Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

[ElasticNinja]

By men who were slave owners, no less.

The great founding fathers and their constitution, beloved by so many

Rubert Murdoch must be laughing so hard lol

 

[lordofthereef]

Leave it to lawyers, accountants and insurance reps. How much for a child, who has no earnings history? How much for a Peace Care volunteer? How much for a black or Hispanic? Or a woman? Or some combination of these ...

You can look at it as a terrible thing, but when we take people to court, generally for MONEY, you have to apply a monetary value in some way, shape, or form.

 

[lordofthereef]

http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2011/11-58-testing.pdf

A link to the executive order. Will be reading now. Thought others may enjoy it.

My thoughts to come.

EDIT: This is regarding state workers, not wellfare recipeints. Gives us a nice idea though. I am scouring the interwebs to find the documentation pertaining to wellfare recipients.

 

[lordofthereef]

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0353&Session=2011

Here we go.

 

[lordofthereef]

The parent may choose to designate another individual to receive benefits for the parent's minor child. The designated individual must be an immediate family member or, if an immediate family member is not available or the family member declines the option, another individual, approved by the department, may be designated. The designated individual must also undergo drug testing before being approved to receive benefits on behalf of the child. If the designated individual tests positive for controlled substances, he or she is ineligible to receive benefits on behalf of the child.

This almost certainly removes the ability to just designate the money be given to someone else who will turn around and give it to you for drug funds, unless of course you have an enabler in your immediate that is clean but willing to shovel you money for your drugs. In short, as I suspected would be the case, one does not simply designate any odd person to receive money on their behalf so that they can continue with their drug habit. Nearly every article I have read certainly spun it that way though.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You can look at it as a terrible thing, but when we take people to court, generally for MONEY, you have to apply a monetary value in some way, shape, or form.

Actuaries have been with us for some time and their job is to assign value based on factors like risk. I'll bet Will Smith would be prevented from doing something "dangerous" like trying to jump Cesar's Palace on a jet powered Vespa if he were beginning to film a 125 million dollar blockbuster. His insurance/studio insurance would not allow this behavior because it represents a risk.

They likely do not care about Will, they do care about losing 125 million dollars. But this is their job and they cannot let feelings override the numbers and balance sheet.

The problem with actuarial data and the valuation of human life is it can be very difficult to impossible to set a value. We care about our family and we allow feelings to take over and quite often, we are unreasonable. From our perspective, they deserve to live, even if it is beyond reason.

Then again, it can be perhaps quite easy to set a value, but people tend to disagree because we generally care and we want our broken and feeble loved ones to live even though some should be allowed to pass on for any number of reasons.

A 101 year old grandmother; blind and bedridden has less value than a 15 year old with his entire life ahead of him. That is a value based on potential earning capability and the idea that a youngster has much to offer. But earning potential is not important for many of us. We love our loved ones and you can't put a price on their life. You can put a price on other people's life, and that is where problems begin.

My 101 year old granny is more important to me than your 15 year old son, and your son is more valuable to you than my granny. If granny needed a kidney and your son needed one and there were only one good match, who gets the kidney? Granny does as far as I am concerned, and I recognize that her future contributions when broken down to dollars and shekels is zero and your son's value is greater.

Granny lives if I can help it and sorry about your son.

The example above omits rules for determining who gets transplanted and quite likely, your son would win. Just a wild guess.

Should I get a lung rather than you? I know the dangers of smoking, so how would you rule? A cranky old smoker living a largely reckless life, who is disagreeable and angry and drinks, or the 23 year old mother of your children who never smoked? What if someone decided that I get the organ?

Very tough thing, setting a value on a human life. But hospitals and insurance companies do it daily. I am sad to say it, but some lives are less valuable and limited resources and the potential issues caused by changes in health care will mean we will be making difficult decisions about who is saved or not saved and that, too, is sad.

Bob

 

[lordofthereef]

Personally, I view it as less sad, and more a fact of life.