• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Welfare

What do you think welfare should be?

  • Leave it as it is

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Make provisions to the current welfare system. Explain

    Votes: 24 64.9%
  • Abolish it completely.

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Other. Explain

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • Total voters
    37
There are much more precise ways to limit welfare fraud and waste. Scalpel-not-axe approach.

One example: Eliminate benzodiazepines from all formularies. There should be laws against prescribing them on an outpatient basis. Soooo many people simply claim anxiety and get those pills for cheap (thanks Medicaid!) and sell them and trade up on the street.

Forget universal drug testing. Just stop permitting doctors to hand out addictive substances. Benzodiazepines, opioids and amphetamines. Get rid of 'em. That'd be a giant step in the right direction.
 
I think the biggest problem to that graph is the 178 million they attribute to testing costs.

This tells me two things: the government inefficiently allocates resources, and too many people apply for and are considered for welfare. Yeah, duh to both, right?

My cries for reform ring louder now.
 
There are much more precise ways to limit welfare fraud and waste. Scalpel-not-axe approach.

One example: Eliminate benzodiazepines from all formularies. There should be laws against prescribing them on an outpatient basis. Soooo many people simply claim anxiety and get those pills for cheap (thanks Medicaid!) and sell them and trade up on the street.

Forget universal drug testing. Just stop permitting doctors to hand out addictive substances. Benzodiazepines, opioids and amphetamines. Get rid of 'em. That'd be a giant step in the right direction.

Geez paranoid much? Why don't you leave prescription decision up to doctors who know more about this than you do. Preventing doctors from prescribing people medications isn't going to limit their abuse. Doctors don't prescribe cocaine do they?
 
Geez paranoid much? Why don't you leave prescription decision up to doctors who know more about this than you do.

Because a) many do a ****ty job of it and b) many dont in fact know as
much about the problem as I do. But my personal knowledge/expertise aside, the conditions that benzodiazepines, opioids and amphetamines treat (anxiety, pain and attention deficits) are not lethal. Many people receive them and don't abuse or sell them. Tough. The ethical drawbacks of harming patients by dealing drugs to them outweighs the subjective benefits of these drugs. There's insufficient medical necessity to have to keep prescribing them.

Preventing doctors from prescribing people medications isn't going to limit their abuse.

Yes it will. Eliminating addictive meds from the formulary restricts people's means to get their fix.

Doctors don't prescribe cocaine do they?

If their patients are trading Xanax for cocaine, they might as well be.
 
Because a) many do a ****ty job of it and b) many dont in fact know as
much about the problem as I do. But my personal knowledge/expertise aside, the conditions that benzodiazepines, opioids and amphetamines treat (anxiety, pain and attention deficits) are not lethal. Many people receive them and don't abuse or sell them. Tough. The ethical drawbacks of harming patients by dealing drugs to them outweighs the subjective benefits of these drugs. There's insufficient medical necessity to have to keep prescribing them.
And you treat how many people a week? How many are over 62? How many are disabled?

Have you ever had a personal injury or condition that required pain medications beyond OTC?
If so, what was prescribed for you?

Are there other treatment options available instead of benzodiazepines?
Would you expect some patients to get better with the use of benzodiazepines?

Same questions for amphetamines?


If you're denying a possible cure or relief are you willing to continue supporting these people indefinitely?
 
Last edited:
And you treat how many people a week? How many are over 62? How many are disabled?

Have you ever had a personal injury or condition that required pain medications beyond OTC?
If so, what was prescribed for you?

Are there other treatment options available instead of benzodiazepines or amphetamines? Would you expect some patients to get better with the use of these drugs?

Okay, I admit I came out swinging with this idea. I'm not going to cling to the death to the idea that these meds need to disappear completely, and your questions are valid.

But it's true that government programs are sticking the taxpayer with costs of medications that people deal as drugs of abuse, and rooting that out in efficient ways needs to be a higher priority.

Pharmaceutical companies will resist any moves in this direction, of course, because some of the money they make is from this taxpayer-funded addiction process.
 
If you're denying a possible cure or relief are you willing to continue supporting these people indefinitely?

Hang on, relief, absolutely. The drugs I mentioned provide wonderful relief. But with a risk of addiction. Cure on the other hand? Absolutely not. These meds "cure" nothing.
 
Hang on, relief, absolutely. The drugs I mentioned provide wonderful relief. But with a risk of addiction. Cure on the other hand? Absolutely not. These meds "cure" nothing.
If it lessens the problem so that a normal lifestyle can be resumed or partially resumed then that's good enough. I thought I had read amphetamines, especially in conjunction with other treatment, could do that?
 
Yup. All that has to be done is to show up at the home of someone who is getting benefits and have them pee in a cup in front of a witness. No problem.

I think it would easier just have everyone on welfare show up to the welfare office to collect their welfare where they are randomly tested and have a male and female drug tester on the spot to make sure they aren't cheating.
 
If it lessens the problem so that a normal lifestyle can be resumed or partially resumed then that's good enough. I thought I had read amphetamines, especially in conjunction with other treatment, could do that?

Any of them can, technically.

I bolded your post because it is critical. That is a big 'if' scenario. People on welfare are more likely to not return to "normal" functioning in that they resume work, pay their bills, etc. (if they did they'd generally not be on welfare). This is a reasonable generalization. And I don't think it serves anyone to have tax dollars enriching Big Pharma so that non-contribution individuals can become intoxicated non-contributing individuals.

So, pain meds, anti-anxiety meds and amphetamines only if a) it enables you to function productively or b) it's administered to you.

Or SOMEthing that stems the abuse and sale of Rx drugs. There are lots of ways to improve this problem.
 
Any of them can, technically.

I bolded your post because it is critical. That is a big 'if' scenario. People on welfare are more likely to not return to "normal" functioning in that they resume work, pay their bills, etc. (if they did they'd generally not be on welfare). This is a reasonable generalization. And I don't think it serves anyone to have tax dollars enriching Big Pharma so that non-contribution individuals can become intoxicated non-contributing individuals.

So, pain meds, anti-anxiety meds and amphetamines only if a) it enables you to function productively or b) it's administered to you.

Or SOMEthing that stems the abuse and sale of Rx drugs. There are lots of ways to improve this problem.
In my State you only get so many months (I think it's still 24) on Welfare, so, you'd better find your answers by then. If that means disability then so be it, then it's no longer Welfare. If it's not then you're on your own. I think we still cover children for food stamps and medical past that time but not adults.
 
In my State you only get so many months (I think it's still 24) on Welfare, so, you'd better find your answers by then. If that means disability then so be it, then it's no longer Welfare.

For purposes of this argument we should lump, not split. Let's call it social programs if you like. Or DHHS. If taxpayers foot the Medicaid and Medicare bills, and Medicaid and Medicare seek to preserve Americans' welfare, then it's all the same nature: taxpayers paying for the things needy people 'need.' And I don't think that should include drugs of abuse for which there is demand on the street.
 
I come from an area that has a lot of people on welfare. My neighboring town is roughly 86%. I can honestly say that when I go through that town I am amazed. It is not rare to see expensive cars, rims, and hear the bumping of expensive stereo systems in cars. For the most part the people are dressed in expensive clothes and shoes. To pile it on it is common to see many people walking the streets in the middle of the day during the week. It frustrates me to see the welfare system abused. However, I am not completely against it. My question is what do you think the welfare system should be like?

I feel it should go something like this. I would like to see the people on welfare drug tested. Next I think there should be somewhat of a stepping system. People that receive welfare should have to do some community service. Maybe two three times a week to earn their check. Give them x amount of days to get a job. Any job, working at McDonalds if they have to. This way their welfare check can be reduced. The system should be organized to help people get off of their feet, not feel its ok to sit at home and just get a hand-out.

I don't believe it's a perfect system. Surely things such as corporate welfare should be done away with on the whole. However, in general for the People and the individual; it's not a bad idea. There are lots of benefits we can collectively gain through a program such as welfare. I wouldn't scrap it, but I would overhaul it.

As for drug testing. No, absolutely not. Hell, I've come to a point where I understand arguments against private business being able to drug test. Not quite accepting it full out yet, but I understand the argument. It particularly resonates with someone like me who believes that most things should be performance based.
 
Last edited:
For purposes of this argument we should lump, not split. Let's call it social programs if you like. Or DHHS. If taxpayers foot the Medicaid and Medicare bills, and Medicaid and Medicare seek to preserve Americans' welfare, then it's all the same nature: taxpayers paying for the things needy people 'need.' And I don't think that should include drugs of abuse for which there is demand on the street.
Well, I'm sure that would suit your purposes better but since the OP is talking about people getting a job and working then I don't think that was the intent of this thread. Disability and retirement are just that, and neither are the same as welfare. Since virtually every government entity from Uncle Sam down to our local counties treat them as separate I see no reason to "lump" anything.


With Welfare we are trying to get people back to work and doing whatever it takes to accomplish that. That's the only mission/goal of Welfare. Obviously people on disability and retirement are in for the long haul, permanently in the case of retirement and at least long-range if not permanent in the case of disability.
 
Last edited:
This is how I think of welfare:

• statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need
• financial support given for this purpose.

So SSDI and Medicaid fit within this, to me. And that's a major source of the inspiration for my post about prescription drugs that become street drugs, which built off of someone else's comment about drug testing welfare recipients. But, I suppose I digress.
 
Welfare needs a drastic overhaul these days. The amount needs to be reduced, it needs to require full-time employment, recipients should be mandated to take random, frequent drug tests, and women need to be placed on some sort of birth control who receive funding. These are just tips of the iceberg.


Excellent. I could not have phrased it any better...........
 
I come from an area that has a lot of people on welfare. My neighboring town is roughly 86%. I can honestly say that when I go through that town I am amazed. It is not rare to see expensive cars, rims, and hear the bumping of expensive stereo systems in cars. For the most part the people are dressed in expensive clothes and shoes. To pile it on it is common to see many people walking the streets in the middle of the day during the week. It frustrates me to see the welfare system abused. However, I am not completely against it. My question is what do you think the welfare system should be like?

I feel it should go something like this. I would like to see the people on welfare drug tested. Next I think there should be somewhat of a stepping system. People that receive welfare should have to do some community service. Maybe two three times a week to earn their check. Give them x amount of days to get a job. Any job, working at McDonalds if they have to. This way their welfare check can be reduced. The system should be organized to help people get off of their feet, not feel its ok to sit at home and just get a hand-out.

Excellent repsonse.........
 
There is a time in life when people may need welfare. Welfare should be much more conservative. You should be given a card that has all your money on it. Then you use that card to buy things then the government can see what you buy. If you don't hunt for a job or rarely hunt for a job you wil eventually lose your welfare priviliges. Also you should be required to show I.D and a social security number. Basically welfare should be monitired more so the government can know how you're spending that money.
 
There is a time in life when people may need welfare. Welfare should be much more conservative. You should be given a card that has all your money on it. Then you use that card to buy things then the government can see what you buy. If you don't hunt for a job or rarely hunt for a job you wil eventually lose your welfare priviliges. Also you should be required to show I.D and a social security number. Basically welfare should be monitired more so the government can know how you're spending that money.

this is so typical of people who don't really understand the way TANF works. able bodied people without children DO NOT receive welfare. most states have time limits on welfare as well.
 
I think it would easier just have everyone on welfare show up to the welfare office to collect their welfare where they are randomly tested and have a male and female drug tester on the spot to make sure they aren't cheating.

Just where in that line would Exxon/Mobil, GE, B of A, and the many thousands of Corporate Welfare recipients stand. I think "test them all," acknowledge reality or retreat into your pipe dreams generated by the "Mighty Wurlitzer."
 
this is so typical of people who don't really understand the way TANF works. able bodied people without children DO NOT receive welfare. most states have time limits on welfare as well.

Screw drug testing for welfare. Drug test SSDI folks, or boot them from the program if they test hot for it (eg in the course of receiving medical treatment). Then again, I consider SSDI, SSI, and a host of other things welfare, not just the one or two tiny little programs we can't figure out another name for.
 
this is so typical of people who don't really understand the way TANF works. able bodied people without children DO NOT receive welfare. most states have time limits on welfare as well.

Most people complaining about welfare while they simultaneously oppose a living wage, seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the welfare reform in 1996.
 
Last edited:
catawba said:
Most people complaining about welfare while they simultaneously oppose a living wage, seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the welfare reform in 1996.

Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to determine what a "living wage" is? If you want to boil it down, you could argue that minimum wage is a living wage if you eat extremely cheap and share a place with other people/family(ies).

I'm rather sick and tired of people who think that mule work entitles them to this, that, and everything else. If you're not making a market wage, don't blame the market. The blame lies back at the accuser.
 
Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to determine what a "living wage" is? If you want to boil it down, you could argue that minimum wage is a living wage if you eat extremely cheap and share a place with other people/family(ies).

I'm rather sick and tired of people who think that mule work entitles them to this, that, and everything else. If you're not making a market wage, don't blame the market. The blame lies back at the accuser.

Thanks for the far right wing perspective! :2wave:
 
Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to determine what a "living wage" is? If you want to boil it down, you could argue that minimum wage is a living wage if you eat extremely cheap and share a place with other people/family(ies).
I agree minimum wage or some derivative thereof should be a living wage.

I'm rather sick and tired of people who think that mule work entitles them to this, that, and everything else. If you're not making a market wage, don't blame the market. The blame lies back at the accuser.
In the 90's, hell, even for most of Bush's terms, I might have agreed with this. In today's economic climate it's either incredibly short-sighted or typical Party Line.
 
Back
Top Bottom