That junk food is bad doesn't necessarily mean preventing users of food stamps from buying it will result in better health.
Other unknown factors could cause unexpected results. So they're testing it. Though I hope that even if it's just a wash they stick with opting not to allow people to spend government money on junk.
Quid on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
What data could they possibly need to gather? Is there a real point to the study?
There is tons of data that they can gather. They can see how people spend the SNAP benefit when these products are restricted. They can measure how many people utilize the full SNAP benefit when soda is removed from the equation. They can compare medicaid costs over the restriction time period and even compare the frequency of diagnoses for things like pediatric diabetes.
There is a TON of data that can be gathered from this experiment.
What data could they possibly need to gather? Is there a real point to the study?
There is tons of data that they can gather. They can see how people spend the SNAP benefit when these products are restricted. They can measure how many people utilize the full SNAP benefit when soda is removed from the equation. They can compare medicaid costs over the restriction time period and even compare the frequency of diagnoses for things like pediatric diabetes.
There is a TON of data that can be gathered from this experiment.
The data could ultimately help all of that. Or, it could lie, seeing as how a lot of these people can still afford to use their own money for some of that food too. The only way I can see it being useful is if it tracks what they buy with both their real money and the SNAP benefits.
This way you can trend what they purchase with any results of the study. Maybe their health increased because of soda being taken off the list. Or, maybe it does nothing because they just bought fruit juice now instead. Or maybe it's because they took courses offered by government assistance on how to eat healthy.
Like I've said before, it's half-assed. They're not really going to get usable data from it in my opinion, there are way too many variables that could affect the results. Sure you might see a decline in pediatric diabetes, but how are you going to know its directly related because of the soda ban and not influenced by some other choice?
I'm being superfluous again. If someone told me I couldn't buy soda because it was unhealthy I'd probably drink fruit juice instead. I mean it's healthy right?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
They'll probably be conducting a survey to determine how much excluded crap people are consuming in spite of the restriction. Combining this with fresh census data will make a lot of nerds pants happy.
We really have no way of knowing anything for sure until the data comes in.
Deebaser on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
No offense to debeeser, but his way is the only way it's be really viable for any information.
And again, no offense to you debeeser, but most people -- especially the ones in charge of this, especially in NYS -- are pants on head retarded. I base that on nothing more than having lived here my entire life. Plus politicians and people in charge of government appropriated funds tend to be stupid about protocols.
Like the PQRI and meaningful use nonsense going on in NYS. Holy clusterfuck batman.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Non taken. As a fellow New Yorker and NYC resident I have zero love for the state government. My personal favorite example of shortsighted fuckedupedness is that Pataki broke the individual health insurance market with the Governor's bill.
Non taken. As a fellow New Yorker and NYC resident I have zero love for the state government. My personal favorite example of shortsighted fuckedupedness is that Pataki broke the individual health insurance market with the Governor's bill.
Yes he's very pants on head retarded. Kind of like Paterson.
What the fuck is wrong with our state?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Other unknown factors could cause unexpected results. So they're testing it. Though I hope that even if it's just a wash they stick with opting not to allow people to spend government money on junk.
They are almost certainly studying whether this restriction leads to significant improvements in public health.
They should just give me all that money because I can pretty much guarantee it'll be "no."
They'll just use what money they do have because it's still cheaper in most areas than water. Plus, the taste is a huge part of it.
We'd be better off spending that funding on giving everyone on foodstamps a free gym membership.
There is tons of data that they can gather. They can see how people spend the SNAP benefit when these products are restricted. They can measure how many people utilize the full SNAP benefit when soda is removed from the equation. They can compare medicaid costs over the restriction time period and even compare the frequency of diagnoses for things like pediatric diabetes.
There is a TON of data that can be gathered from this experiment.
The data could ultimately help all of that. Or, it could lie, seeing as how a lot of these people can still afford to use their own money for some of that food too. The only way I can see it being useful is if it tracks what they buy with both their real money and the SNAP benefits.
This way you can trend what they purchase with any results of the study. Maybe their health increased because of soda being taken off the list. Or, maybe it does nothing because they just bought fruit juice now instead. Or maybe it's because they took courses offered by government assistance on how to eat healthy.
Like I've said before, it's half-assed. They're not really going to get usable data from it in my opinion, there are way too many variables that could affect the results. Sure you might see a decline in pediatric diabetes, but how are you going to know its directly related because of the soda ban and not influenced by some other choice?
I'm being superfluous again. If someone told me I couldn't buy soda because it was unhealthy I'd probably drink fruit juice instead. I mean it's healthy right?
We really have no way of knowing anything for sure until the data comes in.
Welcome to the social sciences!
And again, no offense to you debeeser, but most people -- especially the ones in charge of this, especially in NYS -- are pants on head retarded. I base that on nothing more than having lived here my entire life. Plus politicians and people in charge of government appropriated funds tend to be stupid about protocols.
Like the PQRI and meaningful use nonsense going on in NYS. Holy clusterfuck batman.
Yes he's very pants on head retarded. Kind of like Paterson.
What the fuck is wrong with our state?