The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: LonestarDream on March 16, 2017, 12:09:13 pm
-
The Senate has now passed some legislation that will see a rule from the Obama administration reversed. As a result, states which are trying to stop unemployment benefits from going to drug users will have the power to do so returned to them. (via Washington Examiner)
The Obama law was closely repealed by a Senate vote of 51-48.
...
Now that this silly rule has been repealed, there is now scope for the Labor Department to redo the rules so states will actually benefit from this type of policy.
Democrats are worried that there are going to be too many hurdles put in place for people to receive unemployment benefits.
Though they are claiming that people legitimately looking for work are going to be effected, there’s just no evidence to support that. If these people are doing nothing wrong, then they will get what they are entitled to.
Welfare fraud is too big of an issue in our country to ignore. Tens of thousands of people on a daily basis defraud the system. This sees taxpayer money go to people who don’t need it and don’t deserve it. These people become lazy and do not push themselves to find new work, especially if they also abuse drugs.
We the People should not be forced to foot the bill for people so they can load up their stash and get high all day. This reversals in the first step in ensuring this will no longer happen.
https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-u-s-senate-reversed-major-obama-law-hes-reportedly-furious-223937/
-
More winning!!!!
On substance!
@Right_in_Virginia
@truth_seeker
@TomSea
@Emjay
@Sanguine
@don-o
-
The Democrat party needs to go out and fight for this. They need to state loudly and proudly to the public that those who choose to abuse drugs should receive unemployment benefits
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
Special pleading for here for gov waste? Disappointing.
@Smokin Joe
@INVAR
@roamer_1
@txradioguy
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
If they are incapable of holding a job because of it - no. Next stupid question?
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
Yes, if entitled.
-
Yes, if entitled.
Yeah, if they've earned the benefits they should get them.
After all, this is unemployment not lifelong disability payments.
-
If they are incapable of holding a job because of it - no. Next stupid question?
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
-
Yeah, if they've earned the benefits they should get them.
After all, this is unemployment not lifelong disability payments.
I never particularly agreed with the GOP being stingy with ue benefits. I believe the argument back around 2009 or so was extending them from 6 months to 1 year. Ue benefits are for people who have worked, unlike other types.
-
Yeah, if they've earned the benefits they should get them.
After all, this is unemployment not lifelong disability payments.
Up to two year in the New York State during the 'financial crisis' . And that is before regular welfare benefits kick in....
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
It's up to the states to decide. As they are paid for by taxpayers/businesses we have a right to put stipulations on them.
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
Goalposts moved. However ...
Why should an employee have to satisfy drug testing to keep their job?
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
Not punitive. Drug and alcohol use causes laziness. They are also luxuries that beggars should not be choosing .
-
Goalposts moved. However ...
Why should an employee have to satisfy drug testing to keep their job?
Heavy Metal. Mining, trains etc.
-
Drug and alcohol use causes laziness.
Debatable. Do you drink coffee?
-
Debatable. Do you drink coffee?
More like common sense, which is apparently uncommon.
Very telling that the conservatives on this board are being told that we must pay for others drug and alcohol abuse.
You force 'society' to provide charity- and 'society' gets veto rights in your lifestyle choices.
-
I never particularly agreed with the GOP being stingy with ue benefits. I believe the argument back around 2009 or so was extending them from 6 months to 1 year. Ue benefits are for people who have worked, unlike other types.
Obama lengthened it to TWO years....and then after that, inflated the Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance rolls...to keep the peasants from lighting their torches and storming Washington.
...in the meantime, they changed the manner in which they figure the 'Employment Rate', to mask the 95 million who collected for 2 years and exhausted said UE benefits.
-
Heavy Metal. Mining, trains etc.
Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.
Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.
-
Obama lengthened it to TWO years....and then after that, inflated the Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance rolls...to keep the peasants from lighting their torches and storming Washington.
Thank you. I guess because Trump is going to sign this Senate bill, we will have special pleaders on the board to subsidize drug and alcohol use.
If there were ever an obvious way to filter out 'free rider' problem on an over taxed society, then this is it.
-
Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.
Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.
Sarcasm here ? I hope so! :pondering:
-
Thank you. I guess because Trump is going to sign this Senate bill, we will have special pleaders on the board to subsidize drug and alcohol use.
If there were ever an obvious way to filter out 'free rider' problem on an over taxed society, then this is it.
I don't disagree with trump/senate on this. The more the states decide the better.
-
Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.
Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.
Oh c'mon. Why would I object to an employer's ability to require its workers to be sober on the job? After all, it's the employer's ass that risks getting sued. But a rule that requires drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits? That's arbitrary and punitive.
-
Oh c'mon. Why would I object to an employer's ability to require its workers to be sober on the job? After all, it's the employer's ass that risks getting sued. But a rule that requires drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits? That's arbitrary and punitive.
It's a form of social engineering.
This action is just saying it's up to states to decide btw. It's not mandating drug testing.
-
That's arbitrary and punitive.
It's completely fair. Everyone is held to the same standard, employed or not.
-
It's a form of social engineering.
This action is just saying it's up to states to decide btw. It's not mandating drug testing.
Probably should mandate testing. The US citizens are being asked to bail out CA, New York and MA
-
This action is just saying it's up to states to decide btw. It's not mandating drug testing.
A lot of the social welfare programs will probably eventually be handed back to the states. As it should be
-
It's my understanding unemployment is meant to bridge a temporary cash shortfall for the person who lost a job, to be ended when the person gets another job. Getting on illegal drugs would make getting rehired difficult because a lot of employers do pre-job drug screens, so if the state is serious about keeping unemployment a temporary assistance program, there's an interest in keeping a person employable, right?
Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy. The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.
-
Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy. The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.
Always gotta label and insult, don't you?
-
Always gotta label and insult, don't you?
If the shoe fits....
(For the record, Mr. Jazz, I did not call you an idiot, but you just did.)
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
I agree with you in part; I believe that those who have worked and are laid off and who are entitled to unemployment benefits should receive them period. HOWEVER, extended unemployment benefits (after benefits run out) should not be granted unless the applicant is willing to take a drug/alcohol test.
The real problem is JOBS!! Thanks to Bammy our unemployment rate is still high and those who have been out of work for quite some time are going to find it difficult to find a job...the longer you're out of work the more difficult it is to find work. Once President Trump gets this economy going and people are gainfully employed; I believe it would be prudent to set a cap on how long anyone can receive extended benefits.
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
The better question is why were are extending benefits in the first place. Once one cuts off benefits to one group, one is open to adding other groups. Should those convicted of felonies get benefits? How about those not making child support payments?
Let's do away with the law that takes my money out of my pocket and pays it to someone who may or may not be willing to work.
-
It's my understanding unemployment is meant to bridge a temporary cash shortfall for the person who lost a job, to be ended when the person gets another job. Getting on illegal drugs would make getting rehired difficult because a lot of employers do pre-job drug screens, so if the state is serious about keeping unemployment a temporary assistance program, there's an interest in keeping a person employable, right?
Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy. The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.
You're right and the benefits need to be reduced back to the original 13 weeks. These perpetual unemployment checks are just another wealth transfer program. Welfare by another name!
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job".
@Jazzhead
Nice theory,but the reality is if he or she is still able to hold a job they wouldn't be applying for unemployment benefits.
-
Goalposts moved. However ...
Why should an employee have to satisfy drug testing to keep their job?
@EC
Some jobs SHOULD require drug testing. People that work for the government,for example should be drug-tested because until drug use is legazlied,which is scheduled to happen on the 43rd day of Never,being an addict can be used to blackmail them into betraying the public trust.
The guy that checks out bowling shoes at your local bowling alley,not so much.
However,any and every private employer has the right to demand drug tests as a requirement for employment if they want. This violates the privacy rights of no one,since people have a right to refuse to agree to work there.
-
If the shoe fits....
(For the record, Mr. Jazz, I did not call you an idiot, but you just did.)
Grace does not appear to be an attribute that you possess.
-
Not punitive. Drug and alcohol use causes laziness. They are also luxuries that beggars should not be choosing .
@LoneStar42
Laziness isn't the problem. Missing work,sloppy work,possibly endangering other employees,and theft are the problems. Do you REALLY want a guy driving a forklift with a pallet of propane gas tanks on it riding around loading trucks that has been taking acid or magic mushrooms that day?
-
Very telling that the conservatives on this board are being told that we must pay for others drug and alcohol abuse.
.
@LonestarDream
I'm a conservative. Where am I demanding that?
-
Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.
@EC
Illegal OR legal. Airline pilots are one example.
Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.
What could be fairer than treating everyone the same way? Drunks aren't allowed to keep their jobs if they come to work drunk,so why should addicts of OTHER drugs?
Demanding EVERYONE come to work sober doesn't discriminate against anyone. To say it does is like saying the NBA is discriminating because there are no dwarf bb players in the NFL.
@EC
-
However,any and every private employer has the right to demand drug tests as a requirement for employment if they want. This violates the privacy rights of no one,since people have a right to refuse to agree to work there.
I agree with this. It's the employer's liability, and the employer's capital and reputation at risk.
But, thinking back to another thread concerning the rights of employees and employers - should an employer be able to dictate that its employees not smoke and keep their weight down? After all, healthier employees mean lower costs. And what of employer requirements that affect what an employee does off the job? Should an employer be able to require its employees, once hired, to be drug-tested at random without regard to present intoxication?
-
How about no testing for drugs or alcohol. UE benefits of two years, or even more.
Then go on Obamacare "rehab" several times. UE is a bargain for the taxpayers, compared to the cost of the "recovery" and "treatment" programs.
Insurance under Obamacare MUST provide for such "treatment," which flies you to luxury resort places like Malibu.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/addiction-treatment-vulnerable-with-likely-obamacare-repeal/
Hint: Before the expansion of the "for profit" treatment-recovery industry, thanks to Obamacare, people did recover none the less. AA is for free and for fun.
-
I don't disagree with trump/senate on this. The more the states decide the better.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
You mean going restoring States Rights and going back to the way our government is SUPPOSED to be ran and controlled?
What a novel idea!
Sadly,it will never fly in the 21st Century.
-
A lot of the social welfare programs will probably eventually be handed back to the states.
NOT going to happen. EVER. "Caesar" is NEVER going to voluntarily give up his power.
As it should be
I have no argument with that. These powers should have never been taken away from the individual states to start with.
-
Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy. The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.
Say WHAT????? If anything,it is the height of sanity. It is NOT the place for private companies,or even government agencies to determine what is legal or illegal to consume,but private companies do indeed have the RIGHT to determine what substances can be consumed on the job,or that their employees can come to work with while they are under the influence of those substances.
Or are you trying to claim that alcohol consumption doesn't alter your thinking,actions,or physical abilities?
And even your public personality,as far as that goes.
-
+ 1
It's my understanding unemployment is meant to bridge a temporary cash shortfall for the person who lost a job, to be ended when the person gets another job. Getting on illegal drugs would make getting rehired difficult because a lot of employers do pre-job drug screens, so if the state is serious about keeping unemployment a temporary assistance program, there's an interest in keeping a person employable, right?
Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy. The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.
-
Probably should mandate testing. The US citizens are being asked to bail out CA, New York and MA
@LonestarDream
Yeah,why not GIVE the feral government even MORE power and authority over our lives,and the lives of the people who employ us or work for us?
-
I agree with this. It's the employer's liability, and the employer's capital and reputation at risk.
But, thinking back to another thread concerning the rights of employees and employers - should an employer be able to dictate that its employees not smoke and keep their weight down? After all, healthier employees mean lower costs. And what of employer requirements that affect what an employee does off the job? Should an employer be able to require its employees, once hired, to be drug-tested at random without regard to present intoxication?
@Jazzhead ,IMO,they have a right to demand any damn thing they want from NEW hires as a condition of employment,but not to shape-shift to penalize employees already employed by them. ESPECIALLY not employees who are nearing retirement age.
I had a neighbor whose father worked as a store manager for a major food store chain back in the 50's and 60's,and they fired him for being a alcoholic less than a year before he had the time in to retire with a pension and health benefits. I should note here that he was a functioning alcoholic. I lived right next door to them when I was a kid,and never noticed a thing other than him being a grumpy bleep and dictator at home. His wife and son seemed to be scared of him,but he was always friendly and smiling at customers at work. My mother used to shop at that grocery store,and she would take me with her to carry the bags and help her.
-
@LoneStar42
Laziness isn't the problem. Missing work,sloppy work,possibly endangering other employees,and theft are the problems. Do you REALLY want a guy driving a forklift with a pallet of propane gas tanks on it riding around loading trucks that has been taking acid or magic mushrooms that day?
Level of motivation, safety and public trust are ALL reasons to wary of subsidizing drug use.
-
@LonestarDream
I'm a conservative. Where am I demanding that?
I amend my comments to some conservatives on the board - since more folks are participating in these discussions.
-
Surprised anyone would be against this. Actually not with all the dedicated Leftists on this board.
-
How about no testing for drugs or alcohol. UE benefits of two years, or even more.
Then go on Obamacare "rehab" several times. UE is a bargain for the taxpayers, compared to the cost of the "recovery" and "treatment" programs.
Insurance under Obamacare MUST provide for such "treatment," which flies you to luxury resort places like Malibu.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/addiction-treatment-vulnerable-with-likely-obamacare-repeal/
Hint: Before the expansion of the "for profit" treatment-recovery industry, thanks to Obamacare, people did recover none the less. AA is for free and for fun.
@truth_seeker
How about NONE of that,and we start making people realize once again that THEY are responsible for THEIR actions?
If you come to work under the influence of drugs that alter or affect your mental of physical capabilities,the employer has the RIGHT to either fire you or give you a probation period of his choice,IF it is his choice to do that?
Not everybody has to be fired. A certain percentage of the population is useless,but I think MOST people would fall in line with a "sobriety at work" policy once they understood it wasn't an option,but a absolute requirement to keep their job,and that if they were fired for NOT going to work sober AFTER BEING WARNED ONCE,they wouldn't even be eligible for unemployment because they essentially quit working on purpose due to their own decision to continue to go to work impaired after having received a warning.
And once again,the decision to fire them,give them a time-out,or even send them to rehab of some sort is ENTIRELY at the discretion of the employer UNLESS the employee is closing in on retirement,and the case against him or her seems to be based more on screwing them out of their retirement than it does their abilities to perform their jobs.
-
@EC
Illegal OR legal. Airline pilots are one example.
What could be fairer than treating everyone the same way? Drunks aren't allowed to keep their jobs if they come to work drunk,so why should addicts of OTHER drugs?
Demanding EVERYONE come to work sober doesn't discriminate against anyone. To say it does is like saying the NBA is discriminating because there are no dwarf bb players in the NFL.
@EC
@sneakypete
Oh, I totally agree with you. In fact, I go slightly further and think that if someone loses their job as a direct result of drug or alcohol abuse, they get no unemployment at all until they're getting treatment.
My point is - why should the same standards of relative sobriety not be applied to unemployment benefits? It can't be called "unfair" by the perpetually outraged, because it's something employed have to deal with as a matter of course.
Get to drinking (or taking drugs) and looking for a job tends to slip out the window without you really noticing.
-
@LonestarDream
Yeah,why not GIVE the feral government even MORE power and authority over our lives,and the lives of the people who employ us or work for us?
Then have savings instead of taking UI benefits - then you have no testing obligation . Maine starting asking for folks on food stamps to do work and guess what-- the welfare roles dropped FAST!!!
-
@sneakypete
Oh, I totally agree with you. In fact, I go slightly further and think that if someone loses their job as a direct result of drug or alcohol abuse, they get no unemployment at all until they're getting treatment.
@EC
Works for me. I even wrote similar thoughts in other posts on this thread.
My point is - why should the same standards of relative sobriety not be applied to unemployment benefits? It can't be called "unfair" by the perpetually outraged, because it's something employed have to deal with as a matter of course.
Complete agreement as long as it is the employer, the employers insurance company,or the state that is VOLUNTARILY paying for the treatment. It is NOT the job or the responsibility of the feral government to babysit private employees in the various states.
Get to drinking (or taking drugs) and looking for a job tends to slip out the window without you really noticing.
I believe the legal term for that is "It's MILLER TIME!"
-
Surprised anyone would be against this. Actually not with all the dedicated Leftists on this board.
Very telling isn't it? If people had to stay clean and/or work for their welfare, we would have less welfare. And then government would be TRULY out of our lives.
-
It used to be that a "high-end treatment & recovery" program was only for the rich.
Families and employers would let their addicts/alcoholics attend. It was the first house on the block, if you could afford it.
But most do not get clean/sober the first time. they need to go further down the path, and experience some bad things, whatever their station in life.
So making taxpayers pay for high-end recovery is a waste of money, but it is a way for big- government advocates to feel good about themselves, and the industries they assist.
My 23+ years of sobriety have taught me that making high-end recovery available doesn't help anybody but the company.
the company is being paid many, many $thousands per month per patient. They won't kick a paying customer out, for relapse.
Obamacare spawned a high-profit industry, They have bought all new vans, to drive their "patients" around town to various existing AA meetings. We call the vehicles "druggy-buggies."
The old saying "nobody wants you when your are down and out," is now "everybody wants you," since you represent tremendous profit.
Oh, the company is paid regardless of outcomes. Most will relapse within days/weeks/months but the fedgov controlled insurance has already been paid for.
And you can come back over and over. BTW most are owned/operated by entities newly created, with no long term experience or track record. IOW they only started once it became hugely profitable.
Forge about old tried and tested non-profits that actually help the down and out, like Salvation Army.
-
Then have savings instead of taking UI benefits - then you have no testing obligation . Maine starting asking for folks on food stamps to do work and guess what-- the welfare roles dropped FAST!!!
@LonestarDream
Yup,when the money is no longer "FREE!",it suddenly isn't as desirable OR necessary. Odd how those people suddenly managed to find the money to feed themselves without the Food Stamps,ain't it?
-
Grace does not appear to be an attribute that you possess.
BFD. I'm not in it for "grace." I've never given two chits what you think of me, it's not why I'm here.
-
Forge about old tried and tested non-profits that actually help the down and out, like Salvation Army.
@truth_seeker
Not to mention AA and NA. No money to scam in them since they are almost entirely self-help groups that don't let attendees get away with making excuses about how their drug and/or drinking problems are caused by someone else. It's your peers,and they WILL get in your face if you try that whine and let you know that NOBODY is responsible for your actions but yourself,and nobody can "heal" you but yourself.
Which is why,IMHO,they work better than any of the others.
-
BFD. I'm not in it for "grace." I've never given two chits what you think of me, it's not why I'm here.
@Cyber Liberty
You and I don't always agree,but I'm cheering you on with this one!
-
@sneakypete
Oh, I totally agree with you. In fact, I go slightly further and think that if someone loses their job as a direct result of drug or alcohol abuse, they get no unemployment at all until they're getting treatment.
My point is - why should the same standards of relative sobriety not be applied to unemployment benefits? It can't be called "unfair" by the perpetually outraged, because it's something employed have to deal with as a matter of course.
Get to drinking (or taking drugs) and looking for a job tends to slip out the window without you really noticing.
In theory, that's all fine and good ... however, most who lose their jobs also lose any kind of health insurance; how do those people then get substance abuse treatment? It's a catch 22 situation.
Portugal has turned their war on drugs by decriminalizing drugs; even heroin. The number of addicts have been reduced, the number of addiction deaths has decreased and users are getting help rather than being locked up.
https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin
-
@truth_seeker
Not to mention AA and NA.
You see people at the very best a person can be and very worst. Often from the same person within 5 minutes.
-
In theory, that's all fine and good ... however, most who lose their jobs also lose any kind of health insurance; how do those people then get substance abuse treatment? It's a catch 22 situation.
AA's free. So's NA.
-
@Cyber Liberty
You and I don't always agree,but I'm cheering you on with this one!
:beer: (Yes, it's a little early in the day, but it's 5PM somewhere and it doesn't disqualify me for UE bennies, yet. :laugh: )
-
In theory, that's all fine and good ... however, most who lose their jobs also lose any kind of health insurance; how do those people then get substance abuse treatment? It's a catch 22 situation.
@libertybele
Anywhere BUT the feral government. If any of the states want to fund it,they have that right. If they don't,there are various "sorta free" agencies like the Salvation Army,various other religious organizations,Alcoholic Anonymous,Naracotics Anonymous,etc,etc,etc,that don't charge you a dime for their services.
And of course,if none of those appeal to you,suck it up and take responsibility for yourself on your own,or die. Your choice.
BTW,I wrote "sorta free" above because those agencies are charities that get their money from contributions from people writing off the money on their taxes. As usualy,nothing in life is free. Everything has a price.
-
AA's free. So's NA.
Ya, obviously. What you're not getting is how do we help the addict? IOW, how do we help them safely go through withdrawal? You can't expect an addict to go to an AA meeting and voila ... the meeting cures them. There is a period of time that they have to go through withdrawals or detoxing and afterwards on some type of program or medication to help them ... that's what most can't afford and that's where IMHO help is needed the most. Anyone can walk into a meeting after the fact ... it's the middle step of withdrawal and detoxing that is the hurdle.
-
It used to be that a "high-end treatment & recovery" program was only for the rich.
Families and employers would let their addicts/alcoholics attend. It was the first house on the block, if you could afford it.
But most do not get clean/sober the first time. they need to go further down the path, and experience some bad things, whatever their station in life.
So making taxpayers pay for high-end recovery is a waste of money, but it is a way for big- government advocates to feel good about themselves, and the industries they assist.
My 23+ years of sobriety have taught me that making high-end recovery available doesn't help anybody but the company.
the company is being paid many, many $thousands per month per patient. They won't kick a paying customer out, for relapse.
Obamacare spawned a high-profit industry, They have bought all new vans, to drive their "patients" around town to various existing AA meetings. We call the vehicles "druggy-buggies."
The old saying "nobody wants you when your are down and out," is now "everybody wants you," since you represent tremendous profit.
Oh, the company is paid regardless of outcomes. Most will relapse within days/weeks/months but the fedgov controlled insurance has already been paid for.
And you can come back over and over. BTW most are owned/operated by entities newly created, with no long term experience or track record. IOW they only started once it became hugely profitable.
Forge about old tried and tested non-profits that actually help the down and out, like Salvation Army.
888high58888 Congratulations on 23+ years of sobriety!!
-
You see people at the very best a person can be and very worst. Often from the same person within 5 minutes.
@EC
I have never been to any of those meetings,but I have a lot of relatives that have,and from what they tell me it works because the other members don't let you get away with telling the lies in public that you tell to yourself.
I have never been to a private treatment clinic either,but I seriously doubt any that get paid to treat patients are going to risk shutting off their cash flow by offending their paying customers.
-
@LonestarDream
Yup,when the money is no longer "FREE!",it suddenly isn't as desirable OR necessary. Odd how those people suddenly managed to find the money to feed themselves without the Food Stamps,ain't it?
When I state on other threads that we need to wean people off of welfare, I really mean it.
But if welfare dependency impedes the political will to enact reforms ( like repealing ObamaCare) then we have to deal with that too.
-
@EC
I have never been to any of those meetings,but I have a lot of relatives that have,and from what they tell me it works because the other members don't let you get away with telling the lies in public that you tell to yourself.
I have never been to a private treatment clinic either,but I seriously doubt any that get paid to treat patients are going to risk shutting off their cash flow by offending their paying customers.
Back when I quit, I went almost daily for several months. Fit it around work. Stopped going at all for a while on the advice of my sponsor (and the ones in the meeting) because I was only getting the urge to drink when listening to other people's problems. Now I'll pop in a couple times a month, on average. Got enough of a handle on things that I don't need it for me so much, but people need none judgy ears still. Part of the paying back.
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
Should the Federal Government have any involvement at all in State unemployment policies? The entire Department of Labor needs to be shut down.
-
Ya, obviously. What you're not getting is how do we help the addict? IOW, how do we help them safely go through withdrawal? You can't expect an addict to go to an AA meeting and voila ... the meeting cures them. There is a period of time that they have to go through withdrawals or detoxing and afterwards on some type of program or medication to help them ... that's what most can't afford and that's where IMHO help is needed the most. Anyone can walk into a meeting after the fact ... it's the middle step of withdrawal and detoxing that is the hurdle.
@libertybele
First off,you need to understand that alcohol is a drug like every other drug,and alcoholics DO go through alcohol withdrawal. Seriously.
I am no expert on programs like AA and NA,but both are supported by local contributions from organizations and individuals,and nobody goes to their first meeting until they have hit rock bottom and know they either quit taking drugs in all forms or die. Which pretty much means they are "sober and shaking" the first time they attend a meeting. There are all sorts of addicts at these meetings. Some are in their first week,and some have been attending meetings for decades. There is not a person there that doesn't understand the problem and what is needed on a personal basis.
I am confident that if someone appears at any of those meetings,including other programs like the Salvation Army,and they are going through major withdrawal symptoms,that there is at least one person at each meeting that can pick up a phone and arrange emergency medical treatment for the "newbie". No,they are not going to one of those expensive private clinics,but they will be hospitalized until they stabilize and then given some medication to take before being "released to the wild" again.
I am also guessing someone from the program that called 9-11 for them will be notified they are being released,and waiting at the door for them when they walk out of it. These people aren't members of those programs because they are bored,getting paid to be there,or looking for fame and fortune. They are there because THEY have been to the "same THERE" as man or woman being released from the hospital because they want to help,and even NEED to help for their own sobriety reasons.
-
Your guess is accurate.
-
nobody can "heal" you but yourself.
God is the one who does the healing, which is why He appears in half of the Steps.
-
The entire Department of Labor needs to be shut down.
@Hoodat
I will go along with "greatly reduced in size",but not shut down. They have a legitimate function to serve by making sure large companies don't cheat employees out of their retirement pay,for example. States can't really do this because large companies operate in multiple states.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-
@Hoodat
I will go along with "greatly reduced in size",but not shut down. They have a legitimate function to serve by making sure large companies don't cheat employees out of their retirement pay,for example. States can't really do this because large companies operate in multiple states.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It needs to be done away with entirely just as Hoodat said! There is absolutely ZERO constitutional authority for it to exist!
-
I'm curiuos of the mechanics of this program now. Will those filing for UE have to go do a blood draw before receiving benefits? Will they need to complete this every 3-6 weeks if they renew? Who is doing the blood draw? Is this based on federal drug laws or State drug laws. For example, if I go to a concert this week in a state where pot is legal, and enhale enough second hand, not even from using it myself, then next week, I'm laid off and have to apply for benefits, would that disqualify me even though it wasn't illegal in the state, didn't contribute to the lay-off, doesn't impact my future employability, and UE dollars are not going to any use of the drug?
-
God is the one who does the healing, which is why He appears in half of the Steps.
@Hoodat
If you want to believe that,it is alright with me.
I can only question why God allowed people to become addicts to start with.
And don't try that "God believes in Free Will" crap on me,either. If he exists and believes that,why would he intervene at AA meetings and help "his children" recover? Or send them to Hell for their sins?
IF God exists,he doesn't give a damn one way or the other,sink or swim.
-
It needs to be done away with entirely just as Hoodat said! There is absolutely ZERO constitutional authority for it to exist!
@Bigun
HorseHillary! They exist because the federal government has an OBLIGATION to make sure the citizens of all states are being treated equally,and to prevent a corporation or other business entity from screwing the workers and people from one state by just shutting their doors and moving to another state.
-
I'm curiuos of the mechanics of this program now. Will those filing for UE have to go do a blood draw before receiving benefits? Will they need to complete this every 3-6 weeks if they renew? Who is doing the blood draw? Is this based on federal drug laws or State drug laws. For example, if I go to a concert this week in a state where pot is legal, and enhale enough second hand, not even from using it myself, then next week, I'm laid off and have to apply for benefits, would that disqualify me even though it wasn't illegal in the state, didn't contribute to the lay-off, doesn't impact my future employability, and UE dollars are not going to any use of the drug?
The mechanics would depend on the states. This law doesn't establish the testing, it just allows the states to do it if they wanna, or not.
-
@Bigun
HorseHillary! They exist because the federal government has an OBLIGATION to make sure the citizens of all states are being treated equally,and to prevent a corporation or other business entity from screwing the workers and people from one state by just shutting their doors and moving to another state.
Government regulation creates a fair playing field, and provides assurance to the players that the game isn't rigged or populated by scam artists. Do you think ordinary Americans would trust their savings to the stock markets if the markets weren't regulated by government?
-
Special pleading for here for gov waste? Disappointing.
@Smokin Joe
@INVAR
@roamer_1
@txradioguy
I frankly don't give a crap what our resident Communist has to say about this issue. He'll take the Obama and Democrat position, as he always does.
-
I'm curiuos of the mechanics of this program now. Will those filing for UE have to go do a blood draw before receiving benefits? Will they need to complete this every 3-6 weeks if they renew? Who is doing the blood draw? Is this based on federal drug laws or State drug laws. For example, if I go to a concert this week in a state where pot is legal, and enhale enough second hand, not even from using it myself, then next week, I'm laid off and have to apply for benefits, would that disqualify me even though it wasn't illegal in the state, didn't contribute to the lay-off, doesn't impact my future employability, and UE dollars are not going to any use of the drug?
Urine is fine for me. Have to do that once every two years on average to keep my job.
There are thresholds for the second hand smoke... This process used all the time in the employment world.
Too inconvenient? Then save up the 6K in quarterly benefits one would have received up to 48K for two years of benes....
-
@Bigun
HorseHillary! They exist because the federal government has an OBLIGATION to make sure the citizens of all states are being treated equally,and to prevent a corporation or other business entity from screwing the workers and people from one state by just shutting their doors and moving to another state.
Show me the language in the Constitution that says they can do that. What makes you think that the individual state governments are not capable of protecting the interests of their citizens?
-
Obama's furious? That's a laugh. I am the one who is furious that he is not in prison.
-
Government regulation creates a fair playing field, and provides assurance to the players that the game isn't rigged or populated by scam artists.
Uh, no. It creates a playing field that is tilted to whomever is in the government good graces at the moment. The sooner you figure out government is biased, the sooner you will understand what many have been trying to tell you. Even if "grace isn't their best feature."
-
Urine is fine for me. Have to do that once every two years on average to keep my job.
There are thresholds for the second hand smoke... This process used all the time in the employment world.
Too inconvenient? Then save up the 6K in quarterly benefits one would have received up to 48K for two years of benes....
Actually, I spoke to somebody in the field once, and urine is the superior test for drugs. It shows what the kidneys have been cleaning out of the blood.
-
Article I
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
That's it! They have NO other powers!
-
If the shoe fits....
(For the record, Mr. Jazz, I did not call you an idiot, but you just did.)
Lol....he just "self-identified" as a leftist! That's progress (pardon pun).
-
Lol....he just "self-identified" as a leftist! That's progress (pardon pun).
For that comment, he said I have no "grace." I'm still LMAO.
-
Actually, I spoke to somebody in the field once, and urine is the superior test for drugs. It shows what the kidneys have been cleaning out of the blood.
Well the real strawman there was that government was being intrusive by grabbing the blood.
But the premise of the question is that , not only are we subsidizing drug use, but also free concerts and interstate travel while on UI benes....
-
Well the real strawman there was that government was being intrusive by grabbing the blood.
But the premise of the question is that , not only are we subsidizing drug use, but also free concerts and interstate travel while on UI benes....
I agree with that. There's something distasteful about requiring such tests to earn the money that is taxed away and given to people who don't have to be tested, and are in fact behaving as you suggest.
-
I agree with that. There's something distasteful about requiring such tests to earn the money that is taxed away and given to people who don't have to be tested, and are in fact behaving as you suggest.
Nothing like the drugs + welfare debate to sharpen up who is truly compassionate AND conservative/libertarian --- in a hurry.
-
You're right and the benefits need to be reduced back to the original 13 weeks. These perpetual unemployment checks are just another wealth transfer program. Welfare by another name!
I firmly believe that Bammy by design tanked the economy, destroyed jobs so that unemployment HAD to be extended ...pretty hard to find a job when there aren't any jobs out there and pretty hard to make ends meet when your hours have been reduced because an employer doesn't want to pay for health insurance.
I realize we are under President Trump, but IMHO the economy needs a shot in the arm and jobs need to be brought back ... then start to cut back on benefits.
-
I firmly believe that Bammy by design tanked the economy, destroyed jobs so that unemployment HAD to be extended ...pretty hard to find a job when there aren't any jobs out there and pretty hard to make ends meet when your hours have been reduced because an employer doesn't want to pay for health insurance.
I realize we are under President Trump, but IMHO the economy needs a shot in the arm and jobs need to be brought back ... then start to cut back on benefits.
If one is trying to enslave a population, it's difficult to find a better way of doing it than what you described.
-
@libertybele
First off,you need to understand that alcohol is a drug like every other drug,and alcoholics DO go through alcohol withdrawal. Seriously.
I am no expert on programs like AA and NA,but both are supported by local contributions from organizations and individuals,and nobody goes to their first meeting until they have hit rock bottom and know they either quit taking drugs in all forms or die. Which pretty much means they are "sober and shaking" the first time they attend a meeting. There are all sorts of addicts at these meetings. Some are in their first week,and some have been attending meetings for decades. There is not a person there that doesn't understand the problem and what is needed on a personal basis.
I am confident that if someone appears at any of those meetings,including other programs like the Salvation Army,and they are going through major withdrawal symptoms,that there is at least one person at each meeting that can pick up a phone and arrange emergency medical treatment for the "newbie". No,they are not going to one of those expensive private clinics,but they will be hospitalized until they stabilize and then given some medication to take before being "released to the wild" again.
I am also guessing someone from the program that called 9-11 for them will be notified they are being released,and waiting at the door for them when they walk out of it. These people aren't members of those programs because they are bored,getting paid to be there,or looking for fame and fortune. They are there because THEY have been to the "same THERE" as man or woman being released from the hospital because they want to help,and even NEED to help for their own sobriety reasons.
Yes, I understand that people go through alcohol withdrawals ... I get that. My question is ... who pays for that emergency treatment to help them go through the physical withdrawal that one experiences? Someone that has been drinking excessively for years or and addict that has used for years ... are going to need some type of medical help. That is why I believe that Portugal has gotten in correct ... decriminalize from weed to heroin and if caught you have two choices; you either agree to the substance abuse help which includes medical and counseling or you can choose jail time.
-
More winning!!!!
On substance!
@Right_in_Virginia
@truth_seeker
@TomSea
@Emjay
@Sanguine
@don-o
I think most people like this. The requirements are not onerous and certainly not as demanding as most employment requires.
-
@Hoodat
If you want to believe that,it is alright with me.
I can only question why God allowed people to become addicts to start with.
And don't try that "God believes in Free Will" crap on me,either. If he exists and believes that,why would he intervene at AA meetings and help "his children" recover? Or send them to Hell for their sins?
IF God exists,he doesn't give a damn one way or the other,sink or swim.
Oh crap. Not this again. Ok....I'll play.
Yes, God gave us ALL free will, but he is always there to help us if and when we screw up and ask for His help. How hard is that to understand? If our choices lead us away from God, that's on us. If our choices in life lead us to God, then it was all worth it in the "end" (ie the afterlife/eternity).
That's how I see it.
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
It is not punitive. Drug tests are a normal requirement for employment at most places. My daughter is an HR director. She had to take a drug test for her last 5 jobs. Employees suspected of drug use are usually tested and fired if they test positive.
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
@Jazzhead If they ABUSE it to the point they are unemployable, not just no, but HELL NO!
-
Obama lengthened it to TWO years....and then after that, inflated the Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance rolls...to keep the peasants from lighting their torches and storming Washington.
...in the meantime, they changed the manner in which they figure the 'Employment Rate', to mask the 95 million who collected for 2 years and exhausted said UE benefits.
Anecdotal but I was in a writing class in Irving and there were several Technical Writers in the class. Technical writers are usually the first to be laid off, because, well, they are expendable.
Their unemployment checks were only slightly less than the jobs they could get paid. Guess when they actually started looking for work? You got it... the day their benefits ran out.
-
You're right and the benefits need to be reduced back to the original 13 weeks. These perpetual unemployment checks are just another wealth transfer program. Welfare by another name!
Quite right. It should just be long enough to tide people over until they can get work. Too long and a lot of people abuse it and stop real job hunting until it ends.
-
If one is trying to enslave a population, it's difficult to find a better way of doing it than what you described.
He's not still in Hawaii cozying up to judges, is he?
-
He's not still in Hawaii cozying up to judges, is he?
I don't think that particular "judge" needed cozying up to in order to produce the finding that he did. Liberals in general don't, because they think they're doing Gaia's work.
-
Yes, I understand that people go through alcohol withdrawals ... I get that. My question is ... who pays for that emergency treatment to help them go through the physical withdrawal that one experiences? Someone that has been drinking excessively for years or and addict that has used for years ... are going to need some type of medical help. That is why I believe that Portugal has gotten in correct ... decriminalize from weed to heroin and if caught you have two choices; you either agree to the substance abuse help which includes medical and counseling or you can choose jail time.
That is a straw man argument. Almost every company requires drug testing for employment. It is a logical extension of this to demand drug testing for receiving unemployment benefits.
Recipients of such benefits have to be eligible for employment. Drug users are not eligible for employment in most cases.
By the way, marijuana stays in the system longer than any other drug ... 30 days. Watch it, pot smokers.
-
It is not punitive. Drug tests are a normal requirement for employment at most places. My daughter is an HR director. She had to take a drug test for her last 5 jobs. Employees suspected of drug use are usually tested and fired if they test positive.
It's amazing that seemingly..... these same people that appear to want government to have all and be all re: power over the people..... balk at private industry and corporations having the ability to NOT pay ue benefits for anyone on drugs, which is probably why they got laid off in the first place.
That said, yes....'some' nefarious employers could use the law to get out of paying ue benefits to some. But that could wind up in the courts and they could end up paying much more in legal fees.
Random drug testing has been a reality for many, if not most, corporations for decades now. This would be no different. The left just doesn't want the same standards applied to those whose "benefits" come straight out of the taxpayers' wallets vs. some corporation's ue fund. It's obvious. They know that most Americans would insist on that same drug testing for welfare recipients, as well.
-
Government regulation creates a fair playing field, and provides assurance to the players that the game isn't rigged or populated by scam artists. Do you think ordinary Americans would trust their savings to the stock markets if the markets weren't regulated by government?
At the time of the government-finance industry meltdown, everybody was already highly regulated. Banks, Mortgage companies, loan-agents/brokers, appraisers, bond rating agencies, securities lawyers, securities brokers, etc.
By the time regulations are enacted, the lobbyists for the articular industry have "gotten to" our lawmaker, and created the scams.
The scam is that the little guy, the investor for instance, is "protected," from the big bad corporation. The fact is the big bad corporation in protected, and the little guy investor is practically naked-unprotected.
In the case of substance addiction, treatment and recovery, the scam is created by the healthcare and insurance industry, on the American taxpayer.
The addict-alcoholics jump at the chance to fill luxury recovery beds, and attend "treatment."
There they know they will be coddled, like never before. But they stand no better chances of getting clean-sober, and remaining clean-sober, than if they detoxed in their hometown AA meeting room, 2 or 3 times a day.
Here is the program that works: "Don't drink, no matter what. Go to 2 or 3 meetings a day, and don't drink between meetings. Get the book, read the book, get a sponsor, do the steps."
For profit "treatment" is full of modern psychobabble, like "triggers," "getting in touch with your inner self," and so forth. They help their "patients" believe ideas, like being a victim, being depressed or some other medical problem, etc.
They pick and choose, just some of the God based, Twelve Steps, so as to not jeopardize government funding for "religious" activities.
They teach "a drug is a drug," to soothe a methamphetamine user into thinking he is just like a person having one-too-many drinks driving home from the office.
Those "providers," will be lobbying like crazy, to keep their "treatment and recovery" entities in the chips.
This recovery and treatment scam mirrors our society. Hitting bottom ain't like it used to be, just like conservatism ain't like it used to be.
I did NOT go to detox, sober living, recovery. I detoxed in the rooms of alcoholics, two meetings per day.
You aren't ready, until you are ready. Why make taxpayers fund it?
My model for recovery would be the olde skool, low-bottom indigent model. Everybody is up early, to either go to a job, or to look for a job. Every night is either mandatory in-house meeting, or outside meeting.
If you can't follow THEIR rules, you are out. No second chances. Take your game elsewhere.
By way of comparison: Olde skool indigent sober living model=$600 per month.
Fancy professionally supervised insurance "treatment" model $40,000 per month.
At the end, both tell you to continue going to meetings.
-
Government regulations and the current Marxist tax code is how they control who is allowed onto the playing field! They should NOT have this power!
-
Here is the program that works: "Don't drink, no matter what. Go to 2 or 3 meetings a day, and don't drink between meetings. Get the book, read the book, get a sponsor, do the steps."
Bill W. was a genius. Saved a lot of lives.
-
Government regulations and the current Marxist tax code is how they control who is allowed onto the playing field! They should NOT have this power!
It astonishes me there are people who think government is capable of creating a level playing field. My meager half-century or so of pitiful experience taught me otherwise. Government will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the last thing a government wants to do is create a situation where nobody owes them anything. IOW, they have every incentive to create an unlevel playing field, because they can count on the support of whomever they tilt it toward.
-
IOW, they have every incentive to create an unlevel playing field, because they can count on the support of whomever they tilt it toward.
Bout the only time they ever create something approaching a level playing field is when they're playing both ends against the middle.
-
It astonishes me there are people who think government is capable of creating a level playing field. My meager half-century or so of pitiful experience taught me otherwise. Government will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the last thing a government wants to do is create a situation where nobody owes them anything. IOW, they have every incentive to create an unlevel playing field, because they can count on the support of whomever they tilt it toward.
The ENTIRE game in Washington is based on WHO gets to reward it's friends and punish it's enemies. Nothing to do with what is right for those whom they are elected to represent!
-
The ENTIRE game in Washington is based on WHO gets to reward it's friends and punish it's enemies. Nothing to do with what is right for those whom they are elected to represent!
I believe this thread is about whether or not applicants for unemployment benefits should be drug tested. Isn't there another thread somewhere for general whining about the government.
-
I believe this thread is about whether or not applicants for unemployment benefits should be drug tested. Isn't there another thread somewhere for general whining about the government.
The conversation got to where it did because we were assured the government would create the level playing field for all, thus making rules like drug testing people for Unemployment benefits unneeded.
-
Drug tests are a normal requirement for employment at most places.
Why is that?
-
Why is that?
There are several reasons I can think of. The jobs involving transportation are pretty obvious, don't need stoned people driving trucks and trains. Companies that send people into peoples houses are catering to the fears of the customers who are literally inviting the employees into their homes. Many companies do it so they can say "We have a drug-free workplace!" without even bothering to explain how that benefits the customers. I classify that last group by a simpler name: "Idiots who are wasting their shareholders' money."
-
That is a straw man argument. Almost every company requires drug testing for employment. It is a logical extension of this to demand drug testing for receiving unemployment benefits.
Recipients of such benefits have to be eligible for employment. Drug users are not eligible for employment in most cases.
By the way, marijuana stays in the system longer than any other drug ... 30 days. Watch it, pot smokers.
Good point, except unemployment benefits are benefits based on weeks worked. Those benefits were earned and paid for; therefore I do not think they should be denied. That's like saying we should test people for receiving social security benefits. People have already earned benefits and paid into the system ... should we mandatory drug screen seniors??
First and foremost we need more sustainable jobs and THEN think about going back to the 13 weeks of unemployment limit. Those who require additional benefits must meet certain criteria and be subjected to random drug testing.
-
@Bigun
Show me the language in the Constitution that says they can do that.
It's not that the federal government CAN do that as much as it is a case of they are REQUIRED to do that. Why else would the leaders of the various colonies have agreed to form a union without that guarantee? What is the purpose of the BoR if this is not true?
What makes you think that the individual state governments are not capable of protecting the interests of their citizens?
I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. The state governments ARE capable of protecting the rights of their citizens. It is one obligation of the Federal Government to insure they do this.
-
I firmly believe that Bammy by design tanked the economy, destroyed jobs so that unemployment HAD to be extended ...pretty hard to find a job when there aren't any jobs out there and pretty hard to make ends meet when your hours have been reduced because an employer doesn't want to pay for health insurance.
With the sole exception of Reagan,and now Trump,that has been true of every President since King Franklin. The only area Obomber rises above the others is in stupidity. Every other president was smart,even though most were selfish and evil except for Carter,who has to be the biggest fool to ever occupy the WH. Obomber is just stupid and lazy,willing to do whatever he is told to do as long as he gets to act like he's in charge.
I realize we are under President Trump, but IMHO the economy needs a shot in the arm and jobs need to be brought back ... then start to cut back on benefits.
Exactly. Dogma can never be allowed to overtake reality to the point where your changes become counter-productive.
-
Yes, I understand that people go through alcohol withdrawals ... I get that. My question is ... who pays for that emergency treatment to help them go through the physical withdrawal that one experiences?
There is no "one answer fits all". Some people have insurance,or relatives that pay. Some states probably pick up the bill for emergency room expenses,and in some cases the feral and state government both pay via tax write-offs from the hospital and doctors.
-
Oh crap. Not this again. Ok....I'll play.
Yes, God gave us ALL free will, but he is always there to help us if and when we screw up and ask for His help. How hard is that to understand? If our choices lead us away from God, that's on us. If our choices in life lead us to God, then it was all worth it in the "end" (ie the afterlife/eternity).
That's how I see it.
@XenaLee
Ahhh,the No-Fault God! Responsible for all the good things,and never responsible for the bad things.
Kinda like Joseph Stalin when you think about it.
-
Good point, except unemployment benefits are benefits based on weeks worked. Those benefits were earned and paid for; therefore I do not think they should be denied. That's like saying we should test people for receiving social security benefits. People have already earned benefits and paid into the system ... should we mandatory drug screen seniors??
First and foremost we need more sustainable jobs and THEN think about going back to the 13 weeks of unemployment limit. Those who require additional benefits must meet certain criteria and be subjected to random drug testing.
@libertybele
All excellent points. 888high58888
-
BREAKING: U.S. Senate REVERSED Major Obama Law. He’s Reportedly FURIOUS!
Awwww... Poor whiny little child. It's about time he finally got himself a spanking.
Idiot.
-
The question wasn't stupid. The purpose of the law appears to be punitive - drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits, not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?
I think the point here is to make life harder on drug users.
-
More winning!!!!
On substance!
Thanks for the ping @LonestarDream :thumbsup3:
-
The conversation got to where it did because we were assured the government would create the level playing field for all, thus making rules like drug testing people for Unemployment benefits unneeded.
It could not possibly be clearer. People getting unemployment benefits are required to be willing and able to work and to apply for jobs a certain number of times per week, etc.
People who cannot pass drug tests are not eligible to work as the vast majority of companies demand a drug test prior to employment.
-
Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?
To qualify for unemployment (among other things) you can't have been fired for cause. Drinking alcohol chronically to excess causes other problems with workplace performance, and drinking on the job is cause for dismissal. If these were the reason the person is unemployed (IOW, they were fired) they are not eligible for unemployment.
-
Oh crap. Not this again. Ok....I'll play.
Yes, God gave us ALL free will, but he is always there to help us if and when we screw up and ask for His help. How hard is that to understand? If our choices lead us away from God, that's on us. If our choices in life lead us to God, then it was all worth it in the "end" (ie the afterlife/eternity).
That's how I see it.
Not crap. I continue to question 'free will'. God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will?? I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.
-
Awwww... Poor whiny little child. It's about time he finally got himself a spanking.
@DiogenesLamp
You would think he would be excited about getting a spanking he didn't have to pay for,wouldn't you?
-
I think the point here is to make life harder on drug users.
@DiogenesLamp
Not necessary. They make life hard enough on themselves. No outside help is needed.
-
People who cannot pass drug tests are not eligible to work as the vast majority of companies demand a drug test prior to employment.
@Emjay
Other than menial jobs with maximum supervision,regular drug users/addicts are also incapable of holding any job they might get,and any unemployed person that isn't an addict/regular drug user who isn't smart enough to not take drugs for a period long enough to pass the drug tests in order to qualify for unemployment is too stupid to hold a job.
-
Not crap. I continue to question 'free will'. God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will?? I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.
Exercising your free agency is the entire purpose for your time here on earth!
-
Not crap. I continue to question 'free will'. God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will?? I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.
How, exactly, are you managing to equate "all knowing" with "all controlling"? Just because He knows what will happen does NOT mean that he is controlling what will happen. Time is, after all, a concept that only we are constrained by. God knows no such constraints in my belief.
This life is a test. You either do your best to pass it or you blow the test off. Your choice. :laugh:
-
Exercising your free agency is the entire purpose for your time here on earth!
:thumbsup:
-
Freedom of choice is the entire reason I'm a capitalist.
-
Why is that?
@Suppressed When I drove a school bus I had to do a pre-employment drug test. We had a scheduled drug test and could have up to 3 random tests each year.
When I went for my government security clearance I had to get a drug test and we were subject to random ones anytime they felt like it. I was working on components for the MX and Peacekeeper missile systems and they wanted to make sure everything all good.
-
What crap reporting. Like worse than crap. Garbage. Laughable. Take their interwebs permissions away.
Let's just put aside the stupid all caps, bullcrap emotional reaction lie, and superfluous exclamation points.
We'll put that aside to get to substance.
They can't decide whether it was a "rule" or a "law" or a "policy" that was "repealed" or "reversed."
Whatever the actual outcome, posting links from these idiots should now be forbidden.
-
What crap reporting. Like worse than crap. Garbage. Laughable. Take their interwebs permissions away.
Let's just put aside the stupid all caps, bullcrap emotional reaction lie, and superfluous exclamation points.
We'll put that aside to get to substance.
They can't decide whether it was a "rule" or a "law" or a "policy" that was "repealed" or "reversed."
Whatever the actual outcome, posting links from these idiots should now be forbidden.
Not surprising, considering the click bait nature of the headline. "Obama's Reportedly FURIOUS?" Really? As expected, there's no reference to any reaction from Obama in the story. I wish a rule could be created as you describe, but it seems like hysterical headlines are the new normal in the internet age.
A substantial degradation of quality, if you ask me.
-
How, exactly, are you managing to equate "all knowing" with "all controlling"? Just because He knows what will happen does NOT mean that he is controlling what will happen. Time is, after all, a concept that only we are constrained by. God knows no such constraints in my belief.
This life is a test. You either do your best to pass it or you blow the test off. Your choice. :laugh:
Thanks (sincerely) I've been struggling with the concept of free will for quite some time.
-
@Suppressed When I drove a school bus I had to do a pre-employment drug test. We had a scheduled drug test and could have up to 3 random tests each year.
When I went for my government security clearance I had to get a drug test and we were subject to random ones anytime they felt like it. I was working on components for the MX and Peacekeeper missile systems and they wanted to make sure everything all good.
@verga
But why?
I understand for positions where one could be blackmailed, or has liability for motor vehicle operations. But otherwise, what is the reason for testing in a corporate environment? Liability? Public relations?
-
@verga
But why?
I understand for positions where one could be blackmailed, or has liability for motor vehicle operations. But otherwise, what is the reason for testing in a corporate environment? Liability? Public relations?
I mentioned upthread that it's often for Public Relations, and companies that do it for that reason deserve to lose big bucks paying for the testing (it's not cheap).
-
@verga
But why?
I understand for positions where one could be blackmailed, or has liability for motor vehicle operations. But otherwise, what is the reason for testing in a corporate environment? Liability? Public relations?
Just about any job where what you do can get someone (including yourself) killed or make a big mess will require pre-employment and random drug tests.
It was that way in the oil patch, whether or not you were the one running the drilling rig, you had to pass the test to even be on location.
Now, although a host of safety programs were involved, too, companies which drug tested had fewer lost time and fatal accidents, and even with new hands in a boom, safety records were considerably improved over the days when no one was drug tested.
-
Just about any job where what you do can get someone (including yourself) killed or make a big mess will require pre-employment and random drug tests.
It was that way in the oil patch, whether or not you were the one running the drilling rig, you had to pass the test to even be on location.
Now, although a host of safety programs were involved, too, companies which drug tested had fewer lost time and fatal accidents, and even with new hands in a boom, safety records were considerably improved over the days when no one was drug tested.
No one disagrees that intoxication on the job should not and cannot be tolerated. But the issue of drug testing, as a practical matter, impacts whether an employee - who may capably and soberly perform the tasks of his job every day - can enjoy a drink or a toke while off-duty in the privacy of his home. Yes, I understand that an employer has the right, but it seems wrong somehow that an employer can fire an employee for harmless activity on the weekends.
-
No one disagrees that intoxication on the job should not and cannot be tolerated. But the issue of drug testing, as a practical matter, impacts whether an employee - who may capably and soberly perform the tasks of his job every day - can enjoy a drink or a toke while off-duty in the privacy of his home. Yes, I understand that an employer has the right, but it seems wrong somehow that an employer can fire an employee for harmless activity on the weekends.
It is a condition of employment. If you don't like it, don't work there.
If you still have enough alcohol in your system when you go to work to violate those conditions, you are a menace in those work environments. For CDL drivers and airline pilots, for example, that level is a fraction of the DUI level. While no one has yet succeeded in quantifying what levels of cannabanoids present indicate residual impairment, most of the companies I have worked for have zero tolerance simply because that is an easy standard to measure, and cannabis is illegal in those states anyway.
If you can't exercise self-restraint and good judgement in that part of your personal life, what is there to make an employer believe that you will exercise self-restraint or good judgement on their behalf? Add to that the incredible liability aspects of some jobs, and the employer places expectations on an employee as a condition of continued employment.
Would you want someone under the influence (even residually), flying the plane, driving the bus, running the oil rig, on the throttle of the commuter train, operating the nuclear power plant, just to name a few?
There are plenty of jobs which won't get anyone hurt, create an environmental disaster, or wreck expensive equipment you can do, where the employer doesn't test their employees.
-
It is a condition of employment. If you don't like it, don't work there.
If you still have enough alcohol in your system when you go to work to violate those conditions, you are a menace in those work environments. For CDL drivers and airline pilots, for example, that level is a fraction of the DUI level. While no one has yet succeeded in quantifying what levels of cannabanoids present indicate residual impairment, most of the companies I have worked for have zero tolerance simply because that is an easy standard to measure, and cannabis is illegal in those states anyway.
If you can't exercise self-restraint and good judgement in that part of your personal life, what is there to make an employer believe that you will exercise self-restraint or good judgement on their behalf? Add to that the incredible liability aspects of some jobs, and the employer places expectations on an employee as a condition of continued employment.
Would you want someone under the influence (even residually), flying the plane, driving the bus, running the oil rig, on the throttle of the commuter train, operating the nuclear power plant, just to name a few?
There are plenty of jobs which won't get anyone hurt, create an environmental disaster, or wreck expensive equipment you can do, where the employer doesn't test their employees.
You make me chuckle, because you're always up in arms about the government taking away any of your precious "freedom". Yet you excuse an employer sacking employees for a drink or a toke while on their own time on the weekend. I understand that an employer has the right to set the rules, but you seem so docile about employers impinging on private lives with "no tolerance" policies because they're "easier" for the employer.
Man or mouse? Smokin' Joe, you're one of the mice.
-
You make me chuckle, because you're always up in arms about the government taking away any of your precious "freedom". Yet you excuse an employer sacking employees for a drink or a toke while on their own time on the weekend. I understand that an employer has the right to set the rules, but you seem so docile about employers impinging on private lives with "no tolerance" policies because they're "easier" for the employer.
Man or mouse? Smokin' Joe, you're one of the mice.
@Jazzhead No one is stopping anyone for engaging in an activity on their own time, but if it is in your system when you are working it will affect your performance and possibly make you a hazard to someone else, yourself, or a piece of equipment. By setting a zero tolerance policy you do not have to working about making a judgement and setting yourself up for a law suit. You also will never have to justify in a court of law why you let someone work while under the influence if they injure or kill someone.
-
I see a difference between testing for "genetics" and testing for marijuana:
You cannot help what genetics you have but you can make a choice not to smoke marijuana.
-
I see a difference between testing for "genetics" and testing for marijuana:
You cannot help what genetics you have but you can make a choice not to smoke marijuana.
Testing for "genetics" (actually, nothing more than filling out a health risk assessment that includes questions on family medical history) is entirely voluntary. Drug testing that doesn't test for impairment on the job, but merely past use, is mandatory for many employees. That's a huge difference in intrusiveness and potential consequences. So why the docility? Why should one be able to be fired for the harmless way one chooses to relax on the weekend?
-
Testing for "genetics" (actually, nothing more than filling out a health risk assessment that includes questions on family medical history) is entirely voluntary. Drug testing that doesn't test for impairment on the job, but merely past use, is mandatory for many employees. That's a huge difference in intrusiveness and potential consequences. So why the docility? Why should one be able to be fired for the harmless way one chooses to relax on the weekend?
You cannot control your family or their behavior. We all know that "voluntary" when it comes to employers is anything but. A health questionnaire is fine, but asking questions about your family history is not. And by leaving them blank, the employer will assume you have something to hide.
But you can control smoking MJ on the weekends. The way I look at it is this: if you are really that into smoking pot do you really want to work for a company that cares that much about it?
-
You cannot control your family or their behavior. We all know that "voluntary" when it comes to employers is anything but. A health questionnaire is fine, but asking questions about your family history is not. And by leaving them blank, the employer will assume you have something to hide.
That's not how it works. Completion of a health risk assessment earns a reward under the employer's health care plan. That makes the HRA subject to the rules regarding medical privacy. Don't be concerned - the employer doesn't know the results of any employee's HRA. Just whether or not the employee completed one and earned the reward.
But you can control smoking MJ on the weekends. The way I look at it is this: if you are really that into smoking pot do you really want to work for a company that cares that much about it?
It seems to me that our liberty means little if we cannot be ourselves on our own time, so long as we're not harming others. We zealously oppose intrusions on that liberty by the government, and act like docile mice when liberty is denied by our employers. Perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it - employers hold all the cards, and can impose rules on our off-hours behavior whether rational or not. But it puts the lie to our "love of liberty" to just shrug, bend over and take it.
-
That's not how it works. Completion of a health risk assessment earns a reward under the employer's health care plan. That makes the HRA subject to the rules regarding medical privacy. Don't be concerned - the employer doesn't know the results of any employee's HRA. Just whether or not the employee completed one and earned the reward.
You've never had a target obsessed manager, have you?
-
Not crap. I continue to question 'free will'. God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will?? I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.
@libertybele @Bigun
A bit old now (2010), but I think you might find this short video interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ0BP9JCz_I
And research from last year...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/
-
That's not how it works. Completion of a health risk assessment earns a reward under the employer's health care plan. That makes the HRA subject to the rules regarding medical privacy. Don't be concerned - the employer doesn't know the results of any employee's HRA. Just whether or not the employee completed one and earned the reward.
@Jazzhead Yeah you are wrong again. Years ago I worked for a company that brought a health assessment van around once a year. The company had full access to our medical records from it. I stopped going once I found that out.
-
@Jazzhead Yeah you are wrong again. Years ago I worked for a company that brought a health assessment van around once a year. The company had full access to our medical records from it. I stopped going once I found that out.
The company justifies it by virtue of their remittance of their share of the Insurance price. I expect someone to come along and rubbish all that because the great government we have will protect us (from what we've already seen happen).
-
Not crap. I continue to question 'free will'. God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will?? I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.
@libertybele
I used to be an atheist, and this was one of the questions that bothered me.
There is actually a very reasonable answer for this:
Let's say ten minutes ago you made a free will choice. At the present, with perfect knowledge of the past, I say "Libertybele will pick the purple jacket in that choice ten minutes ago."
Does my knowledge of the present result of your past choice *necessarily* cancel it as a free will choice? Of course not. It could very well have been free will that led to that choice at that time.
Now, here's the rub when it comes to God...
God is an *eternal* entity. That doesn't actually mean that he exists forever, as we view time in a linear fashion. It means that God exists *outside* of OUR time. He exists in the past, present, and future all at once relative to us. If you'd like, you can think of him being in a parallel dimension where all points of time between the two dimensions exist simultaneously.
This makes sense, right? Because time is a function of space and/or movement/change in space. If God exists beyond our space, time would not exist for him in a linear fashion. In fact, he would look at our universe and see all points of time at the same moment.
So, like me in the prior example, with perfect knowledge of YOUR past, I can say what free will choice you made without eliminating the "free will" component of that choice.
God knows the future because he exists in it! And exists now. And exists in the past. You need to put aside your causal thought process when dealing with eternal concepts. Causation does not exist for God like it exists for us.
This, of course, is how "God's plan" works. Being an eternal being, God has already seen all possibilities, and knew that - under the current creation - the combination of our free will choices would lead to the GREATEST GOOD... the best possible outcome. That's an important concept to grasp. The internals of the plan may include suffering, but the end result is the greatest good possible. For those that are faithful, and get to experience eternity - which is an *infinite* concept - all of the finite sufferings of this world will become infinitesimally small relative to the infinite joy in Heaven's eternity. It will be like sacrificing a penny to receive a trillion dollars. Except "times infinity." Heh.
There is more, of course, but that should be enough apologetics to chew on for now.
-
@Jazzhead Yeah you are wrong again. Years ago I worked for a company that brought a health assessment van around once a year. The company had full access to our medical records from it. I stopped going once I found that out.
No, they didn't. But paranoia is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to complete an HRA. It's voluntary, and if you don't want the reward, then fine.
-
No, they didn't. But paranoia is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to complete an HRA. It's voluntary, and if you don't want the reward, then fine.
Nice. You don't agree with someone's argument, and it's because of paranoia, mythology or just outright lies. How tidy your argumentation is, a thing of wonder.
-
Nice. You don't agree with someone's argument, and it's because of paranoia, mythology or just outright lies. How tidy your argumentation is, a thing of wonder.
What argument? He says he refuses to fill out an HRA because he's afraid his employer will then have access to his health records. I'm saying he's mistaken about that. But why should he listen to me? (My clients generally do, but then again, they pay me.)
Paranoia's as good a reason as any other to refuse to complete an HRA. It's voluntary!
-
What argument? He says he refuses to fill out an HRA because he's afraid his employer will then have access to his health records. I'm saying he's mistaken about that. But why should he listen to me? (My clients generally do, but then again, they pay me.)
Paranoia's as good a reason as any other to refuse to complete an HRA. It's voluntary!
You may have missed where he said he's already seen it done. But why should I point a thing like that out to you? Your faith in government and laws is almost child-like.
-
No, they didn't. But paranoia is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to complete an HRA. It's voluntary, and if you don't want the reward, then fine.
@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.
-
@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.
He has his theories, and those trump any facts you may care to present. I'm finished talking to him today if he won't clarify what he means by "mythology." Sounds like he's making fun of peoples deeply held faith.
-
You make me chuckle, because you're always up in arms about the government taking away any of your precious "freedom". Yet you excuse an employer sacking employees for a drink or a toke while on their own time on the weekend. I understand that an employer has the right to set the rules, but you seem so docile about employers impinging on private lives with "no tolerance" policies because they're "easier" for the employer.
Man or mouse? Smokin' Joe, you're one of the mice.
Mouse? Hardly. Wash the blood and brains of a friend off the floor of an oil rig some time because his crew mates are too sick to. Help bandage a mutilated hand because the guy who reached out to steady himself just happened to grab a cable in motion and get his hand sucked into a shiv. If you want to work in an environment where a half second of inattention can be life changing or life ending, go for it. Just let me know where that is and I won't go there and I'll tell my friends.
Your presence on that job is optional, not required. You can always go flip burgers, but if you want to work somewhere that people's limbs and lives can be forfeit, not to mention the possibility of the 'billion dollar effup', you'd better have your feces consolidated and stacked by the time you break tour, or your ass will get sent down the road with the rest of your stuff.
I have worked at five different jobs which were on the 'top ten most dangerous job' list. Not one of those do I want some jackass on my crew or working around me who isn't alert and aware. Drunks and druggies need not apply.
-
It seems to me that our liberty means little if we cannot be ourselves on our own time, so long as we're not harming others. We zealously oppose intrusions on that liberty by the government, and act like docile mice when liberty is denied by our employers.
You may have read my other comment. Your presence on that job is optional. Your being intruded on by the government is not.
If 'being yourself' involves drug use, and you would assert that that harms no one else, it must be lonely being a friendless orphan on that remote island. Weren't you the person contending there were 'community obligations' and here you would blow those off for your high of choice just because you think that has no effect when you are on the clock.
You see, I saw the difference when pre-employ drug testing started in the oil patch. Rig accidents went down. Fewer people got killed or maimed in the course of their employment. Less stuff got broken, too. Not all employers require a level of performance around inherently dangerous equipment that is required in that workplace. Not all employers require pre-employment or random drug testing, either.
Go work for one of them. Why, you could be a congressman! (One group I'd really like to see tested).
-
@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.
How many years ago was this? The situation you describe would be illegal under current law.
-
You may have read my other comment. Your presence on that job is optional. Your being intruded on by the government is not.
If 'being yourself' involves drug use, and you would assert that that harms no one else, it must be lonely being a friendless orphan on that remote island. Weren't you the person contending there were 'community obligations' and here you would blow those off for your high of choice just because you think that has no effect when you are on the clock.
You see, I saw the difference when pre-employ drug testing started in the oil patch. Rig accidents went down. Fewer people got killed or maimed in the course of their employment. Less stuff got broken, too. Not all employers require a level of performance around inherently dangerous equipment that is required in that workplace. Not all employers require pre-employment or random drug testing, either.
Go work for one of them. Why, you could be a congressman! (One group I'd really like to see tested).
Drug and alcohol testing make sense for dangerous jobs. No argument there. But for most of us, what we do on our own time, that doesn't harm others, ought not to cause us to lose our jobs.
-
@libertybele
Not crap. I continue to question 'free will'. God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will?? I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.
I personally resolve that one by noting that God punished Adam and Eve for their conduct in the Garden of Eden. But if there is no freewill, then God actually made them disobey him, then punished them for the actions he made them commit. How stupid is that? Additionally, imposing a punishment for an action that He compelled would be immoral as far as I'm concerned, and would mean that God is not worthy of being worshipped.
More broadly, doesn't having (or not having) faith require freewill? Because if there is no freewill, then we cannot choose to have faith, but rather that is dictated to us by God. In which case, we get sent to heaven or hell based on what God forces us to think/believe. So again, I'd see that as a fundamental immoral position that would make God unworthy of being worshipped.
And you couldn't blame me for thinking those blasphemous thoughts . After all, I have no freewill, therefore it is God who is compelling me to be blasphemous.
So....
It's either all that, or believe that God is so powerful that he could create beings with freewill. I choose to believe that.
-
Drug and alcohol testing make sense for dangerous jobs. No argument there. But for most of us, what we do on our own time, that doesn't harm others, ought not to cause us to lose our jobs.
You see I have problems with the elasticity of two phrases there.
what we do on our own time. Fine if it begins and ends there, but if the effects linger afterward, it runs over into other time. A beer will be gone. A case might not be. As for a 'toke', I have known a lot of people who smoke, but none did just 'a toke', they got a buzz on, and often refreshed it. The effects of that didn't magically evaporate by Monday morning, any more than getting kneewalking drunk the night before does.
Then there is " that doesn't harm others'. I have heard the 'It's my body, I'll do what I want, I'm not hurting anyone else." argument before. Invariably, it's wrong. It only reflects a will obliviousness to the nature of interactions with others and minimizes the damage in the mind of the person who commits it.
-
@libertybele
I personally resolve that one by saying that God punished Adam and Eve for their conduct in the Garden of Eden. But if there is no freewill, then God actually made them disobey him, then punished them for the actions he made them commit. How stupid is that? Additionally, imposing a punishment for an action that He compelled would be immoral as far as I'm concerned, and would mean that God is not worthy of being worshipped.
More broadly, doesn't having (or not having) faith require freewill? Because if there is no freewill, then we cannot choose to have faith, but rather that is dictated to us by God. In which case, we get sent to heaven or hell based on what God forces us to think/believe. So again, I'd see that as a fundamental immoral position that would make God unworthy of being worshipped.
And you couldn't blame me for thinking those blasphemous thoughts . After all, I have no freewill, therefore it is God who is compelling me to be blasphemous.
So....
It's either all that, or believe that God is so powerful that he could create beings with freewill. I choose to believe that.
I'm an agnostic secular humanist so... free will is a given in how I see the world. :laugh:
-
How many years ago was this? The situation you describe would be illegal under current law.
@Jazzhead The company is still in existence and it is still happening, and no it is not illegal.
-
@Jazzhead The company is still in existence and it is still happening, and no it is not illegal.
HIPPA protects us in the same manner that an Order of Protection protects a beaten wife, IOW it's waving a piece of paper, ala Chamberlain. Only fools who trust government thinks that piece of paper really protects anybody.
-
I'm surprised I agree with @Jazzhead on anything, but I agree here. "Random" drug testing is a tool that employers use to downsize cheaply. I have personally witnessed this method utilized on multiple occasions as a first round ploy. The families of the weekend drug users are generally devastated as they receive no severance pay and do not qualify for unemployment benefits. "Random" is rarely indeed random.
I would advise the occasional marijuana user to refrain if he doesn't have enough cash in the bank to tide him over until he can successfully regain employment.
-
@Jazzhead The company is still in existence and it is still happening, and no it is not illegal.
Yes, it is illegal (unless you're mischaracterizing the facts, which I suspect you are).
-
@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.
I went to work for a hospital. Part of the hiring process was completing a medical questionnaire which included listing ALL prescriptions drugs, dosage and reason for being on that medication. ALL past hospitalizations needed to be listed and a blood test was administered. According to HIPPA laws employers are absolutely NOT supposed to have access to medical records, but that doesn't preclude them from requesting medical information as a condition of employment. They can then use those records as a deciding factor in hiring someone. Someone who has diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc., may cost the employer more than someone who has no diseases and are on few if any prescription drugs...especially if they are offering health insurance AND they may look at it as someone who will be taking time from work for doctors appointments or sick days.
Any employer/employee who violates HIPPA laws are subject to penalties and fines.
https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/hipaa-violations-enforcement
-
Greetings my friends!
This topic been running for days, the Health Care issue is always a hot topic, as it has been since the 90's at least. We're not going to solve it here, although we've had a good debate. Since it's so hot, we Mods have been a bit lenient on our rule of "No personal attacks," and you have all been very good sports about it. Thanks for being lenient with us! My inbox of reports could be overflowing, but it's not.
This morning I rolled out of bed and checked this thread to see how we're doing, and I think it's time to tighten that rule back up a little. I saw one Member refer to another as a "moron," and in response that person called the first a "cretin." You know who you are.
Enough of that! Stop calling each other names! I don't want to lock this thread because there's a lot of great discussion going on about a very important topic (there's an important vote tomorrow), but we need a return to civility, please.