing battle. Frankly, people coming out of high school and college are willing and capable of doing their jobs relatively competently for substantially lower pay. Companies do not like to hire someone to do a job they have done previously but pay them a reduced rate. They know it probably will generate anger and resentment on the part of the employee. Much easier to take the green 20-something who thinks $25k a year with no benes is awesome instead of the experienced 50-something who used to do the same job for another company, but at the time got $45k, full benes and 4 weeks paid.
Click to expand...

Interesting examples. Let's focus on the first one. Someone has a child but can't get a good enough job to clear the child care cost.

Now let's ignore the willing sources of help (charities, family, friends, churches, community, etc. etc.). Let's just focus on non-voluntary sources of support -- money that is taken, not given.

1) How much of a working person's labor should go to the person who doesn't work? I'm curious... is it 2% of their labor efforts... 15%.... 50%? I'm curious to see where you see the line.

2) What about subsequent bad decisions? What if they have two more kids? What if they decide to abuse alcohol or drugs? Does the public's obligation increase?

3) What about lifestyle choices? If the person is 150 lbs over ideal body weight, does that increase the public's obligation?
 
mrplunkey said:
Interesting examples. Let's focus on the first one. Someone has a child but can't get a good enough job to clear the child care cost.

Now let's ignore the willing sources of help (charities, family, friends, churches, community, etc. etc.). Let's just focus on non-voluntary sources of support -- money that is taken, not given.

1) How much of a working person's labor should go to the person who doesn't work? I'm curious... is it 2% of their labor efforts... 15%.... 50%? I'm curious to see where you see the line.

2) What about subsequent bad decisions? What if they have two more kids? What if they decide to abuse alcohol or drugs? Does the public's obligation increase?

3) What about lifestyle choices? If the person is 150 lbs over ideal body weight, does that increase the public's obligation?
Click to expand...

Meanie conservative irregardless of moar entitlement spending
 
mrplunkey said:
Interesting examples. Let's focus on the first one. Someone has a child but can't get a good enough job to clear the child care cost.

Now let's ignore the willing sources of help (charities, family, friends, churches, community, etc. etc.). Let's just focus on non-voluntary sources of support -- money that is taken, not given.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that people all over the place are just dying to watch your infant/toddler for free? When I was home with my son my husband and I had moved to an area where I knew nobody and my friends, our parents and his siblings all worked full time anyway. Church? HUH? There is no free daycare charities that I had ever heard of nor in any church (and I didn't belong to a church, anyway, you can't even send your kid to catholic school if you don't belong to that religion, whether you're able to pay the tuition or not).

mrplunkey said:
1) How much of a working person's labor should go to the person who doesn't work? I'm curious... is it 2% of their labor efforts... 15%.... 50%? I'm curious to see where you see the line.
Click to expand...
I've never thought about it, I don't think that way since I have no say in how it gets spent currently. I pay my taxes because it's the law. If they go up or down, I just adjust my budget accordingly, I don't really know, or want to think about, where things go.

mrplunkey said:
2) What about subsequent bad decisions? What if they have two more kids? What if they decide to abuse alcohol or drugs? Does the public's obligation increase?
Click to expand...
Again, all I was doing was providing potential scenarios where a person could be on welfare and not be a purposeful leach on the system, just a decent person who happened to be in a bind. People like you who don't believe there is ever a reason to go on welfare can't see that there could be cases where people need a hand to get over a bad stretch. For example, if my 57 year old husband were to get laid off from his job, the odds of him ever finding a job where he's makng what he makes now is practically zero. In fact, we happen to be very good friends with a couple that the husband is the foreman/supervisor for a company that does exactly the type of work my husband does, and he offered my husband a job (remember, very, very good friends and they're about 50 miles from us so it's the same basic geographic area). He offered the top rate his company permits him to pay, it would have been a $15k cut in wages and loss of three weeks paid vacation. When I first got pregnant with my son I had to quit my job (it was just a BS job in a mall). I kept fainting, never fainted before or since but I nearly hit the floor on three separate occasions. My husband and I were living with his mother, he had a job, but no benefits. I had to go on medical assistance to be able to see an OB doc.

mrplunkey said:
3) What about lifestyle choices? If the person is 150 lbs over ideal body weight, does that increase the public's obligation?
Click to expand...
Little FYI, just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they wouldn't like to be otherwise. I have another friend who is morbidly obese, she'd love to lose the weight, and is willing to cut the calories and exercise. Little problem, she has only one kneecap and blew out a tendon in the other leg (she was only released from six weeks of near total bed rest in an immobilizer last week) the only way she can exercise at all is in a pool in a highly limited fashion. She can only go and down steps one at a time and has to restrict that as much as possible. Additionally, she's on several antipsychotic medications which have completely destroyed her metabolism. In the beginning of this year she went on a liquid diet in anticipation of gastric bypass. After three months on less than 1000 calories a day she had lost the equivalent of less than 1/2 pound a week and the restricted calories were causing severe problems with her meds. I know for a fact there are several drugs used for BPD or epilepsy that people start taking and weight just piles on and they can't lose it. Considering the GI tract is lined with neural tissue, it makes sense, but that doesn't make it any easier to live with.

Just because life is black and white and straightforward for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else.
 
In Ontario, Canada, you can collect disability benefits if you are a drug addict or alcoholic. They are considered disabilities. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that it would be discriminatory not to provide these people with benefits according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms CanLII - 2010 ONCA 593 (CanLII)


From Section 15 of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
 
jjtt said:
In Ontario, Canada, you can collect disability benefits if you are a drug addict or alcoholic. They are considered disabilities. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that it would be discriminatory not to provide these people with benefits according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms CanLII - 2010 ONCA 593 (CanLII)


From Section 15 of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Click to expand...

Holy fuck I gotta move to canada so i can fogg out and get paid by the government
 
superdave said:
Holy fuck I gotta move to canada so i can fogg out and get paid by the government
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen how hard it is to get into Canada?

It's the ultimate irony that such an open-minded, progressive bunch would be so harsh.
 
MM makes excellent points. My son is on the autistic spectrum, and I'm just damn lucky that my daycare will take him and doesn't ask me to pay a boatload for his care. Between my two kids, daycare is $1100 a month, and that is with my son attending preschool half the day because he is special needs. That makes money tight.
 
I wish IL would adopt this policy. It'll probably never happen thanks to f'n Chicago :(

Whiskey
 
cap gunz said:
MM makes excellent points. My son is on the autistic spectrum, and I'm just damn lucky that my daycare will take him and doesn't ask me to pay a boatload for his care. Between my two kids, daycare is $1100 a month, and that is with my son attending preschool half the day because he is special needs. That makes money tight.
Click to expand...
The one thing you have going for you, if you can consider it that, is that the younger a kid is diagnosed with autism the easier it is to get assistance and more importantly, education will be geared appropriately. Enroll him in everything you can. Trying to get access to programs for adult diagnosed individuals is like some sort of Chinese water torture. I'm lucky I (finally) found an advocacy group that specializes in working with autistic adults, I was beginning to lose what little mind I have left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Macedog24
Need more energy? Take a placebo! (This is why I love Oral injections like TBOL and Drol)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Topps_Baseball88
Topps_Baseball88
Macedog24
The best STEROIDS for your arsenal to get MONSTER SIZE + Hardcore bulking article
Replies
8
Views
4K
Tazz
Tazz
Macedog24
🏋🏻*♀️NEW DRUG enhancing performance x 10🏋🏻*♀️
Replies
5
Views
2K
stathis169
stathis169
~Vision~
A quantitative look at the multitudinous benefits of peptides & IGF-1 levels (study)
Replies
6
Views
3K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
~Vision~
Tren/Injection cough explained (Backed by a clinical studies)
Replies
4
Views
3K
MasonicBodybuilder
MasonicBodybuilder
Top Bottom