Funeral Homes Studies: Overcharging

Funeral Homes Studies: Overcharging Running head: FUNERAL HOMES Abstract The overcharging of consumers by funeral homes was investigated to prove to consumers that they are being overcharged, and to show them some ways to avoid being overcharged. The goal was to show precisely when the funeral homes are taking advantage of the consumer, and to show that consumers need to be aware that funeral homes have more than one way of taking advantage of them and overcharging them in large amounts. The effects of this severe problem were determined by looking over a law that has been put into place to subdue the crime, ways the crime is committed, and also an interview that was conducted to gather information on one of many alternatives to using the traditional funeral service. There are many alternatives to the traditional funeral; most people just dont know where to learn about them. Funeral Homes: The Overcharging For Services and Distrust Behind It It is not easy to lose a loved one. In addition, it is not always easy for a person to find out how much it is going to cost them and their family to give their loved one the proper burial they deserve. During the time of grieving, the family of the deceased is not really concerned with the costs of the funeral, for all they are looking for is a proper burial or funeral ceremony for their loved one. The cost of a typical funeral in the United States in 1983 was around $2,500.00 (Darmstadter, 1983). Solomon (n.d.) states that â€Å"the average funeral in the United States costs $6,500, according to the National Funeral Directors Association. The true sum can easily reach $10,000 once a burial plot, flowers and other costs are included, the AARP says.† This price is from around 2004; consumers need to be aware that the prices are steadily rising, and that if they dont watch out for those funeral homes that try to get more money out of them, they could end up losing thousands mor e dollars than is necessary to spend on a funeral service. The crime of funeral homes taking advantage of consumers has been around for many years, and in 1984 The Funeral Rule was put into place in order to put a stop to it. â€Å"On September 24, 1982, the FTC published a ruling known in the Federal Register as the Funeral Rule† (Schwartz, Jolson, Lee, 1986). â€Å"Under the Rule, the FTC mandates that funeral homes allow customers to buy only those things they choose† (Mark, n.d.). Many people do not realize that during these times of vulnerability, the funeral home they have trusted the care of their loved one with, could be taking advantage of them; overcharging them for already expensive services. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers for their services. They are taking advantage of them while they are most vulnerable in an emotionally distraught state as they are preoccupied in grieving for the loss of a loved one, and when they are in a hurry to plan a funeral for a sudden death. Funeral homes have several ways of overcharging consumers, and two of the most prominent ways they do this is by teaming up with hospice care centers and by quoting the wrong prices if they will even quote them at all. Discussion Taking advantage of vulnerability. The funeral homes of America take advantage of the bereaved when they are most vulnerable. One of the most common times that a funeral home will take advantage of the bereaved is when they are in the middle of grieving, trying to set up a funeral while they are emotionally distraught. Schlozman and La Grand (1985) state that â€Å"death in a family is a personal, emotional experience that can have long term emotional and physical consequences for survivors (cited in Butler, 2007, p. 95). Funeral directors look for the best chance that they can get to get a grieving person to agree to buy something or to set up an expensive funeral; while the bereaved are emotionally distraught, which is mostly in the beginning of the funeral planning process, is when this happens the most. Many funeral directors will say that funeral homes are not taking advantage of consumers when they are â€Å"most vulnerable,† they are simply taking the necessary steps to make sure that the consumer gets what they need and what they ask for so as to get the funeral done in the most complete way possible. When a consumer is preoccupied in grieving for the loss of a loved one, they may be emotionally distraught and kind of out of their norm, however this does not mean that all funeral directors are low enough to take advantage of consumers. Most funeral directors deal with so many emotional people everyday they are at their workplace, that most of them know what it is like for a person to fe el the way they do therefore they will not go out of their way to take advantage of them for that little bit of extra money. As one can see, this is clearly not the case. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one at times when they are most vulnerable, and with pre-planning, this can be partly eliminated. The funeral homes of America also take advantage of the bereaved when they are in a hurry to get the funeral set up. There is not much time between when a person passes away, and the time the funeral needs to be set up and followed through with. â€Å"Most of the major decisions regarding funeral arrangements must be made within 24-48 hours (Sommer, Nelson, and Hoyt, 1985). Many people do not know that their loved one is going to pass on when they do, so they are in a frantic hurry to get the funeral set up and that is what gets them into such a bind with the funeral homes taking advantage of and overcharging them. One thing that a person who is in a hurry to set up a funeral typically does is calls funeral homes in their area asking for price quotes. When a person uses the phone to contact funeral homes about prices, they can â€Å"compare prices among funeral providers,† this may eventually help them to decide which funeral home and arrangement they would like to consider (USA Funeral Homes Online, 1999). Also, when a person is in a hurry to set up a funeral for a loved one, it is advised that they gather â€Å"price lists† from some of the funeral homes in their area â€Å"to compare pricing and options† (Wilke, 2005). Mark (n.d.) states that â€Å"the funeral rule also requires that GPLs (â€Å"General Price Lists†) list the prices of up to 16 items if they are services that the funeral home offers. . . .† If a person were to go around to funeral homes in their area, a general price list is a good tool that the funeral homes are required to give them, so t hey know the prices, thus promoting smart decision making, and the possibility of preventing being overcharged and taken advantage of. It is often though that when a consumer has a sudden death in the family and they are in a hurry to plan a funeral, most funeral directors are not going out of their way to overcharge them to get that little bit of extra money. They may indeed be overcharging them; however, they may simply be charging the prices they do because they want to be sure to get the consumer everything that they need since the process is so hurried in this type of situation. These thoughts are obviously not relevant because, as one can see, if the funeral directors were as caring as they make them seem, they would give any unused money back to the consumer when the funeral is all said and done. Shopping around for the best priced funeral home, and ignoring any suggestions given by hospice care centers, could be one of the most important ways for a consumer to greatly decrease the chance of being overcharged. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one, at times whe n they are in a hurry to plan a funeral for a sudden death, and with pre-planning and smart decision making, this can be partly eliminated. Teaming up with hospice care centers. Consumers need to be aware that funeral homes have different ways of overcharging them. One of the main ways this happens is when funeral homes go together with hospice care centers. The Hospice Patients Alliance (n.d.) states that: One of the major scams committed by such rogue hospices is to refer the family to one particular funeral home, if they havent made arrangements beforehand with another funeral home. The funeral home then charges their very highest rates for funeral home services and the family has no idea that they have been scammed, because they trust the â€Å"compassionate† hospice people. If individuals go to that funeral home directly inquiring about charges for funeral services, they get offered discounted rates, but hospice referrals get charged the highest rates. When funeral homes team up with hospice care centers, they can overcharge consumers large amounts of money, and they can do it very discreetly. Many people would not suspect a hospice care center to refer them to a high priced funeral home; this is why consumers need to be aware that this could happen. Consumers need to be aware that shopping around for a funeral home with the best prices is one of the best things they can do to prevent being overcharged, even if a hospice care center that their family trusts recommends a funeral home, or they are pressed with time and any other issue that may come their way. The Hospice Patients Alliance (n.d.) states that â€Å"you do not have to use the funeral home â€Å"recommended† by a hospice. They should not be recommending any funeral homes that is a decision for you to make, not the hospice.† Many funeral directors will say that funeral homes may indeed be teaming up with hospice care centers in being sure that the funeral ho me will have a steady flow of business on account of the recommendations given by the hospice care centers; but this does not mean that they are doing it to overcharge the consumers. They may in fact be doing this simply to help the family eliminate the hassle of finding a funeral home and going through the process of looking for price quotes, etc. This is clearly not the case as one can see, simply because if funeral directors were as caring as they seem, they would not be trying to get consumers away from looking for price quotes and things like that, they would help them find the funeral home they are looking for, or be sure to accommodate their needs as best they can. Also, if a funeral home has that much trouble getting business, something needs to be done, and that funeral home should probably be looked at as a fraud. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. Many people do not realize that it may not only be the funeral home that is in on the scam; hospice care centers play a major role in this deception of the consumers also. Quoting the wrong prices. Another quite common way that funeral homes overcharge consumers is by quoting the wrong prices over the phone, or not quoting any at all. There are many people that are pressed for time when it comes down to planning a funeral, and most of them resort to calling funeral homes to inquire about prices. What many people do not realize, is that the funeral homes may not be giving them the right price quote, and many of them quickly find out that the funeral home may not give them a price quote at all. The reason that some funeral homes do not give any price quotes at all, would be so they could adjust the prices accordingly to each and every funeral they conduct. â€Å"The funeral home is required to give you a free copy of the price list when you visit. Its also required to tell you its prices over the phone. If a funeral director refuses to do so, suggesting instead that you come in for an appointment, That should be a warning sign, Slocum says† (Block, 2006). Many consumers do not know this important piece of information. The laws that regulate the funeral homes of America are not posted around the nation as are the everyday laws that the people of America are required to follow. This is why, when shopping around for a well priced funeral home; consumers need to be aware of the laws so as to catch the hints that are thrown at them. The hints that should make them think that perhaps they should not trust some funeral homes that they have come in contact with. When a person that is frantically trying to set up a funeral calls a funeral home, they do not expect to be taken advantage of and overcharged because most Americans would agree that this is a very serious business, and that most every funeral home should be trustworthy. However, that is not the case. When consumers are calling funeral homes over the phone, they need to be aware of the potential dangers that it entails. Common thought of consumers is that when a consumer contacts a funeral home over the phone seeking quotes on prices for their services, the funeral directors may quote the wrong prices; this does not mean that is what will be charged. Many funeral directors care enough to provide the consumers only with what they need or would like to have for the funeral, so the prices they quote may only be a ball-park figure for the general funeral service. When a funeral home does not quote a price at all, this may be to eliminate the problem of quoting the wrong prices, or even to eliminate competition between them and other funeral homes. Consumers may be frustrated by this, but in all reality this may be something that could help them because if they went with a funeral home that does not quote a price, they may actually end up spending less money than they would at a funeral home that quoted a price that was too high. The thoughts are clearly irrelevant because if funeral homes were quoting ball-park figures, they would most likely state that the prices they are giving are ball park. Also, if a funeral home does not quote a price at all and others do, it is most obvious that they are planning on giving prices when the funeral is over with so as to inflate the prices and not be detected. Funeral homes overcharge consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. If consumers are aware of the potential dangers of calling funeral homes for price quotes, and the laws that are supposed to regulate them, this could greatly decrease the risk of being overcharged. Ways to avoid being overcharged. There are many things that can be done for a person to prevent being overcharged when they are working with a funeral home to set up a funeral. The most prominent of all alternatives is full body organ donation, which many people participate in. As Carol Wright (personal communication, February 29, 2008) described, full body organ donation is when a person chooses to donate their entire body to an organization of choice before they die. When they die, the organization will pick up their body from wherever they are, and ship them to where the body will be used. After the organization is done using the body for all intents and purposes, they cremate it and send the remains to a family member for a $25.00 shipping fee. Another well-known alternative to being overcharged by a funeral is by using traditional organ donation. This will give the family time to plan the funeral as the hospital or some other form of medical personnel removes the organ(s) the deceased has agreed to donate after death, thus slimming the possibility of being overcharged by the funeral home because it gives the family time to look around and find the best prices available to them. One good thing about organ donation is that there have been, for the families of people who donate while they are alive and after they have died, some â€Å"financial and health care-related reimbursement incentives widely debated† (Boulware, Troll, Wang, Powe, 2006). Many people dont realize that without these alternatives, nearly every person in the United States would be taken advantage of at some time or another by a funeral home. The Federal Trade Commission (2000) stated that: To relieve their families of some of these decisions, an increasing number of people are planning their own funerals, designating their own funeral preferences, and sometimes even paying for them in advance. They see funeral planning as an extension of will and estate planning. If someone in a family dies, and there has been no planning for a funeral whatsoever, the family members that are to do the planning for the funeral are left in a bind. If a person plans their own funeral, the surviving family is left with â€Å"the precedent, information and moral support needed to get the type of service it wants† (Bender, 1974). To eliminate funeral homes taking advantage of and overcharging the bereaved, as The Federal Trade Commissions and Bender state, a person should think about planning their own funeral so that it is set in stone, and the surviving family has much less of a chance of being pressured into meaningless spending while they are most vulnerable. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. Review Major issues. There have been two major issues discussed in this writing about how funeral homes overcharge consumers; the first being that many funeral homes take advantage of consumers when they are most vulnerable. There were two times in which this happens quite often that were discussed here. The first is when consumers are tied up in grieving and pre-occupied with the whole funeral planning process, and getting things organized and followed through with. The second is when the consumer is pressed for time trying to plan a sudden funeral, and the funeral home takes this hurried process to their advantage. The second major issue discussed is that consumers need to be aware that funeral homes have different ways of overcharging them. There were two of the most common ways discussed here; the first being that funeral homes overcharge by teaming up with hospice care centers, and the second being that the funeral homes either quote the wrong prices over the phone, or in person, or they simply do not give prices at all, so as to inflate them accordingly with each and every funeral they conduct. Expenses. The most popular way for consumers to recognize the death of a loved one is to plan for a traditional funeral. Traditional funerals can be very costly, and often times not exactly what the consumer was looking for when it is all said and done. Most people would agree that the traditional funeral is the best way to go about putting a loved one to rest; however, when funeral homes are overcharging for these services that are already overpriced, it is hard for some consumers to follow through with it because of the fear of running out of money before it is all done with. Darmstadter (1983) stated that â€Å"the purchase of a funeral is the third largest single expenditure after a home and a car, that many of us will ever have to make.† Alternatives to the traditional funeral service. There are many alternatives to the traditional funeral service, and the most prominent one of those is organ donation. Full body organ donation and traditional organ donation were discussed earlier in the writing. Full body organ donation is when a person has agreed to donate their body to science after thy have passed on. Traditional organ donation is when a person agrees to allow any of their organs that are useable, to be donated to another human being after they have passed on. These are two of the most prominent ways for consumers to avoid being overcharged by funeral homes; and they are used most commonly by people who did not do any pre-planning for their funeral. What many consumers do not realize is that these options are readily available to anyone who would like to take advantage of them; they are just not advertised since death is such a sheltered topic in the United States. Funeral homes are overcharging consumers while they are grieving for the loss of a loved one. When a consumer is looking around trying to plan a funeral, one of the best ways to avoid being taken advantage of is to be aware of what is happening, and how funeral homes are actually taking advantage of consumers, and what they can do to avoid being take advantage of. A solution to the problem of funeral homes taking advantage of consumers would be for the consumer to shop around for funeral prices and arrangements in advance when anticipating a funeral. Sure, not every person will have time to do this since not all deaths are anticipated; however, this problem will be greatly eliminated if those consumers who are anticipating the death do in fact plan the funeral ahead of time, so as to have the time to go around and shop for the best prices and have the funeral set up the way in which they so desire. Planning a funeral is can be an overwhelming time for the consumer; however, following the simple suggestions that have been given throughout this writing may in fact make the job a lot easier. People need to be aware that in times like these where life just seems like it is not worth living, life will go on. As long as consumers are aware of what is happening out there in the funeral service industry, and they plan for things ahead if possible, problems like these may be wholly eliminated all together.

Drug Testing for Welfare

The Push for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful.In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States awmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry. This year, 29 states have either proposed or already passed legislation calling for drug testing to receive welfare benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great deal of financial loss as a resu lt of this legislation: During the past year, the state of Utah has spent over $30,000 giving drug tests to welfare recipients.In that time period, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have used illegal substances † well below the national use rate of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report: In 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn't return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The numbers do not lie†little evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work ferven tly. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U. S. citizens.The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U. S. governmental policy. Karen Gustafson is someone who knows a lot about the criminalization of the poor. She has spent much of her time researching and writing about Just that. According to Gustafson, â€Å"The public desire to deter and punish welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to vulnerable members of society (644). † Because of the misuse of welfare funds by a few, the entire underprivileged population has been targeted as criminals†as lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United States government has spent billions of dollars in an effort to catch and prosecute those who are abusing the wel fare system. This practice is necessary in order to rid the welfare system of abusers. However, often verlooked is the fact that there are many recipients who are not drug users and are still in need of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. government to provide aid without encouraging potential participants to teel like they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the application process.The cross-agency process involved in the welfare and criminal Justice systems is unconstitutional and an invasion of the privacy of the American underprivileged. As welfare reform began to take place so did the social misconception that recipients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the same treatment as parolees and probationers. This is in part due to the fact that too many law enforcement techniques are embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us: Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal recor ds The financial information she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and Franchise Tax Board records Her personal information has been entered into the welfare system's database, which may be accessed by law enforcement officers without any basis for suspicion All f this has occurred before she has received a single welfare check (645). There is no doubt that those Americans in need of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, all of the needy are being unfairly scrutinized. The implementation of unfounded drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing application process will only serve to further stigmatize the needy†and all in the name of the mighty dollar. Some believe that it is not the quest to save money that is the driving force behind the push for this legislation. Rather, it is a desire to make millions for the pharmaceutical com panies that lawmakers are seeking to achieve.Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers' policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U. S. government. Macdonald reports: several Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed hard for the mandatory drug testing of anyone, nywhere, applying for welfare.Leading the charge in the senate is Orrin Hatch who received $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the political action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from another political action committee to which LabCorp contributes, as well as $4000 in campaign contributions from another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only la wmaker with these corporations in his pocket. â€Å"GOP Congressman Charles Boustany received $1 5,000 from Abbott Laboratories (15).The fact that Congressmen and women are receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies is disturbing to say the least. The American underprivileged do not stand a chance at ever overcoming their circumstances as long as lawmakers continue to be driven by greed, rather than their best interest. If United States lawmakers really had the best interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer resources on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the underlying mental and physical causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, â€Å"Even among women who eported recent illicit substance abuse, depression, physical health problems and limited education were actually more common barriers to self-sufficiency and social tunctioning(2) † Pollack turtner states, â€Å"Most weltare recipients [ . ] were casual mar ijuana users who didn't meet screening criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most sensitive to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). Mental and physical disabilities and the lack of healthcare are often the underlying cause of drug use to begin with as a means of self-medication. These issues receive far too little attention in the U. S. government policy decisions, unlike that of drug use. Pollack's research outlines the statistical data on illicit drug use as it compares to mental and physical health problems: However one runs the numbers, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. Other physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent. Drug Testing for Welfare The Push for Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U. S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful.In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States awmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry. This year, 29 states have either proposed or already passed legislation calling for drug testing to receive welfare benefits. Brian Kelley reports that of those 29 states, several are seeing a great deal of financial loss as a resu lt of this legislation: During the past year, the state of Utah has spent over $30,000 giving drug tests to welfare recipients.In that time period, only 2. 6 percent of those tested were found to have used illegal substances † well below the national use rate of 8. 9 percent (1). Kelley goes on to report: In 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn't return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0. percent of the amount distributed over that period (1). The numbers do not lie†little evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in he recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work ferven tly. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U. S. citizens.The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U. S. governmental policy. Karen Gustafson is someone who knows a lot about the criminalization of the poor. She has spent much of her time researching and writing about Just that. According to Gustafson, â€Å"The public desire to deter and punish welfare cheating has overwhelmed the will to provide economic security to vulnerable members of society (644). † Because of the misuse of welfare funds by a few, the entire underprivileged population has been targeted as criminals†as lazy, drug abusing sponges.Over the past several decades, the United States government has spent billions of dollars in an effort to catch and prosecute those who are abusing the wel fare system. This practice is necessary in order to rid the welfare system of abusers. However, often verlooked is the fact that there are many recipients who are not drug users and are still in need of aid. It is the duty of the U. S. government to provide aid without encouraging potential participants to teel like they are being considered as potential criminals from the very beginning of the application process.The cross-agency process involved in the welfare and criminal Justice systems is unconstitutional and an invasion of the privacy of the American underprivileged. As welfare reform began to take place so did the social misconception that recipients are criminals did as well. In fact, welfare recipients often receive the same treatment as parolees and probationers. This is in part due to the fact that too many law enforcement techniques are embedded in the welfare system.Gustafson tells us: Her social security number has been matched against state and national criminal recor ds The financial information she has provided has been matched against various employment databases, IRS records, and Franchise Tax Board records Her personal information has been entered into the welfare system's database, which may be accessed by law enforcement officers without any basis for suspicion All f this has occurred before she has received a single welfare check (645). There is no doubt that those Americans in need of assistance have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment by the welfare program.As a result of the criminal actions of a few, all of the needy are being unfairly scrutinized. The implementation of unfounded drug testing in addition to the already criminalizing application process will only serve to further stigmatize the needy†and all in the name of the mighty dollar. Some believe that it is not the quest to save money that is the driving force behind the push for this legislation. Rather, it is a desire to make millions for the pharmaceutical com panies that lawmakers are seeking to achieve.Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers' policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U. S. government. Macdonald reports: several Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed hard for the mandatory drug testing of anyone, nywhere, applying for welfare.Leading the charge in the senate is Orrin Hatch who received $8,000 campaign contributions in 2012 from the political action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), $3000 from another political action committee to which LabCorp contributes, as well as $4000 in campaign contributions from another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories (15). According to Macdonald, Orrin Hatch is not the only la wmaker with these corporations in his pocket. â€Å"GOP Congressman Charles Boustany received $1 5,000 from Abbott Laboratories (15).The fact that Congressmen and women are receiving contributions from pharmaceutical companies is disturbing to say the least. The American underprivileged do not stand a chance at ever overcoming their circumstances as long as lawmakers continue to be driven by greed, rather than their best interest. If United States lawmakers really had the best interest of the underprivileged in mind, they would be focusing fewer resources on treating those who test positive for substance abuse and more on the underlying mental and physical causes for the abuse.Pollack tells us, â€Å"Even among women who eported recent illicit substance abuse, depression, physical health problems and limited education were actually more common barriers to self-sufficiency and social tunctioning(2) † Pollack turtner states, â€Å"Most weltare recipients [ . ] were casual mar ijuana users who didn't meet screening criteria for marijuana (or other substance use) disorders. Ironically, chemical testing technologies were most sensitive to identifying marijuana users who rarely needed addiction services (2). Mental and physical disabilities and the lack of healthcare are often the underlying cause of drug use to begin with as a means of self-medication. These issues receive far too little attention in the U. S. government policy decisions, unlike that of drug use. Pollack's research outlines the statistical data on illicit drug use as it compares to mental and physical health problems: However one runs the numbers, illicit drug use disorders are not common among welfare recipients. Other physical and mental health problems are far more prevalent.

John Jay, Founding Father, Supreme Court Chief Justice

John Jay (1745 to 1829), a native of New York State, was a patriot, statesman, diplomat, and one of America’s Founding Fathers who served the early United States government in many capacities. In 1783, Jay negotiated and signed the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolutionary War and acknowledging the United States as an independent nation. He later served as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and as the second governor of New York State. After helping to draft the U.S. Constitution and secure its ratification in 1788, Jay served as the chief architect of U.S. foreign policy for much of the 1780s and helped shape the future of American politics during the 1790s as one of the leaders of the Federalist Party.  Ã‚   Fast Facts: John Jay Known for: American founding father, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and second governor of New YorkBorn: December 23, 1745 in New York City, New YorkParents: Peter Jay and Mary (Van Cortlandt) JayDied: May 17, 1829 in Bedford, New YorkEducation: King’s College (now Columbia University)Key Accomplishments: Negotiated the Treaty of Paris and Jay’s TreatySpouse’s Name: Sarah Van Brugh LivingstonChildren’s Names: Peter Augustus, Susan, Maria, Ann, William, and Sarah LouisaFamous Quote: â€Å"It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.† (The Federalist Papers) John Jay’s Early Years Born in New York City on December 23, 1745, John Jay hailed from a well-off merchant family of French Huguenots who had migrated to the United States seeking religious freedom. Jay’s father, Peter Jay, prospered as a commodities trader, and he and Mary Jay (nà ©e Van Cortlandt) had seven surviving children together. In March 1745, the family moved to Rye, New York, when Jay’s father retired from business to care for two of the family’s children who had been blinded by smallpox. During his childhood and teen years, Jay was alternately homeschooled by his mother or outside tutors. In 1764, he graduated from New York City’s King’s College (now Columbia University) and began his career as an attorney. After graduating from college, Jay quickly became a rising star in New York politics. In 1774, he was elected as one of the state’s delegates to the first Continental Congress that would lead to the beginning of America’s journey on the road to revolution and independence. During the Revolution   Though never a loyalist to the Crown, Jay first backed a diplomatic resolution of America’s differences with Great Britain. However, as the effects of Britain’s â€Å"Intolerable Acts† against the American colonies began to mount and as war became increasingly likely, he actively backed the Revolution. During much of the Revolutionary War, Jay served as American Foreign Minister to Spain on what proved to be a largely unsuccessful and frustrating mission seeking financial support and official recognition of American independence from the Spanish Crown. Despite his best diplomatic efforts from 1779 to 1782, Jay succeeded only in securing a $170,000 loan from Spain to the U.S. government. Spain refused to recognize America’s independence, fearing its own foreign colonies might in turn revolt. The Treaty of Paris In 1782, shortly after the British surrender at the Revolutionary War’s Battle of Yorktown effectively ended fighting in the American colonies, Jay was dispatched to Paris, France along with fellow statesmen Benjamin Franklin and John Adams to negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain. Jay opened the negotiations by demanding the British recognize American independence. In addition, the Americans pressed for territorial control of all North American frontier lands east of the Mississippi River, except for British territories in Canada and Spanish territory in Florida. In the resulting Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, Britain acknowledged the United States as an independent nation. Lands secured through the treaty essentially doubled the new nation’s size. However, many disputed issues, such as control of regions along the Canadian border and British occupation of forts on U.S.-controlled territory in the Great Lakes area remained unresolved. These and several other post-revolution issues, specifically with France, would eventually be addressed by another treaty negotiated by Jay—now known as Jay’s Treaty—signed in Paris on November 19, 1794. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers During the Revolutionary War, America had functioned under a loosely crafted agreement among the colonial-era governments of the 13 original states called the Articles of the Confederation. After the Revolution, however, weaknesses in the Articles of the Confederation revealed the need for a more comprehensive governing document—the U.S. Constitution. While John Jay did not attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he strongly believed in a stronger central government than that created by the Articles of the Confederation, which granted most governmental powers to the states. During 1787 and 1788, Jay, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, wrote a series of essays widely published in newspapers under the collective pseudonym â€Å"Publius† advocating the ratification of the new Constitution. Later collected into a single volume and published as the Federalist Papers, the three Founding Fathers successfully argued for the creation of a strong federal government that serves the national interest while also reserving some powers to the states. Today, the Federalist Papers are often referred to and cited as an aid to interpreting the intent and application of the U.S. Constitution. First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court In September 1789, President George Washington offered to appoint Jay as Secretary of State, a position which would have continued his duties as Secretary of Foreign Affairs. When Jay declined, Washington offered him the title of Chief Justice of the United States, a new position which Washington called â€Å"the keystone of our political fabric.† Jay accepted and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Smaller than today’s Supreme Court, which is made up of nine justices, the chief justice, and eight associate justices, the John Jay Court had only six justices, the chief justice and five associates. All of the judges on that first Supreme Court were appointed by Washington. Jay served as chief justice until 1795, and while he personally wrote the majority decisions on only four cases during his six-year tenure on the Supreme Court, he greatly influenced the future rules and procedures for the rapidly developing U.S. federal court system.   Anti-Slavery Governor of New York Jay resigned from the Supreme Court in 1795 after being elected as the second governor of New York, an office he would hold until 1801. During his tenure as governor, Jay also ran unsuccessfully for President of the United States in 1796 and 1800. Though Jay, like many of his fellow Founding Fathers, had been a slaveholder, he championed and signed a controversial bill in 1799 outlawing slavery in New York. In 1785, Jay had helped found and served as president of the New York Manumission Society, an early abolitionist organization that arranged boycotts of merchants and newspapers involved in or supporting the slave trade, and provided free legal assistance for free black persons who had been claimed or kidnapped as slaves. Later Life and Death In 1801, Jay retired to his farm in Westchester County, New York. While he never again sought or accepted political office, he continued to fight for abolition, publicly condemning efforts in 1819 to admit Missouri to the Union as a slave state. â€Å"Slavery,† said Jay at the time, â€Å"should not to be introduced nor permitted in any of the new states.† Jay died at age 84 on May 17, 1829, in Bedford, New York and was buried in the family cemetery near Rye, New York. Today, the Jay Family Cemetery is part of the Boston Post Road Historic District, a designated National Historic Landmark and oldest maintained cemetery associated with a figure from the American Revolution. Marriage, Family, and Religion Jay married Sarah Van Brugh Livingston, the eldest daughter of the New Jersey Governor William Livingston, on April 28, 1774. The couple had six children: Peter Augustus, Susan, Maria, Ann, William, and Sarah Louisa. Sarah and the children often accompanied Jay on his diplomatic missions, including trips to Spain and Paris, where they lived with Benjamin Franklin. While still an American colonist, Jay had been a member of the Church of England but joined the Protestant Episcopal Church after the Revolution. Serving as vice president and president of the American Bible Society from 1816 to 1827, Jay believed that Christianity was an essential element of good government, once writing: â€Å"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed.† Sources The Life of John Jay Friends of John Jay HomesteadA Brief Biography of John Jay From The Papers of John Jay, 2002. Columbia UniversityStahr, Walter. â€Å"John Jay: Founding Father.† Continuum Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-1879-1.Gellman, David N. Emancipating New York: The Politics of Slavery and Freedom, 1777–1827 LSU Press. ISBN 978-0807134658.

Life and Work of Grace Hartigan, Abstract Expressionist