From Today’s KCCR News, Rep Lynn DiSanto is in the news again a second time today. Not for another on-line petition, but for a measure she’s introducing to #1 – Require drug testing for any welfare recipient, and #2 – to make them pay for it:
Under the bill, adults applying for cash assistance would complete a screening or questionnaire and would be subjected to a mandatory drug screening. They would not receive the benefit if they test positive. At least 13 states have passed drug-testing or -screening legislation for people receiving or applying for public assistance.
The bill’s main sponsor, Representative Lynne DiSanto of Rapid City says the bill would make sure welfare recipients don’t use taxpayer dollars inappropriately…
Those who test positive for drugs would be connected to treatment options. DiSanto says the bill would require any welfare applicant to pay the approximately 25 to 30 dollar initial drug test fee…
DiSanto says support for this bill has been “overwhelmingly positive”…
DiSanto notes in the recorded part of the interview that she’s uses a lot of social media, and has overwhelming support on the measure, as gauged by over 300 likes on her facebook page for the proposal.
What do you think?
Thank you for going after these conservatives!
You do an invaluable service for the establishment moderates and the Democrats.
Please explain how I’m going after anyone here, or what, if anything I’m writing isn’t factual?
If you want to see me go after this, go to my new post, and explain why drug testing 13 year old girls with Down Syndrome so they can receive Medicaid is a good idea?
http://dakotawarcollege.com/disanto-bill-to-require-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients-may-extend-to-elderly-disabled-children/
NO.
Your major premise is to “make sure welfare recipients don’t use taxpayers dollars inappropriately”.
Other states that have imposed this requirement have found little drug use connection and only benefits medical testing facilities, is an unnecessary expense for the recipient, and increases the bureaucracy.
If you truly want to identify “inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars” then cleanup your corrupt and inefficient state and local governments and agencies first – that’s where the real abuse is at.
–s an unnecessary expense for the recipient, and increases the bureaucracy.
I suppose Utah is lying about its savings? $350,000 saved in a testing program that cost $30,000 to administer?
The bureaucracy is already in place.
Facts supersede your wishful feelings.
So, if an elderly adult needs assistance from Medicaid to live in a nursing home, the elderly would be required to submit to a drug test? Can you answer this question, Ms. DiSanto?
“Under the bill, adults applying for cash assistance would complete a screening or questionnaire and would be subjected to a mandatory drug screening”
Can you read?
Can you read, Ms. Anonymous???
Are you really that stupid? An 86 year old applying for Medicaid (cash assistance) would be subject to drug testing? That is asinine as are you for making an assumption as to the sex of a commenter. This would cover public assistance and that is Medicaid which many residents of nursing homes need because they can’t afford the monthly $7,500.00+ bill.
Medicaid is NOT cash assistance.
–“This would cover public assistance and that is Medicaid ”
If she is describing the bill accurately, it would only cover CASH assistance (TANF), not Medicaid or Medicare since that’s not cash assistance.
M’am.