Jackson Jambalaya

And what about the single mom with 2 kids, who will have to pay for day care for the 20 hours each week of community service? Suppose she can arrange that for $8.50 an hour (a low rate I would think). That's $170 after-tax dollars a week. And just where is she supposed to get this money, even if she has a job? This bill is just knee-jerk Republican/Tea Party BS.

This bill is just knee-jerk Republican/Tea Party BS.

And your comment isn't knee-jerk?

I know a fellow who's wife, in her late forties, is a quadriplegic dependent on a ventilator. After private insurance wouldn't pay for her care, he was able to get her on Medicaid which pays for the very special nursing home required for her survival.

What about elderly people? Surely there's an exemption for disabled and elderly that wasn't included in this article.

Interesting question. I'm not sharpest tool in the shed, but it looks like Katie Becket program applies to those under 19 years old and the benefit is under the child's name, not the parent's name so I don't think it would mean the parents would fall into this bill because the benefit is payable under the child's name. The bill says it applies to recipients 18 years and older.

My question would be: according to the Katie Beckett info you posted, it states that the child will age out of this program and would need to reapply for benefits. There's the issue to be addressed: Once this child has become 19 years old and applies for benefits, he would fall into the eligibility of this SB.

I dont think it would be a hard issue to correct, but its definately worth bringing to the legislators' attention to ensure that those who have these disabilities are addressed in the language of the bill.

Thanks for thinking of those being helped by the Katie Becket program, KF. And its just a bill in the first stages right now, hasn't come out of committee, now is the perfect time for you to ask the questions you have.

And it may already be addressed in the bill's language, I just didn't see it. But like I said, sharpest tool i aint.

"One would think Senator Polk, a speech therapist . . ."

I think you meant Senator Collins. Senator Polk is a picky person who makes Polk's Sausage.

This will require a federal waiver, which I dont think we'll get.

Section 2(6)(d) states if there is no income limits AND its necessary to protect the life then they are exempt. So your example is probably covered under that section.

You are right, now is the time to ask this stuff, not when it comes out of committee and then everyone goes into hysterics.

Why not just spray-paint these people so they'll be easily recognized and appropriately humiliated? This is just as stupid as the "drug screen to receive welfare" crap. And the reason THAT is crap is because of the associated costs that would be never ending.

So my 30-something-year old brother, totally disabled and on Medicaid, on 4 medications for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia and depression, has to perform community service? I don't think you want him around anyone.

Shadowfox: Amen! Great comment

"..everyone goes into hysterics..." Made me giggle. Good catch on the 2(6)(d).

And don't be perterbed that they didn't return your call. The numbers of calls, emails, postal mail, and stuff that's put in their box is probably incredibly high. I know the idea of the parents being harmed got to you. Nice you're looking out for them. Get a copy of the stuff you posted and get it to them, make them aware of this program in case they don't know about it. I didnt know about it until you brought it up because its simply an issue that is currently not in my life. Just tell them that you wanted to be sure they knew about it before the bill comes out of committee and that you're concerned. What I dont believe will work is trying to screw this concern into a political fight between parties. Disabilitiess such as down syndrome don't attach to a person or family based on politics. The remedy to your concern shoudln't either. Good job, KF.

Isn't the largest single item of Medicaid spending nursing home support for the elderly and impoverished? Where would they work?

Sorry Shadow but I don't see the equivalency between this legislation and drug testing welfare recipients.

KF - look at the comments given at 2:42. That is exactly what I suggested to you before you ever posted this column. The only difference I gave was that it didn't need your grandstanding by posting here - just carry the issue to the authors and/or the committee chairman. Make them aware of the problem. Would bet that this would get corrected. That is the purpose of committee hearings - to look to see what the drafters of legislation might have missed.

Here it looks as if you are trying to make this a 'partisan hotball' to be tossed around for folks to bitch about. But its not. Almost any piece of legislation that is drafted needs tweaking while it is being examined - both by legislators and by the interested public. You fit into the second catagory - and I would bet you could solve your concerns without trying to exploit it on your blog.

As to the other issues (elderly, disabled, etc.) I believe there are exceptions in the bill that cover these issues. Just as exceptions could be created for KF's Katie Beckett concerns if they are valid.

"And your comment isn't knee-jerk?"

No, Bill's comment wasn't "knee-jerk." He gave a cogent reason why this bill is absurd. I suggest you consult a dictionary before using the word "knee-jerk" or any other word whose meaning is unfamiliar to you.

... I am curious whether any other state has enacted such a requirement; I don't know what conditions the federal Medicaid laws permit, but I am not confident that this is one of them.

knee jerk is two words. so break out your calculator while he looks for his dictionary

3:35 you have a touching trust in the benevolence and competence of our politicians, presumably based on some history of Mississippi with which most of us are not aware. I think reminding them forcefully that we are watching them, as KF has done, is a much wiser way to deal with our "public servants". If the state wasn't dead last in the rankings for anything except stupidity, religious hypocrasy, etc, I'd give them a slightly longer leash.

@3:35, this is 1:45 and 2:42. I do not agree that KF shouldn't have posted this issue here. He was concerned and he put it out there. If he hadn't done that, we wouldn’t have had the chance to see the bill, the info about the organization, and we wouldn't have had the chance to exchange thoughts and ideas. He did the right thing by posting it. And my references to this not being political were not directed at him. In reading through the comments, I thought it was sad that the downs syndrome issue had been reduced to political party name calling. It’s their right to do so, but whenever I see stuff like that from any side of the aisle, I just normally roll on past.

Nothing’s cooler than being given info and research and being able to have a discussion about it. That’s one of the reason’s JJ is a damn good website.

Anderson I also found the highlighted last sentence as knee-jerk. It would have been a great comment without the partisanship.

Stop overreacting February 1, 2012 3:35 PM.

UH...would this bill require paraplegics over 18 to do community service? How about brain damaged people over the age of 18?

And,yes, I'd like to the bill's sponsors to get a reality check on how much day care costs and how much more expensive sitter costs are for those with special needs.

Some people need to get into the real world and out of their ideologue isolation.

Betcha neither Gallo nor Collins can describe the kinds of disabilities and percentages of those categories on the current medicaid recipient list.

Though, THAT kind of information seems basic BEFORE one drafts a bill. You know...that knowing what the hell you are talking about thing?

@4:36- My opinion of current Republican/Tea Party poitics is anything but knee-jerk. It's a long considered, deliberative opinion, based on unfortunate fact.

2:48PM I was thinking the same thing.

Aware of some who are milking the system, I agree that there is a need to ensure that everyone who has chosen to live off the state give back in some way. For instance, if you have a back injury and cannot sit, stand, lift; but you can dance, party, and engage in risky behavior - you can contribute something. How about lick envelopes (you can kiss right), how about answer a phone (in a reclined position of course). There is SOMETHING that can be contributed.

As to the situation KF is speaking of, when you have a loving family that is literally giving up everything to care for a loved one who requires this great care and for those who truly need a break given their circumstances; this bill should exclude them. Period. I can only imagine a Spinal Bifida child and the great love parent's have, but I am not remiss in recognizing the tremendous toll it takes on each parent, their marriage, their family, their lives. It is not discriminatory, it is good moral fortitude, or maybe we've lost sight of that.

Knee-jerk reaction
Meaning
An automatic response to something.

Origin
From the tendency of the knee to jerk involuntarily when hit sharply, properly called the patellar reflex. That was recorded by Sir Michael Foster in his Text-book of physiology, 1877:

"Striking the tendon below the patella gives rise to a sudden extension of the leg, known as the knee-jerk."

The term began to be used figuratively from the early 20th century onwards. O. O. McIntyre, in his New York Day-By-Day column in The Coshocton Tribune, October 1921, wrote this:

"Itinerant preacher stemming Broadway on a soap box. And gets only an occasional knee-jerk."

Sorry to hear Dees about your long struggle with derangement. Have you considered seeking professional help?

Bet she returns your call next time. Those north MS folks don't know about the power of the Kingfish...

This is a bad bill for many of the reasons posted here. Additionally, it's virtually unenforceable without the addition of who knows how many caseworkers to manage it, and the Department of Medicaid will probably be taking a budget hit along with everyone else so no new positions will be available. I don't think this bill will make it out of committee, but Senator Collins can tell the folks back home that she tried. Bill Billingsley

3:35PM we have seen what happens when situations with legislation are left to the confines of the committee room... animal cruelty ring a bell?

2:48; The correlation between this bill and the "drug test for welfare" notion is that they are both dumbass ideas, poorly thought out and only designed to appeal to a gaggle of vultures.

How is it that you are unable to notice the similarity?

We can discuss if there's interest.

Please Shadow. Share with us the societal virtues, as you see them, to having welfare recipients consuming illegal drugs.

I know. I know. If we keep them down with welfare AND illegal drugs, maybe, just maybe, they will become productive zombies. Most excellent dude.

Maybe Nancy can get them locked up and even build a real nice lockup on land her late father the Hiway Commish might have left her in the Hill Country of Tishomingo County.

Seems there are quite a few examples of Sir Mike's 1877 physiological knee jerk observations on both sides of this issue. Kangaroo seems to sum up the most logical argument.

3:35PM we have seen what happens when situations with legislation are left to the confines of the committee room... animal cruelty ring a bell?

Only the naive believe that bad legislation gets derailed or changed for the better quietly behind the scenes.

Isn't This Called Secession?

Senate Bill 2991: The Redneck Green Zone

Maybe we can get Gunn's new lackey to look into this. At least we might get some real work out of him for 112k.

Anonymous said...
Please Shadow. Share with us the societal virtues, as you see them, to having welfare recipients consuming illegal drugs.

February 1, 2012 6:57 PM

Shadow sez: There are none of which I'm aware.

Besides the governmental and technical issues involved, obviously the sponsors of this bill have not employed or supervised dysfunctional/unemployables. Isn't there something about those earning below the poverty level that receive benefits? Hasn't the Govt. subsidized the likes of McDonalds for years?

I worked at a Mcdonald's while attending college and so did my children. Don't recall the government ever subdizing it. And if you've hired and 'supervised dysfunctional unemployables', whose IQ level is brought into question?

Re: drug testing welfare recipients - if thisis such a studid, money-wasting, unproductive practice, don't you think you ought to educate all the private employers who follow this practice? They spend their own money (i.e., their investment) to make sure the workers they will be paying (with their own money, again) are not F---ed up when they come to work. For some peculiar reason they believe that having sober workers makes them more productive, therefore a better return on investment.

Shadowfax should relieve them of their ignorance - apparently there is some fairly unknown data out there showing that drug users are maybe even more productive on the job, and they should stop wasting their own money in making their hiring decisions based on this factor.

But when it comes to the taxpayers money Shadow apparently thinks it's a smart move to subsidize crackheads, crystal meth heads, winos, etc, so they can continue making their contributions to society....

So if you're working for the likes of McDonalds and receive food stamps or any other benefit because you are earning below the poverty level, that is a subsidy in my mind, directly or indirectly benefitting the employer. You can hardly go to work for minimum wage.

I just want to know how come a person with an E.B.T card can drive a brand new Mercedes.. I don't get it. I work everyday to feed myself and I'm feeding people I don't evn know?
The whole welfare system is broken , people get rewarded for having children they cannot feed let alone raise.. its time to stop all this waste.

shadowfax is of the influence that piss testing these welfare recipeints would cost too much money... hey shadowfax i sell a nine point drug screen kit for $5.50 a piece. shadowfax is alson under the influence most of the time...

If you're a momma with 10 illegitimate kids, receive a check for each one, food stamps, rent subsidy, medicaid, utility/phone subsidy, etc you may be dysfunctional/unemployable. You become entitled to a new Mercedes.

Thanks for bringing this bill to our attention. I don't understand how someone can advocate for the "tweaking" of a bill by the "interested public," then chide you for "grandstanding" when you disseminate the bill to the very same "interested public."

What 3:35 really seems to be saying is, "Please point out my ignorance privately. I would hate for the people who voted for me to find out I am not informed, intelligent or remotely qualified for this job."

There's no comparison between employers drug testing their employees and the state drug testing welfare recipients. The former has willing workers who are volunteering to take the test because they want the job. The latter, while some may be drug abusers, are simply trying to survive. Drug testing them, while a popular political idea on paper, would be a nightmare that wouldn't save us a cent. $5.50 a pop? That's the first $3-4 million. Retests for positives? State funds for lawsuit defense? More caseworkers and facilities to conduct the tests? In the final analysis are we really going to refuse some little kid to be treated in the emergency room because the mom has a positive drug test? Take drug testing - and community service for that matter - out to its logical conclusion and you see they're both bad ideas. Bill Billingsley

Bill summarized it eloquently. I wonder if the sponsors got an opinion from General Hood??

Thanks for your capitulation Bill. Is your favourite bird an ostrich and an emu?

Bill - I am profoundly disappointed.

The point that is easiest to dispell is the threat that a child would be denied treatment in an emergency room because of the parent's behavior. Google EMTALA and read about it - a hospital would close down that refused anyone appropriate treatment in an ER (and yes, that information is widely available in Spanish, in case you've missed demographic changes in the last 20 years).

The other point is that I (and presumably you) are forced to pay money to support someone who spends all day laying around smoking doping and swigging 40 ouncers (if that's a racist sterotype, change it to moonshine or crystal meth). Where in the US or MS constitution is that responsiblility placed on me?

Every penny they take from me to subsidize this behavior is one more I no longer have to support my own children.

Two simple rules of life: you want less of something, tax it; you want more of something, subsidize it. It's not rocket science.

Nancy Collins wouldn't know a working man if one kicked her in the a**. Or a poor one either. Ms. Collins may bill herself as a "speech therapist," but she is married to one of Mississippi's wealthiest moneychangers. She married onto third base and thinks she hit a triple.

If she had ever been broke and wondered how she was going to buy baby formula she wouldn't sign her name to crap like this.

I thought I'd let a comple of you ignoramuses run for awhile with your assinine comments.

First, I'm as in favor of pre-employment, randoms and post accident drug screens as anybody and have sent thousands for a combination of the three.

Second, the goob selling six dollar drug screen kits is a scam artist at worst and lacks knowledge at best. You can piss all day long in those cheap-assed kits and may or may not hit a positive. When you DO hit one, there's still the extra cost of confirmation testing, so don't give me that crap about how cheap it is.

Now, let's take a look at my reasoning.

1) The federal government, with the ACLU riding shotgun is not about to let a state snatch the entitlement rug out from under the democrat base due to positive test results on drug screens.

2) Anybody with minimal understanding of how a liberal democrat's mind works knows that a positive test result will require referral for counseling, follow up testing, continuation of benefits, cessation program enrollment, further counseling, attendance at multiple "How can I help you" sessions, untold transportation costs running the leeches all over the county, home visits to ensure the protection of children and various others (including lazy assed uncles) living in the home, yada yada ad infinitum.

To summarize; the reason I think it's a goofy idea is that we simply cannot afford the unending costs associated with such a program.

As much as I'd like to require every recipient of handouts (at my expense) to pee in a cup (and wait for results prior to benefit receipt), it's a pipe dream jumped at by the yahoo congregation and the peanut gallery. It's not quite a perfect parallel to the suggestion that unwed mothers be sterilized but equally as impractical.

Sorry to disappoint you, and I'm certainly not capitulating - I'm not even sure what you mean by that, 12:02. I'm just being practical. It hasn't worked elsewhere, and 30 states are looking at it. Seems like someone would have at least the beginning of a working model at this point. As far as the child is concerned, of course he won't be turned away from the emergency room - that was my point. The state will continue to pay for the his medical care regardless of whether his mom tested positive, and no savings will be realized. Even the mom who tested positive will continue to receive free medical care by going to the emergency room, and either the hospital or the state will have to absorb the cost. So much for saving money by throwing the drug users off Medicaid.

This is more a political issue than a practical one, and it's being brought up by Republicans who are pandering to a certain segment of their voters. Drug testing welfare recipients will increase the cost of taking care of the poor, not decrease it. Yes, there are plenty of drug users, black and white and everything in between, who are on public assistance, but there are also plenty of people in that situation who don't use drugs. However, under a blanket drug testing program they all have to be tested, and retested, and then put on a random testing program in the future, and on and on until the legislature wakes up and suspends it for costing more than the state is saving and not having an impact on drug use among those on public assistance. Don't get me wrong - I'd love for there to be a financially feasible way for us to drug test welfare recipients. Legislators too, and other public officials. Anyone who is paid from our tax dollars should be fair game. No one likes the notion of subsidizing drug use among any of these folks. I just think the scope is too massive to be addressed by blanket testing. Why not give some latitude to the eligibility workers who are supposed to be in contact with the recipients at some point? Maybe require testing of people who receive benefits for a certain period of time to make sure that's not the reason they can't get off the rolls. There's probably a way to address this, but spending more money than we'll save isn't the answer. BB

To the guy selling the El-Cheapo pee cups....I can't begin to tell you how many people passed those tests with flying colors yet as soon as a random hit, bammo, positive.

well shouldnt all pee test be random... i think we learned that giving your opposition the heads up never works...Afghanastan war! plus i think it is just the incentive of me not losing my welfare would defer me from experimenting with drugs in the first place.

Bill Billingsley made an important point that all voters should remember.
Legislators, including those in national office, will introduce bills they do not expect to pass and will not effectively support simply to placate one or more constituents,no matter how idiotic or insane that person(s) may be.
The problem is that something like this that is so simplistic that morons will support it can gather momentum among to equally moronic whose numbers are becoming legion.

February 2, 2012 5:17 PM must have JJ confused with either the JFP or the Cottoncandyblog.

No, Meople, all pee tests should not be random. How could you possibly justify that suggestion? Pre-employment is never randon. Post-accident is always required but never random. A couple more of your idiotic posts and a few of us are going to suggest a mandatory urinalysis for YOU.

February 2, 2012 5:17 PM

In English, please? What are you trying to say, spit it out will ya'?

7:11pm, that is English.
Legislators manipulate the intellectually bereft. Does that help?
I doubt it.

Drug testing is probably a moot question due to legal precedence. The idea of "community service" is absurd, for a variety of reasons, some of which have already been pointed out.

Have them perform community service at the state capital bldg and/or governor's mansion.

State properties would meet federal handicap requirements, and could more easily provide transportation, meals, security, etc