This legislation is supposedly going into affect in Florida starting July 1st of this year. All applicants are required to pay for the mandatory testing out of pocket, and if they pass, would be refunded their money, and allowed to begin receiving benefits. If they do not pass, much like the dreaded renter's damage deposit, they lose out on their "I'm applying for welfare" deposit, and are banned from applying again for a year; 6 months if they can prove that they have successfully completed a drug treatment program, which they would have had to fund themselves. Two failed drug tests in a row, and you're blacklisted for 3 years.
If a person fails a test, there is the option of delegating another adult to receive the benefits to ensure that the failed test bearer's children will be accounted for and able to receive help. Of course, the delegated adult must also be able to pass a drug test, or the children of these failed drug test applicants are pretty much shit out of luck. **Side Note**If one looks closely at the footnote of this proposed Bill, you can see the following sentence in italicized writing "Sucks to be you Poor Kids! Next time try being born into a family that doesn't suck at life you dumbshits!! Tea Party 4 Lyfe!"
Now, reading the general population's thoughts on this bill over the last few days has been somewhat of a struggle for me. If you keep up with this blog on a regular basis, you're aware of my short temper, foul mouth, and inability to deal with stupidity for more than 5 seconds at a time. But over the last 48 hours, I have reached an entirely new level of rage, one that burns so white hot, its almost undetectable. I'm going to try very hard to keep my cool, because yelling at you and calling you a stupid asshole does nothing to help you understand where I'm coming from or to really hear the facts that are being presented to you.
So. Lets begin at the beginning. Which for me, stems from who this legislation is being proposed by. Enter one, Rick Scott. To prove to you that I'm not using a completely biased news source, I'm submitting the link to Wikipedia's entry about this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott . Dear Wikipedia: I don't know how your copyrighting rules work, but anything I take directly from your site, any complete, full sentences, I give you credit for. Please don't sue me.
Rick Scott started out as a lawyer in Dallas, working for Johnson & Swanson during the late 80s, early 90s. At some point in his career, Scott became interested in hospitals, and took it upon himself to head a new business endeavor entitled, Columbia Hospital Corporation, along with 2 other businessmen. Columbia Hospital Corporation, founded in 1988, experienced such rapid development over such a short time frame, that it was recognized by Business Week Magazine as one of the 50 Best Performing Companies of the S&P in 1997. To really understand the full scope of CHC's success, a timeline is necessary.
*1989--First year of business, CHC acquires 4 hospitals in El Paso, totaling over 833 beds
*1992--CHC merges with Basic American Medical, adding 8 more hospitals to their total
*1993--CHC buys out Galen Health Care, 90 more hospitals acquired.
*1994--CHC finally buys out Hospital Corporation of America, 100 more hospitals gained
*1995--CHC purchases Healthtrust, 80 more hospitals acquired
*1997--Over 350 hospitals, 130 surgery centers, and 550 home health care locations owned by CHC. CHC is bringing in a revenue of over 23 billion dollars, and is the 7th largest employer in the United States, and the 12th largest employer in the world. You read that correctly. The world. Rick Scott is Chairman, and CEO of all of this.
*March 19th, 1997--FBI special agents raid dozens of CHC hospitals in an attempt to recover evidence of the millions of dollars in Medicare fraud that several whistle blowers, and former CHC employees claimed to have been privy to over many years.
*2000 and 2002--CHC pleads guilty to 14 felonies and agrees to a $600 million dollar fine--the largest fraud settlement in US history. Rick Scott resigns as Chairman and CEO, but is awarded a 9.88 million dollar settlement, 10 million shares of CHC stock, and does no jail time.
Scott goes on to become a venture capitalist, forming Richard L Scott Investments, which has stakes in health care, manufacturing and technology companies. He co-founds Solantic in 2001, a Jacksonville based urgent care center that provides urgent care services, immunizations, physicals, drug screening, and care for injured workers. As of March 2009, Solantic had 24 centers, all located in Florida. Solantic has been the target of numerous employment discrimination suits, including one that settled with 7 plaintiffs for an undisclosed sum on May 23, 2007. These suits allegedly stem from a Scott-directed policy to not hire elderly or overweight applicants, preferring 'mainstream' candidates.
Scott assumes office as the 45th Governor of Florida on January 4th, 2011, after reportedly spending $78 million dollars of his own money to fund his campaign. His opponent, Alex Sink, reportedly spent $28 million.
So...
Why did I just tell you all of this? Because you should want to know it. The man proposing mandatory drug testing for all welfare applicants in the state of Florida is banking on the fact that you are an idiot. He is hoping that you will be more interested in the upcoming results of the Bachelorette than the moral integrity of the people running your country. He is laughing that he was in charge of the company that boasts the largest fraud settlement in US history, and that he did absolutely no jail time for it. He giggles thinking about how he was paid millions of dollars for washing his hands of the whole thing and knowing that America will let his greed and indiscretions fall off their radar, and in fact, will forget to the point that they decide he is the right person to run the state of Florida.
And he privately owns--now recently transferred into his wife's name--24 Urgent Care Centers in Florida, all of which offer drug testing as one of their services. This is the kind of person trying to put into place legislation that has previously been determined unconstitutional.
So now you know. And I can hear 3/4 of you screaming at me "So what!!! We don't give a flying fuck what Rick Scott has done in the past!!! We like what hes saying, because I'll be damned if my tax dollars go towards funding someones drug habit, when I bust my ass every day to pay my car loan, and rent, and buy toilet paper and Cheetos, and Reebok's". And I get what you are saying. I actually do. I understand why you are frustrated thinking that you work hard for your money, and that you think it is unfair that there are other people in the world that can meet their basic needs without having to work. My response to that sentiment:
1) : Lots of things in life aren't fair. Stop being a little bitch about it.**See comments section for further explanation of this, if it made your hackles rise**
2): There is no such thing as self made; everyone who has become financially successful did it with some form of help, no matter what they say. Being born into the right family, having at least one teacher that helped you with college applications or believed in you, living in a home that values work and working and passes those values on to you, these are all things we take for granted. Lots of people don't even experience one of those things.
3): You have no idea how vastly different your life could have been had you not had some form of help along the way. If you were born into a different family. I wish there was a way I could show you what might have been. If thinking you are better than someone applying for welfare makes you feel good about yourself, I alternate between feeling pity towards you, and wanting to smash your face in with a baseball bat.
4): If I'm interpreting you correctly, what you are really saying is that you are upset because 'using drugs' is not a necessary or legal act and as such, poor people should not be allowed to partake in something "unnecessary or illegal" on the tax payers dime. Lets deal with the "unnecessary" part first. What about welfare recipients abusing nicotine, alcohol, or prescription drugs? How does that make you feel? All 3 perfectly legal, but not necessary for survival. Should we demand that they be tested for these substances as well? It would stand to reason, with your logic, that yes, we should. What about making sure they aren't eating frozen pizza and hot dogs and blue mountain dew and oreos every night? Certainly these foods are not necessary for survival. We should probably add those to the pee test list as well. It's a very slippery slope, and passing legislation like this only paves the way for more invasive measures and larger forms of Big Government. Now for the "illegal" activity part. Can you say Government Bailout? Was that not the biggest example of taxpayer money going to support illegal activity ever??? What about every shady senator or Governor or Representative whose salary is funded by your taxes? Why are we ok with funding their acts of fraud and theft on the grandest scale, but yet we demand that Joe Everybody piss in a cup before signing up for an EBT card because the $8.50 hes making working 40 hours a week at McDonald's isn't cutting it to support his wife and two kids?
The enemy is not the poor. You are being programmed to look below you on the social ladder instead of above you. All I'm asking is that you take 5 minutes to really think about the big picture. Put this in perspective. I'm leaving you with the words of a good friend:
great job! I hope 3/4 of the people who read you aren't saying "wtf?! this doesn't matter" because it does.
ReplyDelete<3 barb
This is Maria. Blogger is fucked and keeps adding my comment as Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks Barbie <3
Some clarification: 1) I knew that #1 could be thrown back at me. Completely agree with that. I wanted to say that, because its one of my personal mottos, because I have been fumin...g about this entire topic, and because being blunt makes me feel less strokey. And overall, I think that no one, poor, rich, or middle class, should bitch about how life is unfair. Obviously in this context, it sounds like Im only applying it to the middle class, but in my day to day work with welfare participants, I often tell them "guess what? life isnt fair. what are you going to do about it?" But to me knowing that life is not fair, and being able to recognize systematic forms of keeping the rich richer and the poor poorer, are two different things. 2) In the 4 years I have worked with TANF, I have honestly only ever met a handful of people addicted to drugs and on the system. Ask me how many people I have met that are alcoholics and chain cigarette smokers? Thats where I get upset. You cant say you dont want someone to spend your money on an illegal substance they dont need, if you are ok with them blowing that same money on a legal substance that potentially has worse consequences for them physically, and poses a bigger tax on our healthcare system. 3) My point in saying to "look above you on the social ladder" isnt that rich people need to fix these problems and give up all of their wealth. Its that rich people, and white collar crime, is not held to the same standards in our justice system as being caught with an eighth of weed, or stealing a few candybars from SuperAmerica. Thats not ok. How can someone in charge of the biggest fraud settlement in US history do no jail time??? Why is that socially acceptable?? It is, because we have been taught that it is. Thats what I mean by systematic forms of maintaining the social ladder. Thats what I hope more people will open their eyes to.
cheetohs
ReplyDeletemmmyomyomyom
Not sure if you've read this book before:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307813603&sr=1-1
That's what your post made me think of. Good read.
Damnit Maria, I usually like your posts, but I can't let this one slide. While I agree with your overall conclusion, much as I don't like it, your arguments are terrible.
ReplyDelete1. (Life isn't fair) This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't make any sense to discuss unfair rules when discussing a system specifically built for changing the rules.
4. (Slippery slope/bailout) Bullshit. The whole concept of a slippery slope is a fallacy, because each individual change to our laws is examined separately. Just because our laws become somewhat more like that of some totalitarian regime, doesn't imply some kind of momentum that's going to keep pushing us towards that point.
Secondly, you're using the bailout as a justification for your argument? Are you insane!? Claiming that the bailout justifies illegal activity is the stupidest thing I have ever heard you say, and I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, I'm stating that as a fact. Neither of these situations are acceptable.
Now look, I'm not even sure if I've adequately covered the points you've made, it's 7 AM here, and I just got up, so I'm not all that right now. But I just had to jump in with a few counterpoints. This comment is really as finished and fleshed out as I'd like, but I've got stuff I need to get to, and I didn't want to leave this unposted.
James, thanks for the post. To be honest, I dont even remember most of what I wrote, but I can respond to a few points. First of all, I wasnt saying the bailout justifies illegal activity. I was trying to show that our country is ok with supporting white collar crime by being willing to bailout those white collar criminals, but that we arent ok with crime if its committed by someone in the middle or lower class--the reason being behind this drug testing is that poor people shouldnt be involved in illegal activity if we are going to give them money. Thats what I meant by using the bailout as a point of reference--since all those dickheads were involved in a whole lot of illegal activity and yet they received money out of our pockets just the same.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I do think in regards to dealing with people on government assistance, there is a fine line between gathering information to better serve the client/make sure the client is following the rules, compared to gathering information just to have lots of private information about someone. Its easy for conservatives to make a connection between welfare recipients and illegal drug users because we have been conditioned to think that the only people who use illegal drugs are poor, bad people, thus its socially acceptable to demand that all poor people signing up for government aid be drug tested. Just because my state representative might not being doing Blow, doesnt mean that person isnt abusing alcohol or snorting his sons adderall. Why not make sure all government officials are drug tested as well? Do you see what Im saying? This was a political move to gain stray votes from a man who is just about as evil as they come. This doesnt have anything to do with cleaning up the welfare system. Scott doesnt really give a shit about that at all. Like abortion, or illegal immigration, welfare reform is a way for conservatives to get people riled up without even understanding what they are upset about in the first place.