[azjetfan]

A1elbow, on 25 April 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

What do you do for a living? You don't have to be specific, just general is fine.

I sent you a PM. I dont really want that on here

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I am not sure how they are calculating these numbers. If I google average welfare amount it comes up with $18K per year. If I take $18K times 108 people not recieving benifits it comes up with $1.95 million. If I prorate to the month it is $1500 times 108 per person $162K. The article is claiming $118,140 in testing costs. That is a net gain of $43,860.00. What am I missing here?

They got their data right from the horses mouth so to speak. They got it from the Florida Department of Children and Families. That's the department that oversees the state's TANF program (a.k.a. welfare). I'd be more inclined to believe them over a Google search. Not everybody gets the same amount of assistance or stay on TANF for the entire amount of time their allowed to receive TANF benefits.

Quote

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows


By Brittany Alana Davis
The Miami Herald

Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.

The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.

Attorneys for the state immediately appealed the ban, and will face off against the ACLU again at the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta and the U.S. District Court in Orlando in coming months.

The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law.

Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said.

Data about the law’s cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said it won’t play a role in the legal proceedings.

That’s because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches" by the government.

"Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional," Meale said.

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

"That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.

The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.

"It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue," said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. "It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs."

Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work.

"It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs," she said.

Smith said he believes the law helps keep people off drugs and that there’s undocumented savings in the form of less prison costs and fewer broken families.

He sponsored another bill in 2012, recently signed into law by Scott, to allow state agencies to drug test their employees and fire those who test positive.

That law is also expected to cost money and to yield lawsuits.

After reading some of the comments after this article on the Herald's website apparently Florida's governor (Rick Scott) owned a health care company that he put in his wife's name and guess what is one of the services that company offers....drug testing. Now I don't know or have any proof that Gov. Scott's company was paid by the state to administer any of those drug tests but it is interesting.

Quote

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion

By Stacey Singer
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Updated: 3:13 p.m. Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Posted: 9:02 p.m. Saturday, March 26, 2011

One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling.

Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line.

The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.

This raised a groundswell of concern and questions about his health policy initiatives, especially his push to move Medicaid into private HMOs. Solantic does not take Medicaid but does business with private Medicaid HMOs. The questions are growing louder with Scott's executive order on drug testing.

Solantic charges $35 for drug tests. The main customers? People who want advance reassurance they will pass an upcoming drug test for work or parole, and worried parents who bring in wayward teens, Bowling said. Customers can have results sent confidentially to their homes, without involving their employer or insurer.

"The wellness tests have really grown. People want to come in and find out, and then never see us again," Bowling said in an interview last month.

'Elephant in the room'

Scott surprised state employees Tuesday by issuing his executive order for mandatory drug testing of all prospective hires, and random drug testing of current employees, in agencies whose directors he appoints.

In the same announcement, he praised the Florida Legislature for its plans to require all welfare applicants to undergo drug testing as well.

Taken together, the initiatives could affect hundreds of thousands of Floridians, forcing them to submit to drug tests or risk losing their public jobs or benefits.

"Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace," Scott said in a statement. "Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees."

Until last week, Scott's communications office in Tallahassee had ignored repeated requests for comment on the potential for a conflict of interest. On Friday, as national media began to call as well, the office issued this response:

Any perception that the governor's business interests pose a conflict of interest with his health policies are "baseless and incorrect," said Scott's deputy communications director, Brian Hughes.

Privately, one Scott official acknowledged that every time the governor discusses health policy, his urgent care business would be "the elephant in the room."

Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott's lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife's name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott's ownership to his wife's trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.

"He owned the company and transferred it into his wife's name," Rodwin said. "It's a conflict of interest."

But while it may rise to the level of impropriety, Florida legal experts said, it likely does not rise to the level of illegality.

Advice for the governor

Scott would be wise to specify that Solantic be left out of any government drug testing contracts, advised Bruce Rogow, a Nova Southeastern law professor who has defended elected officials accused of public corruption. So far, that hasn't happened.

"If I were the governor and I wanted there to be drug testing, and I owned a company that did a lot of drug testing, I would tell agencies to leave out my company," Rogow said.

He said he does not think it's illegal. "It's just a question of propriety."

Former federal prosecutor and current Palm Beach County Ethics Commissioner Bruce Reinhart agreed. He added that recent case law involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and former Hollinger International Chairman Conrad Black had significantly weakened the federal honest services fraud law that was used to convict ex-Palm Beach County Commissioners Tony Masilotti, Warren Newell and Mary McCarty.

The ex-commissioners were found guilty of clandestinely using their public position for personal financial benefit. After the Supreme Court decided last summer that proof of "palpable conduct" such as bribery or kickbacks is required for an honest services fraud conviction, such cases are harder to prove.

"There's a lot of things that someone in the public might perceive as improper, sleazy, corrupt, whatever adjective you want to throw on it, but they are not criminal," said Reinhart, now a criminal defense attorney.

"The remedy is political. If the governor is doing things that are 100 percent legal but the citizens of Florida think it's unseemly, they have the absolute right not to vote for him in the future."

Hughes, Scott's deputy communications director, had few details on how the drug testing policy will be carried out. He said the executive order is simply a policy guidance document, and more specifics will come as agencies develop detailed testing plans.

How much will it cost?

Agencies have 60 days to write their policies. Testing then starts immediately for prospective hires. Random testing of employees starts 60 days after they're notified of the policies.

While welfare recipients will have to pay for their drug tests out of their pockets to receive state aid under the bill Scott supports, his executive order is silent on the subject of cost.

Hughes said it's not yet known precisely how many employees are affected, what tests will be used or how much they will cost. Though Scott campaigned on reducing government spending, the costs of conducting the drug tests, even if they reach $2 million or $3 million a year, are worth it for the peace of mind they will give taxpayers, Hughes said.

But threats of litigation are likely to push the cost to taxpayers even higher.

Discussions about cost are starting, Hughes said.

"It's simply a policy guidance starting point," he said. "The governor believes that it is in the best interest of Florida's taxpayers to have a healthy and productive state workforce."

Also apparently Governor Scott was the founder of a company (HCA) that paid a huge Medicare fraud settlement before he became governor.

Quote

Posted 12/18/2002 10:00 AM Updated 12/18/2002 8:59 PM
HCA to settle more allegations for $631M
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY

HCA, the largest hospital chain, said Wednesday that it has agreed to pay $648.5 million to settle final charges in a long-running federal investigation.

Including previous civil and criminal settlements, reached in 2000, the total paid by HCA will hit about $1.7 billion, by far the largest health fraud settlement in history, the Justice Department said in a statement.

Tenet, the No. 2 hospital chain, also is under government scrutiny over allegations that it raised charges to take advantage of a loophole in Medicare law and garner higher-than-average payments.

The HCA investigation grew out of lawsuits filed by former employees, starting in 1993, and focused on whether the company improperly billed Medicare for hundreds of millions of dollars.

During the investigation, HCA was acquired by Columbia Healthcare and continued its rapid expansion under founder Richard Scott. He resigned in 1997 amid mounting evidence that HCA had kept two sets of books, one to show the government and one with actual expenses listed. Thomas Frist — a co-founder of HCA and brother of Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. — replaced Scott and remains on the board.

Under the agreement, HCA must pay the government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies. As previously announced, HCA also has to pay $250 million to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.

HCA said it expects to record a charge of $445 million in the fourth quarter to cover settlement costs. It also expects to record an additional charge to cover legal fees brought by attorneys for the whistle-blowers. "We are pleased to have successfully negotiated a settlement," said Jack Bovender Jr., HCA's chief executive officer.

Critics of the settlement say HCA executives involved in the scandal deserved jail time. "When people engage in crimes this large, it is not enough to just settle for large amounts of money," says Sidney Wolfe of advocacy group Public Citizen. "Examples need to be set, and people need to go to jail."

So the governor who wants to protect the tax payers by making sure people on welfare aren't using tax payer money to buy illegal drugs; in the past was the head of a company that was accused of stealing millions of dollars from the Medicare system (which is fonded with tax payer money). I mean, WOW. Maybe we should be more concerned about people like Rick Scott taking our hard earned tax dollars and less concerned about the mythical welfare queen taking our hard earned tax dollars.

[A1elbow]

azjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

I sent you a PM. I dont really want that on here

Understood. I'll simply say this. You have a good job and I can see where you're coming from.

I'd rather see welfare taken away altogether than to see laws enacted to punish people for being on it because Republicans don't like it.

[azjetfan]

A1elbow, on 25 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Understood. I'll simply say this. You have a good job and I can see where you're coming from.

I'd rather see welfare taken away altogether than to see laws enacted to punish people for being on it because Republicans don't like it.

Are we confusing conseratives with Republicans? I am not a Republican. I will vote for the best candidate. I am however more conservative than most.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 25 April 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

They got their data right from the horses mouth so to speak. They got it from the Florida Department of Children and Families. That's the department that oversees the state's TANF program (a.k.a. welfare). I'd be more inclined to believe them over a Google search. Not everybody gets the same amount of assistance or stay on TANF for the entire amount of time their allowed to receive TANF benefits.





After reading some of the comments after this article on the Herald's website apparently Florida's governor (Rick Scott) owned a health care company that he put in his wife's name and guess what is one of the services that company offers....drug testing. Now I don't know or have any proof that Gov. Scott's company was paid by the state to administer any of those drug tests but it is interesting.




Also apparently Governor Scott was the founder of a company (HCA) that paid a huge Medicare fraud settlement before he became governor.




So the governor who wants to protect the tax payers by making sure people on welfare aren't using tax payer money to buy illegal drugs; in the past was the head of a company that was accused of stealing millions of dollars from the Medicare system (which is fonded with tax payer money). I mean, WOW. Maybe we should be more concerned about people like Rick Scott taking our hard earned tax dollars and less concerned about the mythical welfare queen taking our hard earned tax dollars.

A couple things here....
1) those are accusations.
2) Do you think men like Bernie Marcus, Michael E. Bannister, Obama or John Stumph know everything that is happening under them? Do you think he said heck yea lets do it? Lets rip off Medicare!? Come on, be real.You are reading an article from the media. they have to make it juicy so it sells. He may be dirty as I believe most polititions are. That does not mean we can't better the system. As far as the welfare queens.... I see them everyday. I know it is real. You can turn a blind eye to it if you want but it is real.

[A1elbow]

azjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Are we confusing conseratives with Republicans? I am not a Republican. I will vote for the best candidate. I am however more conservative than most.

If you vote in this country 90% odds you are one of three things:

Dem, Rep, not voting for anyone who stands a chance of winning.

Anything else is just window dressing.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

A couple things here....
1) those are accusations.
2) Do you think men like Bernie Marcus, Michael E. Bannister, Obama or John Stumph know everything that is happening under them? Do you think he said heck yea lets do it? Lets rip off Medicare!? Come on, be real.You are reading an article from the media. they have to make it juicy so it sells. He may be dirty as I believe most polititions are. That does not mean we can't better the system. As far as the welfare queens.... I see them everyday. I know it is real. You can turn a blind eye to it if you want but it is real.

Excuses, excuses. So let me get this straight those articles from the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, USA Today (all reputable and respected newspapers), are wrong because they're part of the media and they're trying to just make up juicy stories to sell papers. But when you post articles from Gallup and Reuters (both reputable news organizations) talking about Obama's bad poll numbers and boarder security, that's news that can be trusted? Why is it when conservatives are presented with information that they don't like or want to believe they play the "liberal media" card? We don't like those articles so let's attack the messenger (in this case the newspapers). Is that how it works? Sorry it doesn't work that way for me. An article from Reuters presented by you is just as good as an article from USA Today presented by me. Maybe somebody should have did some more digging to see what Rick Scott knew about his company possibly committing Medicare fraud while he was in charge. What did he know and when did he know it? Nixon supporters tried to attack the messenger too, but thankfully the Washington Post kept on digging anyway. This isn't the Fox News Channel or Daily Kos we're talking about here.

But you see welfare queens everyday huh. Well describe them to me. What do they look like? What kind of clothes do they wear? Where do they live? Where do they come from? Paint me a visual picture of what a welfare queen looks like. Are they anything like the "bla people" Rick Santorum was talking about a few months ago? You got a camera phone? Because if you do could you snap a few pictures of them and post them on here? That might help me get a good idea of what the welfare queens you see everyday look like. The welfare queen is right up there with Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. Often spotted but never has there been any real evidence of their existence.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 25 April 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Excuses, excuses. So let me get this straight those articles from the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, USA Today (all reputable and respected newspapers), are wrong because they're part of the media and they're trying to just make up juicy stories to sell papers.

Yes.

Quote

But when you post articles from Gallup and Reuters (both reputable news organizations) talking about Obama's bad poll numbers and boarder security, that's news that can be trusted?

When did I say Reuters is reputable? Gallup is an unbiased fact based polling company. They do not make there money by selling articles. Companies pay them to do accurate surveys for them. Once again your are trying to put things in my mouth.

Quote

But you see welfare queens everyday huh. Well describe them to me. What do they look like? What kind of clothes do they wear? Where do they live? Where do they come from? Paint me a visual picture of what a welfare queen looks like. Are they anything like the "bla people" Rick Santorum was talking about a few months ago? You got a camera phone? Because if you do could you snap a few pictures of them and post them on here? That might help me get a good idea of what the welfare queens you see everyday look like. The welfare queen is right up there with Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. Often spotted but never has there been any real evidence of their existence.

Lets see today I had a lady wo insisted on talking to me since I guess she did not trust what the AVP was telling her about her account. Her son who was probably 6 was in a T-shirt and torn jeans. Dirty as heck and shivering. She was yelling at him for complainig about being cold. It was 30 degrees and windy this morning. When I looked at her financials I saw she had spent $50 at the Tabbacco outlet the day she got her Taxpayer money and the rest at various fast food places and gas stations. She was mad we would not give her a payday loan until she gets her next direct deposit from the taxpayers so she could feed her son and pay her light bill. She wanted to borrow almost 70% of her next paycheck. If she did this how would she live the next month? She has been on government assistance since she became a customer in 2008. I see this either in person, Through a AVP or reports every single day. It is ridiculus how people will spend our money. You pay your bills and put food on the table first and then you go buy your tobacco. So yes I see this stupid shit in person and I did call the police for child neglect.

I also Had an AVP call me today because a guy on unemployment threaten to "thrash" the building because he overdrafted his account for the 14th time this year. He refuses to keep a ledger even though he cannot keep it strait. He also refuses to Opt out on his plastics to prevent this. Another person with a series of purchases that are not priorities. More tax payer money wasted on alchohol and cigerettes.

I will post tomorrows fun news tomorrow.

[azjetfan]

A1elbow, on 25 April 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

If you vote in this country 90% odds you are one of three things:

Dem, Rep, not voting for anyone who stands a chance of winning.

Anything else is just window dressing.

I disagree. I think most people will vote for whoever they think will do the best job not by what side of the house they sit on. Thats your opinion though and I respect it

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Yes.

Well as long as we have it straight now. Bad news about President Obama can be trusted but bad news about Rick Scott is wrong because it's just the media looking to make money. I know, I know you didn't say that. But it was implied. The news just can't support your point of view only.

Quote

When did I say Reuters is reputable? Gallup is an unbiased fact based polling company. They do not make there money by selling articles. Companies pay them to do accurate surveys for them. Once again your are trying to put things in my mouth.

I was the one that said Reuters is reputable. I wasn't putting anything in your mouth. But you have posted articles on here before from Reuters when that article had something bad to say about the President or was a news story that painted a liberal point of view in a bad light. The thread about the DREAM act in California, you got that from Reuters and then after the article you said "no wonder Cali is bankrupt." I didn't go in there and say "oh you can't believe this article because the media just wants to make money." Your post about Solyndra what was that about? Was that was just another example of the media trying to make money off of a juicy story so therefore it can't be trusted?

But none of that changes the fact that those Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, and USA Today articles reported information that are all public record. Anybody could go out and get that information for themselves. The info about the drug testing law costing more than it saves, that info came from the Florida Department of Children and Families themselves. The very department that oversees welfare in Florida. That's info you or I could've probably gotten from their website. The stuff about Rick Scott and HCA is a matter of public record. Anybody could've gotten that information from the justice department's records, just like USA Today did.

You can't just shoot the messenger (the newspapers) just because these things make Rick Scott look like a corrupt businessman who "possibly" stole money from the government by committing Medicare fraud; and is now possibly using his job as governor to profit off of personally because of these new drug testing and Medicaid laws he wants in Florida. He better be careful or he could end up sharing a prison cell with Rod Blagojevich if he keeps going down this road.

Quote

Lets see today I had a lady wo insisted on talking to me since I guess she did not trust what the AVP was telling her about her account. Her son who was probably 6 was in a T-shirt and torn jeans. Dirty as heck and shivering. She was yelling at him for complainig about being cold. It was 30 degrees and windy this morning. When I looked at her financials I saw she had spent $50 at the Tabbacco outlet the day she got her Taxpayer money and the rest at various fast food places and gas stations. She was mad we would not give her a payday loan until she gets her next direct deposit from the taxpayers so she could feed her son and pay her light bill. She wanted to borrow almost 70% of her next paycheck. If she did this how would she live the next month? She has been on government assistance since she became a customer in 2008. I see this either in person, Through a AVP or reports every single day. It is ridiculus how people will spend our money. You pay your bills and put food on the table first and then you go buy your tobacco. So yes I see this stupid shit in person and I did call the police for child neglect.

I also Had an AVP call me today because a guy on unemployment threaten to "thrash" the building because he overdrafted his account for the 14th time this year. He refuses to keep a ledger even though he cannot keep it strait. He also refuses to Opt out on his plastics to prevent this. Another person with a series of purchases that are not priorities. More tax payer money wasted on alchohol and cigerettes.

I will post tomorrows fun news tomorrow.

So these are welfare queens? Dirty, stupid, obnoxious people who bother you at work. No that's not a welfare queen from what they've been described as being in the past. From what conservatives have said in the past the welfare queen uses tax payer money to buy luxury cars and expensive clothing, not cigarettes and alcohol. Welfare queens (from what conservatives have said in the past) use tax payer money to live like royalty. From what you describe here it doesn't sound like these folks are living like royalty. Did this woman with the dirty kid have a fur coat and diamonds on while she was bothering you? This stupid guy who was irritating you, what kind of car does he drive? A brand new BMW or a Cadillac I'm guessing. All these expensive things bought with tax payer money of course. From what I've been told that's what a welfare queen does. Live the high life on our dime.

But why does it upset you that these dirty, obnoxious people on welfare you see everyday buy cigarettes and alcohol with it? Those are legal drugs remember. Drug testing them would be pointless since they're not buying anything illegal with tax payer money. This goes back to what I was saying months ago about alcohol use and drug testing. But I'm sure you'll run into the welfare queens tomorrow at work that live in the lap of luxury. They just didn't come in yesterday.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 26 April 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Well as long as we have it straight now. Bad news about President Obama can be trusted but bad news about Rick Scott is wrong because it's just the media looking to make money. I know, I know you didn't say that. But it was implied. The news just can't support your point of view only.

Once again I have said that all media that makes money by selling articles is not 100% trustworthy. No matter the person they are talking about. Once again you are putting words in my mouth.

Quote

I was the one that said Reuters is reputable. I wasn't putting anything in your mouth. But you have posted articles on here before from Reuters when that article had something bad to say about the President or was a news story that painted a liberal point of view in a bad light. You can't just shoot the messenger (the newspapers) just because these things make Rick Scott look like a corrupt businessman who "possibly" stole money from the government by committing Medicare fraud; and is now possibly using his job as governor to profit off of personally because of these new drug testing and Medicaid laws he wants in Florida. He better be careful or he could end up sharing a prison cell with Rod Blagojevich if he keeps going down this road.

Just because I post an article does not mean I believe it 100%. I post it because I find it interesring and think others may as well. As far as Rick Scott.... I have already said

Quote

He may be dirty as I believe most polititions are. That does not mean we can't better the system

So again you are saying something I did not do.

Quote

From what conservatives have said in the past

Your first mistake was you keep trying to compare me to other people. Thats why you keep saying things I have not said.

Quote

But why does it upset you that these dirty, obnoxious people on welfare you see everyday buy cigarettes and alcohol with it? Those are legal drugs remember. Drug testing them would be pointless since they're not buying anything illegal with tax payer money. This goes back to what I was saying months ago about alcohol use and drug testing. But I'm sure you'll run into the welfare queens tomorrow at work that live in the lap of luxury. They just didn't come in yesterday.

It bothers me because instead of putting food onthe table for their kids and paying their bills they are buying beer and other non essentials. Then the money that came out of my pocket to feed those kids is being spent on........ As far as the drug testing comment goes, I said all that because you said

Quote

Maybe we should be more concerned about people like Rick Scott taking our hard earned tax dollars and less concerned about the mythical welfare queen taking our hard earned tax dollars.

They are not mythical. If 2 people are getting to me through 100 branches then there are probably a minimum of 200 calls a day. That does not account for the people who dont call. The person has to go through a personal banker then a Branch Manager then an AVP then me. Think that through. 200 is probably a conservative number.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 26 April 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Once again I have said that all media that makes money by selling articles is not 100% trustworthy. No matter the person they are talking about. Once again you are putting words in my mouth.


Just because I post an article does not mean I believe it 100%. I post it because I find it interesring and think others may as well. As far as Rick Scott.... I have already said

So again you are saying something I did not do.

Your first mistake was you keep trying to compare me to other people. Thats why you keep saying things I have not said.

Look, you can talk about what you did not say and the media not being trustworthy all you want. But the fact is in the past when you've tried to prove your point of view you use that same media that everybody else uses. You can't attack the messenger once it might mean you hold the wrong point of view on a certain issue. More importantly the things in all three of those articles are PUBLIC RECORD.

• Info about the drug testing costing more than it saved came from the state of Florida department that oversees TANF. They are the ones that decide who does and does not get accepted in the first place.
  
  
• The info about Rick Scott putting the controlling shares in Solantic in a trust in his wife's name is not even disputed by Rick Scott. And he's gone on record showing his support for Florida's drug testing law and him trying to push Medicaid into private HMOs. These things could benefit Solantic therefore benefiting Rick Scott personally.
  
  
• The info about Rick Scott's former company HCA having to pay over a billion dollars in a settlement is all a matter of public record. You or I and anybody else could get the same info USA Today got from the justice department. You can go to their website and get the same thing USA Today reported.

You tried to excuse what happened at HCA under Rick Scott's leadership by saying they were just "accusations" and tried to imply he didn't know what was going on. That company was accused of stealing from Medicare and Medicaid for over a period YEARS. I have a hard time believing Rick Scott didn't know where all these extra of millions of dollars were coming from every year in HIS company. He very well could've known his company was committing fraud and signed off on it, or at the very least turned a blind eye to it. And if that's the case what does that say about Rick Scott as a businessman and a leader? He's governor of one of the largest states in the country right now.

Quote

It bothers me because instead of putting food onthe table for their kids and paying their bills they are buying beer and other non essentials. Then the money that came out of my pocket to feed those kids is being spent on........ As far as the drug testing comment goes, I said all that because you said

Well if they're receiving TANF they are probably getting food stamps too so I wouldn't worry about the TANF money not going towards buying food. And what's stopping them from buying alcohol and cigarettes with that money? Again they're not doing anything illegal. Maybe you should tell the tobacco and alcohol company's lobbyist in D.C. and in your state's capital about how much this bothers you. I don't like my tax dollars going towards subsidies for billion dollar oil companies. I guess we both don't like the way our tax dollars are being spent.

Quote

They are not mythical. If 2 people are getting to me through 100 branches then there are probably a minimum of 200 calls a day. That does not account for the people who dont call. The person has to go through a personal banker then a Branch Manager then an AVP then me. Think that through. 200 is probably a conservative number.

Again what you described last night were not welfare QUEENS. There is a reason why it's called welfare QUEEN. They are believed to be living a luxurious lifestyle with our tax dollars. You know the lady living in the south side of Chicago (and guess what that is suppose to imply), driving her pink Cadillac to go down to the liquor store to cash her welfare check. That's what has been described as being a welfare queen in the past. Like I said they don't exist, especially not since Clinton and Gingrich passed welfare reform back in 1996. The "welfare queen" is just a boogyman character that conservative politicians have used for decades to scare their base (middle class to rich, middle aged, protestant white men living in the suburbs or rural America). Like I said I want to see actual proof of a bunch of people on welfare living like royalty (like a QUEEN for example).

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 26 April 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Look, you can talk about what you did not say and the media not being trustworthy all you want.

Show me where I posted an article and said this is fact.

Mr_Jet, on 26 April 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

But the fact is in the past when you've tried to prove your point of view you use that same media that everybody else uses. You can't attack the messenger once it might mean you hold the wrong point of view on a certain issue. More importantly the things in all three of those articles are PUBLIC RECORD.

It is part of the public record. Show me the whole record not just the parts they report that makes the story sell. If you give me a report I can pull Items out of it and spin it anyway without being "wrong". Are you saying you trust what you read?

Quote

[*]The info about Rick Scott putting the controlling shares in Solantic in a trust in his wife's name is not even disputed by Rick Scott. And he's gone on record showing his support for Florida's drug testing law and him trying to push Medicaid into private HMOs. These things could benefit Solantic therefore benefiting Rick Scott personally.

[*]The info about Rick Scott's former company HCA having to pay over a billion dollars in a settlement is all a matter of public record. You or I and anybody else could get the same info USA Today got from the justice department. You can go to their website and get the same thing USA Today reported.
[/list]

You tried to excuse what happened at HCA under Rick Scott's leadership by saying they were just "accusations" and tried to imply he didn't know what was going on. That company was accused of stealing from Medicare and Medicaid for over a period YEARS. I have a hard time believing Rick Scott didn't know where all these extra of millions of dollars were coming from every year in HIS company. He very well could've known his company was committing fraud and signed off on it, or at the very least turned a blind eye to it. And if that's the case what does that say about Rick Scott as a businessman and a leader? He's governor of one of the largest states in the country right now.

I never said Rick Scott was not dirty. I actually said most polititions are. I said until we have all the facts I am not casting judgement. Shouldn't he be in jail if he did that? Did the DA not find enough to hold him accountable?

Quote

Well if they're receiving TANF they are probably getting food stamps too so I wouldn't worry about the TANF money not going towards buying food. And what's stopping them from buying alcohol and cigarettes with that money? Again they're not doing anything illegal.

There you go assuming again. Did that lady complaining about not being able to feed her under clothed son not register with you....or are you reading selectively?

Quote

I don't like my tax dollars going towards subsidies for billion dollar oil companies. I guess we both don't like the way our tax dollars are being spent.

I think we agree on more than you realize. It feels as though you are tring to convince every conservative through me . you seem to be assuming more than listening.

Quote

Again what you described last night were not welfare QUEENS. There is a reason why it's called welfare QUEEN. They are believed to be living a luxurious lifestyle with our tax dollars. You know the lady living in the south side of Chicago (and guess what that is suppose to imply), driving her pink Cadillac to go down to the liquor store to cash her welfare check. That's what has been described as being a welfare queen in the past. Like I said they don't exist, especially not since Clinton and Gingrich passed welfare reform back in 1996. The "welfare queen" is just a boogyman character that conservative politicians have used for decades to scare their base (middle class to rich, middle aged, protestant white men living in the suburbs or rural America). Like I said I want to see actual proof of a bunch of people on welfare living like royalty (like a QUEEN for example).

When did I use the term welfare queen? I am saying money is not being used correctly. Buying items that are not essential with others money is wrong.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 27 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Show me where I posted an article and said this is fact.[

Show me where I said you said those things are a fact. I said you posted an article about California's DREAM act and then you said "no wonder Cali is broke." What other conclusion could somebody have made from that comment other than you believe that California paying for illegal immigrants to go to college was a bad use of the state's money? You are trying to have it both ways. You don't agree with the articles I posted because they go against what you believe to be true. So you chose to attack the messenger.

Quote

It is part of the public record. Show me the whole record not just the parts they report that makes the story sell. If you give me a report I can pull Items out of it and spin it anyway without being "wrong". Are you saying you trust what you read?

Well here's the detailed information about the justice department's case against Rick Scott's HCA from the DOJ themselves.

Quote

WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888



HCA - THE HEALTH CARE COMPANY & SUBSIDIARIES
TO PAY $840 MILLION IN CRIMINAL FINES
AND CIVIL DAMAGES AND PENALTIES

Largest Government Fraud Settlement
in U.S. History



WASHINGTON, D.C. - HCA-The Healthcare Company (formerly known as Columbia-HCA), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States, has agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct and pay more than $840 million in criminal fines, civil penalties and damages for alleged unlawful billing practices, Attorney General Janet Reno announced today.

Today's agreement is the largest government fraud settlement ever reached by the Justice Department.

"Health care fraud impacts every American citizen. When a company defrauds our nation's health care programs, it takes money out of the pockets of the American taxpayers. It is wrong," said Attorney General Reno. "This investigation has been the largest multi-agency investigation of a health care provider ever undertaken by the U.S. and reflects our commitment to vigorously pursuing all types of health care fraud schemes."

Under today's agreement, which is subject to review by the court, HCA will pay a total of $745 million to resolve five allegations regarding the manner in which it bills the U.S. government and the states for health care costs. The agreement does not resolve allegations that HCA unlawfully charged for the costs of running its hospitals on cost reports submitted to the government, and that it paid kickbacks to physicians to get Medicare and Medicaid patients referred to its facilities.

Of the $745 million, the settlement requires HCA to pay:
more than $95 million to resolve civil claims arising from the company's outpatient laboratory billing practices, which included billing to Medicare, Medicaid, the Defense Department's TRICARE health care program, and the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program, for lab tests that were not medically necessary, not ordered by physicians, as well as other billing violations;

more than $403 million to resolve civil claims arising from "upcoding," where false diagnosis codes were assigned to patient records in order to increase reimbursement to the hospitals by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program. The guilty plea includes one count relating to this upcoding practice;

$50 million to resolve civil claims that the company illegally claimed non-reimbursable marketing and advertising costs it disguised as community education. Medicare reimburses providers for "community education" - costs to educate the community at large about public health issues - but not for advertising and marketing a hospital's services;

$90 million to resolve civil claims that HCA illegally charged Medicare for non-reimbursable costs incurred in the purchase of home health agencies owned by the Olsten Corporation, as well as other agencies in Florida, Georgia and Alabama. According to the government, HCA devised an elaborate scheme to hide these costs in reimbursable "management fees" paid to third parties. In 1999, a subsidiary of Olsten Corporation, Kimberly Quality Care, entered into criminal plea agreements in three districts and paid more than $10 million in criminal fines. Olsten paid nearly $41 million as part of a civil settlement arising from its collusion with HCA for that conduct. HCA has now agreed to pay $90 million to settle this issue, and;

$106 million to resolve civil claims for billing Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for home health visits for patients who did not qualify to receive them or were not performed and for committing other billing violations.


Many of the civil issues resolved as part of today's agreement arose from lawsuits filed by relators, commonly known as "whistleblowers," under the False Claims Act. This law allows whistleblowers who qualify under the statute to receive up to 25 percent of the settlement recovery in cases the government pursues. Under the civil settlement announced today, whistleblower shares remain undetermined pending further negotiations or court proceedings.

In addition to the civil settlement, two subsidiaries of Tennessee-based HCA, Columbia Homecare Group Inc. and Columbia Management Companies Inc. entered into a criminal plea agreement in which they agreed to pay $95,336,432 in criminal fines and plead guilty to several charges involving a wide range of criminal conduct which occurred at HCA's hospitals nationwide. The plea agreement and the sentences are subject to the approval of federal courts.

According to the terms of the plea agreement, the companies will plead guilty to charges involving cost report fraud, fraudulent billing of Medicare for personnel who worked at home health agencies and at wound care centers, fraudulent billing to Medicare for patients diagnosed with pneumonia, paying kickbacks and other remuneration to doctors to induce referrals, paying kickbacks in connection with the purchase and sale of home health agencies and fraudulent billing of Medicare for fees paid to manage those agencies. The guilty pleas will be filed in five district courts and, with the courts' permission, consolidated for plea and sentencing in the district courts in the Middle District of Florida and the Western District of Texas (El Paso).

The subsidiaries will plead guilty to the following criminal charges, which will be filed in five District Courts and will be consolidated for sentencing in District Courts in Tampa and El Paso:

Southern District of Florida (Miami) Columbia Homecare Group Inc., a subsidiary of Columbia, will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and to violate the Medicare Anti-kickback Statute involving its fraudulent business in the purchase and operation of home health agencies and fraudulent billing of Medicare for management and personnel costs. The criminal fine is $3.36 million;

Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) Columbia Homecare Inc. will plead guilty to one count of violating the Medicare Anti-kickback Statute related to purchase of home health agencies. The criminal fine is $3.36 million;

Department of Justice Criminal Fraud Section Another subsidiary, Columbia Management Companies Inc., will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and to make and use false writings and documents in connection with its fraudulent "upcoding" of bills to Medicare for patients diagnosed with certain types of pneumonia. The criminal fine is $27.5 million. This investigation was based in Nashville, Tennessee;

Middle District of Florida (Tampa) Columbia Homecare Group will plead guilty to one count of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and one count of conspiracy to violate the Medicare Anti-kickback Statute in connection with the purchase and operation of home health agencies. The criminal fine is $8.4 million. Also, Columbia Management Companies will plead guilty to eight counts of making false statements to the U.S. in connection with the submission of false cost reports to Medicare. The fine amount is $22.6 million; and,

Western District of Texas (El Paso). Columbia Homecare Group will plead to a conspiracy to pay kickbacks and other monetary benefits to doctors in violation of the Medicare Anti-kickback Statute. The criminal fine is $30,116,592.

Today's plea agreement resolves only corporate criminal liability. The government has the option to investigate and prosecute any individuals as the plea agreement specifically requires the companies to cooperate with the government in ongoing investigations. As a further result of the plea agreement, two subsidiaries will be excluded from participating in the Medicare Program.

In addition to today's agreement, Inspector General June Gibbs Brown announced that HCA is entering into two agreements with HHS - a Corporate Integrity Agreement and a divestiture agreement.

The Corporate Integrity Agreement, which requires the company to engage in significant compliance efforts over the next eight years, calls for the health care company and independent review organizations to conduct audits and reviews of HCA and its hospitals' inpatient coding, laboratory billing, hospital outpatient billing, and financial relationships with physicians.

The agreement also requires HCA to:
maintain a code of conduct and compliance policies and procedures;

conduct training of its employees on general compliance matters and substantive federal health care program requirements;

ensure that certain employees and committees are responsible for compliance at all levels of the organization from the Board of Directors to individual facilities;

promptly report and pay back all overpayments,

maintain means for employees and other individuals to report on suspected misconduct; and,

screen prospective and present employees and contractors to ensure that they are not excluded from federal health care programs.


"This settlement includes an extensive corporate integrity agreement that is intended to ensure HCA's strict compliance with the laws of doing business with the federal health care programs," said HHS Inspector General Brown. "The agreement will be in force for a period of eight years and includes audit and other compliance provisions that are unprecedented in their scope and level of detail."

Throughout the term of the integrity agreement, HCA will be required to report to the Office of the Inspector General at HHS annually and with respect to certain events.

The divestiture agreement will bar any HCA subsidiary that is entering a guilty plea to Medicare-related offenses from participating in Medicare and other federal health care programs. The Inspector General has agreed to delay the exclusion for a limited time to allow the subsidiary to divest itself of the hospital it operates in order to minimize the risk of disruption to patient care.

In exchange, HCA is obligated to take certain measures to ensure that quality services are provided at the hospital and that the new operator is approved by appropriate government agencies prior to divestiture. The agreement provides the OIG with multiple remedies other than exclusion, including financial penalties and the right to appoint a trustee to divest the hospital, if HCA fails to meet the deadlines to divest the facility.

Finally, a state negotiating team appointed by the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units consisting of representatives from Tennessee, Nevada, Washington and Ohio, has reached an agreement in principle with HCA to resolve related issues with affected Medicaid programs. The Medicaid program, which is funded by the federal and state governments, represents approximately $36.3 million of today's $745 million settlement; of this, the states will receive about $13.6 million, representing their share of Medicaid funds. The state negotiating team will send proposed settlement agreements to 33 states and recommend that those states become part of the settlement.

"Today's developments stand as a testament to our success in the fight against health care fraud and abuse," said Attorney General Reno. "Federal health care programs operate on the good faith and honesty of health care providers. The government will not tolerate misuse of the reimbursement systems for financial gain and will hold the responsible parties accountable for their conduct."

The Attorney General was joined in today's announcement of the criminal and civil agreements by Assistant Attorney General David W. Ogden of the Civil Division; Richard Deane, U.S. Attorney in Georgia; Donna Bucella, U.S. Attorney in Tampa; June Gibbs Brown, Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Thomas Kubic , Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI; Carol Levy, Director of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations of the Department of Defense; Patrick McFarland, Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management; Dr. James Sears, TRICARE; and Barbara Zelner, Counsel to the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

The Attorney General recognizes the prosecutors in the following divisions and districts that assisted in bringing this case to a successful resolution: Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section; Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section; Middle District of Alabama; Eastern District of Arkansas; Western District of Arkansas; Central District of California; District of Colorado; District of Columbia; Middle District of Florida; Southern District of Florida; Middle District of Georgia; Northern District of Georgia; Northern District of Illinois; District of Kansas; Eastern District of Kentucky; Eastern District of Louisiana; Middle District of Louisiana; Western District of Louisiana; District of Massachusetts; District of Nevada; District of New Hampshire; Eastern District of North Carolina; Western District of North Carolina; Northern District of Ohio; Northern District of Oklahoma; Eastern District of Pennsylvania; District of South Carolina; Eastern District of Tennessee; Middle District of Tennessee; Eastern District of Texas; Northern District of Texas; Southern District of Texas Western District of Texas; District of Utah; Eastern District of Virginia; Western District of Virginia; and District of Wyoming. She also wishes to acknowledge the extensive assistance provided by agents, investigators, and auditors for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the HHS Office of the Inspector General, the Health Care Financing Administration, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Office of Personnel Management Inspector General, and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

###

00-696

Now if you read every word of that, well bravo to you because I didn't. So I'll just take USA Today's word for it. Just because they are paid to report doesn't mean what they're reporting isn't true or is always biased. Just because they're part of the media doesn't mean they are always going to put their own financial interest ahead or their duties as reporters and editors. If Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel reported that the world is round, even I will believe them on that. I'm not going to get in the spaceship and orbit around the earth just to make sure Fox News is telling the truth.

Quote

I never said Rick Scott was not dirty. I actually said most polititions are. I said until we have all the facts I am not casting judgement. Shouldn't he be in jail if he did that? Did the DA not find enough to hold him accountable?

It was a civil suit not a criminal case (though I think that should have also led to criminal charges). It's kind of like O.J. Simpson, he was found not guilty in the criminal court but found guilty in a civil lawsuit for the same charges. The burden on proof isn't as crucial in a civil case as it is in a criminal case. No you didn't say he wasn't dirty, you just tried to excuse what happened at HCA under his leadership by attacking the newspapers that reported on some of these shady things he's done.

-Again, the Florida Department of Children and Families gave that data to the newspapers. They are the ones who oversee TANF in that state. They gain nothing by releasing their own data that makes the state look bad.

-Rick Scott transfered a his shares in Solantic to a trust in his wife's name. Solantic provides drug testing services in the state of Florida.

-Rick Scott was the head of HCA when the things HCA later pled guilty to doing was going on.

Quote

There you go assuming again. Did that lady complaining about not being able to feed her under clothed son not register with you....or are you reading selectively?

Yes I am assuming. Because all I have to go on is what you've told me. I don't know this woman so I have to assume. Unless you want to provide me with more of her personal information? I assume since as you say she is receiving TANF that she also receives food stamps too. I assume this because usually people who apply for TANF also apply for food stamps at the same time, usually in the same set of forms. If they qualify for TANF they more than likely qualify for food stamps too. Now how do you know this kid wasn't being fed? Have you been in their house and looked in their fridge and in their cabinets? Or are you just assuming the kid wasn't being fed? Hmmmm

I remember when I was five years old and my mother bought me Kix cereal to eat and I refused to eat it. I refused to eat them because there was no cartoon character on the box (surprisingly I was a stubborn child). And guess what, I didn't eat breakfast that day and that box of Kix eventually got stale and was thrown away. That kid could of been stubborn just like me. My mother always had food in our house, doesn't mean I always ate it. I can assume that kid was just being picky that morning, just like you assumed he wasn't being fed. For all you or I know that kid did eat that day and every other day.

BTW at my credit union they always have coffee and cookies (sometimes donuts) out for their customers. Just sayin.

Quote

When did I use the term welfare queen? I am saying money is not being used correctly. Buying items that are not essential with others money is wrong.

You sure are defensive. I used the term welfare queen. I was the one that called them a myth. Then you were the one that said you see them everyday. Those people you described do not fit the definition of the word "queen" at all. They weren't what Reagan described as being a "welfare queen" back in the 1970s. That's what I'm talking about as being a myth. The lady who lives in the ghetto and receives multiple welfare checks by lying to and stealing from the government, and then uses that money to buy expensive things. Maybe that's not your definition of a "welfare queen" but that's the definition that other conservatives have used for decades now. And that's the definition I call a myth.

[azjetfan]

*****Disclaimer for those who believe everything they read*********
This artlicle may be factual it may be complete BS. Use your best judgement and do your own homework through a trustworthy source.

Mr_Jet, on 28 April 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

BTW at my credit union they always have coffee and cookies (sometimes donuts) out for their customers. Just sayin.

You can Kiss those doughnuts goodbye pretty soon. I will get to the rest tomorrow. We do coffee and cookies twice a month, Although we are not a thrift bank.

Quote

Senate Unexpectedly Delays Vote on Credit Union BillBy Kevin Wack ( http://www.americanb...thors/1131.html )
APR 23, 2012 1:09pm ET

WASHINGTON — In a victory for banks, the Senate's Democratic leadership has unexpectedly delayed consideration of a bill that would allow credit unions to expand their business lending.
The measure had been expected to come to a vote in the Senate as early as this month, and lobbyists from both the banking and credit union industries have been in the midst of furious efforts to wrangle votes.
But a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer told American Banker on Monday that the vote will not happen until at least the second half of the year.
Schumer, who is a member of the Senate Democratic leadership team and a co-sponsor of the credit union bill, initially revealed the delay Friday in a private meeting with the New York Bankers Association.
"The point that he made is that it's not likely coming up in the next several weeks, as in May or even June," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said.
Fallon cited a busy Senate schedule, including postal reform legislation and a cyber-security bill, in explaining the delay.
"The Senator acknowledged that the bill was not likely to come up in the immediate term because of the Senate's crowded agenda. But he continues to support the legislation and expects it will be voted on in the coming months," Fallon added in a follow-up email.
The bill, which is co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall and Republican Sen. Rand Paul, would raise the cap on business lending from 12.25% of a credit union's assets to 27.5%.

Trade groups on both sides of the bill said Monday that they will continue their vigorous advocacy, no matter what Schumer says about the timing of a vote.
"It's no time for the banking community to let their guard down, because the bill will come up," said Paul Merski, executive vice president and chief economist at the Independent Community Bankers of America. "So we're going to remain on the attack."
That sentiment was echoed by James Ballentine, executive vice president of congressional relations at the American Bankers Association. He noted that the credit union bill remains on the Senate calendar, ready to be called up at any time under a procedural move that allows the measure to bypass consideration by the Senate Banking Committee.
"When that procedure has been put in place, you have to act as if it could be called up at any time, and that's what we're acting on now," Ballentine said. "Maybe some would consider it paranoid. I consider it to be prepared."
John Magill, executive vice president of government affairs at the Credit Union National Association, downplayed the significance of Schumer's comments.
"It really doesn't change anything at all," Magill said. "We do know that a vote has been promised, and we look forward to that day - in the near future."
Bill Cheney, CUNA's president, also put a positive spin on what looked like a setback for his side.
"If the banks want to go to sleep on this legislation, that's fine with us," Cheney said in a written statement.
"The fact is, however, Senate leadership remains committed to a floor vote on this bill, a promise Sen. Schumer reiterated again today. Senators recognize our bill would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and inject billions of dollars into the economy - at no cost to taxpayers. Credit unions will continue to advocate for this bill with no letup. The bill remains on the Senate calendar, and we know that small business will continue to join us in the push for approval."
Last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised the bill's supporters that he would schedule a vote, but he did not specify when the vote would occur. He also did not specify whether the bill will be voted on as a stand-alone measure, or as part of a larger legislative package.
"Senator Reid never said when or how. He just said we will have a vote," said Fred Becker, president of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. "The bill remains on the calendar. And we take the good majority leader at his word."
Schumer's comments sparked speculation Monday that the Senate vote will be delayed until after the November election. The credit union bill will force many senators into a tough vote, requiring them to choose between community banks and credit unions, both of which are powerful constituencies.
Delaying the vote until after Election Day would allow incumbent senators who are up for reelection to avoid alienating either side until a time when the stakes are lower.
"The real issue is that the credit union bill is so controversial that no one wants to take a vote on it prior to the elections," said Merski, of the ICBA. "If it's bad for a vote prior to the election, it's bad for a vote after the election. And that will be our messaging."
Although the bill may still pass the Senate this year, any delay in its consideration benefits bankers. The congressional session ends around the end of the calendar year, so in order to become law, the bill would need to pass both the Senate and the House and be signed by the president by that time.
Credit unions have sounded optimistic about their chances of securing the 60 votes necessary to ensure passage in the Senate when the bill eventually comes up for a floor vote.
They likely face a tougher climb in the House, though, where the Republican leadership has not committed to a vote on the measure. If the legislation is attached to an unrelated bill that must pass Congress this year, however, that would improve its chances of becoming law.

In a nutshell credit unions may have to play by the same rules as banks sooner then we think. Currently they do not have to lend as much as banks nor are they capped on exchange fees ect... like banks.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 30 April 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

*****Disclaimer for those who believe everything they read*********
This article may be factual or it may be complete BS. Use your best judgment and do your own homework through MULTIPLE trustworthy sources.

Fixed it.

Quote

You can Kiss those doughnuts goodbye pretty soon. I will get to the rest tomorrow. We do coffee and cookies twice a month, Although we are not a thrift bank.



In a nutshell credit unions may have to play by the same rules as banks sooner then we think. Currently they do not have to lend as much as banks nor are they capped on exchange fees ect... like banks.

Oh please that article came from the lame stream liberal media. You can't believe what they say because they're just trying to sell advertising space.

The free cookies and donuts are safe. Especially since the owner of one of the local bakeries has her account there.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 30 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Fixed it.

The free cookies and donuts are safe. Especially since the owner of one of the local bakeries has her account there.

Good fix and you are probably right. Cookies are her to stay.

[santana]

Quote

Welfare drug tests: Noble effort or unnecessary stigma? Posted On April 18, 2012
Print This Article
By Yaël Ossowski | Florida Watchdog

TAMPA — The measure was intended to promote “personal responsibility” and put an end to millions in “misused” tax dollars.

If welfare recipients expect to receive a check, warned Sunshine State lawmakers last spring, then they must submit their urine to the state and prove their bodies are clean of illegal substances.

But data obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida reveals that the required drug tests saved no taxpayer money, and actually cost the state of Florida $45,780.

Signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott last June, the law in question targets individuals applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, a federal block grant program created by Congress in 1996 to provide short-term funds to impoverished families while parents look for work.

For Florida, the block grant is $211 million, drawn from the federal treasury and transferred to the state where the money is sent out.

According to the federal law, states are empowered to create their own eligibility requirements for the assistance program, and are granted authority to administer drug tests for welfare recipients.

Before receiving funds, Florida law stipulates that TANF applicants must pay for a drug test at one of 340 state-approved facilities.

If the test yields negative results, then the money is reimbursed and cash assistance benefits begin.

On the other hand, if applicants test positive, they are barred from receiving benefits for one year — or until they complete a substance-abuse treatment program.

In an interview with CNN last year, Scott defended mandatory drug testing, promising it would “protect children” and stop the government from “subsidizing” drug addiction.

This came after the governor faced heat from ethical commissioners over his family’s 70 percent ownership of shares in Solantic, a health-care corporation Scott co-founded in 2011 that provides drug testing and services to Medicaid patients.

The stock purportedly had been transferred to his wife, but increased pressure forced Scott to sell the shares at a discounted $60 million to avoid a conflict of interest, said Scott spokeswoman Amy Graham.

Other proponents, such as the Foundation for Government Accountability, a free-market nonprofit, celebrated the law as fiscal victory for Florida taxpayers.

“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” vice president Chris Cinquemani said in an interview. “That taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”

Failed experiment?

But despite the well wishes of the drug-testing advocates, the science seems to prove that it may have all been for naught.

Of the 4,086 Floridians to apply for benefits from January to October 2011, only 108 failed the drug test, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

This represents a paltry 2.6 percent of welfare recipients testing positive for illegal substances, falling exceedingly short of the earlier warnings by Florida lawmakers of drug-addicted fiends on the government dole.

The documents were uncovered by the Florida ACLU in the course of its lawsuit against the state.
The ACLU claimed that mandatory drug screenings constitute an unreasonable search as defined by the Fourth Amendment, and are therefore unconstitutional.

The ruling eventually favored the ACLU in October of last year, leading the U.S. District Court to issue a temporary injunction in the state, ceasing all drug testing mandates until a higher court takes up the issue.

Noble intentions

Despite the legal wrangling, many proponents still view mandatory drug testing for welfare benefits as an inherently genuine goal they view as necessary — fiscally and morally.

The Foundation for Government Accountability, a nonpartisan nonprofit that promotes free-market public policies, released a report in September 2011, recommending other states adopt similar laws to promote “substantial” fiscal savings.

Legislators in Wyoming passed a similar bill in February, leading Republican state Rep. David Miller to exclaim that the bill was essential because “we should not be rewarding people that are not behaving responsibly.”

But for Florida, illicit drug abuse, whether abused by welfare recipients, forever pales in comparison to other substances.

Seven Floridians a day die from prescription drug overdose, ranking Florida first in the nation, according to the Poison Center of Tampa.

By analyzing individual autopsies, the Florida Medical Examiners Commission similarly released a study in 2007 concluding that three times more deaths were caused by prescription drugs than all other illegal drugs combined.

Federal prosecutors, who once called Florida the center for the nationwide “epidemic” of prescription drug abuse, estimate that doctors in the state prescribe 10 times more oxycodone, a powerful painkiller, than all other states combined.

Perhaps that is what prompted last month’s raids by the Drug Enforcement Agency on Walgreens pharmacies statewide — discovering excessive amounts of pain-killing drugs tied to a distribution ring.

Moreover, recent studies from the United Kingdom prove that the most dangerous drug may be found in kitchens and grocery store, well in the reach of welfare dependents and children.

The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, an advisory committee focused on drug research, revealed the most dangerous drug is alcohol, taking into consideration its effect on the body and the community as a whole — by dependency, physical abuse and economic factors.

These are drugs that are completely legal and accessible to Americans, without the stigma of a failed drug test.

For Florida lawmakers, this raises an interesting question.

If the U.S. Justice Department estimates that only 6 percent of Americans ages 12 and older actively abuse illegal drugs, and recent documents reveal that only 2.6 percent of welfare recipients test positive for drugs, at a cost of $45,780 to the taxpayers, how can requiring drug testing for welfare benefits achieve its original goals?

While Florida lawmakers certainly intended to promote a better culture of personal responsibility and fiscal accountability, their efforts seem to have been lost to science and statistics.

heh 'merica

[HarlemHxC814]

rofl this made me think of this thread