The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Want sugar? Using foodstamps? GTFO, says NYC.
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
New Yorkers on food stamps would not be allowed to spend them on sugar-sweetened drinks under an obesity-fighting proposal being floated by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson.
Bloomberg and Paterson planned to announce Thursday that they are seeking permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the nation's food stamp program, to add sugary drinks to the list of prohibited goods for city residents receiving assistance.
linkery
As a healthcare worker, I'm actually kinda behind this. I've always strongly felt that a legal mandate to provide care should be coupled with a legal mandate for those most unable to pay for it to be accountable for their own health.
Now, if we can just stop Big Ag from forcing the poor into choosing unhealthy diets by making the worst foods the least expensive . . . .
Atomika on
0
Posts
Oh boy did we get an awesome thread out of it.
There was a faction that wanted a huge, expensive bureaucracy put in place to prevent stamp recipients from shopping at certain places or buying certain foods, in order to... well, I'm sure there was some reason behind it.
Ideally, I think it's a decent idea to disallow unhealthy foods from food stamps. But it'll be a complete freakshow to implement, even without the problem of healthier food often being more expensive.
The fact that it's just sugary drinks and not entire swaths of convenience store fare (which could make it hard for families that don't have time to get to the suburbs and into actual grocery stores) is worth noting. The only thing this makes harder to get is stuff with absolutely zero redeeming value as nutritional intake.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
alas they still use the cash allowance on cigarettes
it's a shame
Oh boy, what a great setup for big political clusterfucks about what goes on that list.
Cue "But those poor fuckers can still buy the unhealthy stuff with their OWN money! We must stop that!"
But if we wanted to cut that off, we could just take away the cash allowance.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
For being a furiously corrupt bureaucratic hellhole, that sure does seem to happen a lot around here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I approve of the effort, but I'm not sure that's the way to reduce consumption of soft drinks. Seems more a political action of "Fucking poor people never spend the stamps on what they should because they don't know better!" than "Let's actually try and improve the health of low income families.".
well (and i'm not sure if you're familiar with the process), in PA you get one card for either allowance- in some states the cards are separate. but when you swipe, you specify whether you want the purchase applied to your food or (if you have one) cash fund. so you can buy whatever you want with your cash account, and request cash back, if the funds are available. i mean this is unavoidable, since impoverished people have financial needs beyond food. it's still a shame, though.
some people stand in line and put two separate orders (the second one being cigarettes and alcohol). it's awful.
Barring soft drinks from purchase is a pretty good way to ensure they won't be purchased.
Yeah, but the government can't regulate people who can afford them on their own
8-)
But seriously, I seem to recall some sort of legislation going around earlier where either NYC or Obama wanted to institue an additional "sin tax" of sorts on sugary drinks- remember the crazy uproar about that?
Pretty sure it is hypocritical to raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy if you aren't poor, and applauds them when the control what the poor people eat.
Doesn't resolve anything except make a mother who has only foodstamps left feel awkward if her kid wants to drink a soda for once this month etc etc.....
wait. why is this awful?
I think that's a bit of a different argument.
Someone buying and consuming unhealthy food is exercising personal liberty, versus, someone using taxpayer dollars to make unhealthy decisions which will go on to become diseases that will be treated with more taxpayer dollars.
The government might be obligated to feed you if you're without, but they shouldn't be obligated to provide a menu.
This is kind of a response to my point as well, but at the same time I feel like if they are going to do this, they might as well provide a menu for people.
I mean, I wouldn't be too opposed to a literal government rationing of food for the impoverished, instead of food stamps; with the caveat that I would only support this if it could be instituted fairly.
There is a large potential for unfair treatment here.
Why?
The former is a personal choice, the latter is using others' money.
The government imposes these kinds of restrictions on borrowed money all the time. You can't just waltz into a lending institution and demand a business loan without disclosing your model for solvency. Why should you be able to have others' pay for your food and then make health decisions that will cost them more money?
what do you mean? that stuff is being paid for with welfare funds, also.
You don't know that for a fact. You can be on food stamps but not welfare.
If you want to spend your own money to buy unhealthy things, go ahead. It's a free country (TM).
To me, this is no more controversial than food stamps not being spendable on alcohol or cigarettes.
It isn't that at all. The purpose of food stamps is to keep the people that can't afford food from fucking starving, not to provide "thirst quenching" HFCS water with zero nutritional value.
Fuck you if you want a coke and can't afford a coke. I'm not going to shed any tears for the "pretty awkward social situation" you've been put in.
i do know that. i described my exact situation: people in front of me having two separate orders- and paying for one with the food element of their card and the other with the cash. this is something i witness regularly in philadelphia.
How is that the concern of the government or the taxpayers?
We should enable disease processes associated with obesity and the inherent cost on the medical system . . . . because it might stop a parent from giving their kid a Coke?
Kids shouldn't be drinking Coke in the first place.
Do you realize that with the minimal caloric demand on a sedentary lifestyle, just 8 or 9 sugared drinks a day meets one's total daily caloric intake?
You already can't buy booze or cigarettes with them. This seems like a logical extention of that.
No, it also prevents a family from spending $20 a month in taxpayer money to keep the fridge stocked with cans of shit with no nutritional value.
Fuck that mother's "awkward situation". Make room in the budget for a $1 soda if it's that bad.
Most often than not food stamps are allocated to children or single parents. It just so happens that what you consume(almost as much as how you dress) is a reason for significant social stigma between smaller kids. Food stamps not being welfare does not mean you can't use them rationally to improve the standard of living and as ridiculous as it sounds consuming a fucking soda on occasion is part of that standard. Go figure.
Not so angry.
Really?
More so than already saying you're using food stamps?
If, after two years, we find that this policy makes a significant impact on people's health, I favor it. If there is no significant impact, we might as well drop it.
Timmy ain't getting his ass kicked because he has milk at lunch instead of soda.
I can't imagine them actually banning someone from buying a bag of sugar.
Then our experiences differ.
Edit: And Timmy gets his ass kicked because his birthday party was the only one without soft drinks.
Given the conditions a lot of these people live in, I'm not sure if two years of limited soda consumption will make an enormous difference.
It's a good start, but other steps need to be taken.
He might get his ass kicked for paying for his lunch with a free lunch voucher (but probably not if he lives in a generally poor area).
I suspect that people will just buy their soda with non-EBT funds (whee, money is fungible!) and it won't make much of a difference. A universal tax on soda would be more effective, I think.
Otherwise, heck, why not just have Coke subsidize our school cafeterias? 25 cent cans of Coke for every student! No one ever need be a social pariah again! Every student will be friends with every other student, they can all bond over testing their blood-sugar!
In some places, Coke does in fact subsidize our school cafeterias.
a big issue in the poorer parts of lots of cities there also isn't easy access to healthy food at all. Big supermarkets often avoid poor neighborhoods and the people end up doing all their food shopping at bodegas and corner stores where the healthiest thing you'll find is chef boyardee
This is an absurd scenario, because none of these kids are bringing their lunch to school anyways. Unless the school is handing out sodas, most of them are getting a milk regardless.
And your edit is just...what. I don't even know how that is supposed to be an effective argument.