A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
jobless unemployment benefit recipients, requiring ALL 9.8 million of them to pee on demand before their checks can be released. UI checks are released twice monthly, so I wonder if we will be required to test more often than ex-cons on parole. But they don't want to stop there. They also are suggesting to extend this requirement to include the 4.4 million families receiving TANF and any and all of the other millions of Americans on social assistance and subject them to mandatory drug testing as well. BTW, the pubs are also considering subjecting a couple of more subclasses of Americans to the same requirements: Student athletes and kids who participate in extracurricular activities at school. How does scrapping benefits to pay for drug testing bring down the deficit? Huh?
This on the heels of Pub John Linder's blather about jobless Americans succumbing to the "allure" of unemployment benefits and living high on the hog while receiving checks that represent on average ONE-THIRD of their normal income. I suppose they think that is good enough reason to eliminate the $25 weekly federal stimulus subsidy ($100 bucks a month) , funded by monies already set aside for such purpose, from future unemployment checks.
Reality check: My UI benefit currently is a whopping $300 a week plus the $25 subsidy, for a total of $650 every 2 weeks. Out of each check, I pay $66 for income tax, giving a net amount of $584 every 2 weeks, or $1168 a month. BTW, I have worked since age 15, or 46 years, give or take a couple of 3-month time-outs to have my kids, so I figure I am still bankrolling my own benefits at this point. Anyway, subtract $100 when the federal subsidy is eliminated, and that comes to $1068 monthly. My monthy living expenses come to around $750 before groceries, gas and medicine. Contrary to popular belief, I do not qualify for Medicaid and am still too young for Medicare.
Without the $100 subsidy, either the groceries, gas or medicine will have to go. Which one do you suggest I do without? I'm guessing it should be the drugs...just to be on the safe side. Once they start drug testing, they may mistake my antidepressants and anxiolytics for addiction, cut me from the rolls and put me on a waiting list for a non-existent, non-funded bed in rehab, that is if I don't stroke out first in the absence of my blood pressure meds or have a cardiac arrest after going without the heart meds.
In case you are wondering, in my 30 weeks of unemployment, I have submitted around 370 resumes, well above the required 3 resumes weekly, despite the fact that it is very difficult to even find listings to apply for during some weeks. With an average of 6-10 applicants (sometimes many more) per job opening in my geographic area, what do you think the odds are of a 61-year-old being top pick? Anyone care to take a wager on that one?
Can anyone explain to me what's up with this casual dismissal, stonewalling and open hostility toward jobless Americans? Please, please, please do not take me down the deficit spending primrose lane. If that were the case, there are plenty of other places they could consider for cutbacks instead of the one that not only benefits the unemployed and their families, but also historically has proven to be an effective economic stimlus. I just hope the other senators will deny Hatch's under the table grab for PhRMA's little piece of kickback candy, but I wont be holding my breath on that.
No shortage of sources. Take your pick:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/how_many_urine_samples_can_a_s.html
http://www.usmoneytalk.com/finance/unemployment-extensionreid-backs-up-and-the-rest-are-fickle-906/
http://washingtonindependent.com/87168/orrin-hatch-lets-drug-test-unemployment-insurance-recipients
http://www.sltrib.com/D=g/ci_15304078
and so on and so on....
;