Food stamps- should there be restrictions on what you can buy?

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan *
**In references to what I quoted above… there are other birth control choices, but they aren’t as reliable as the more expensive and medically-controlled methods such as the pill, norplant, or an IUD. Where specifically were you thinking one could get the Pill cheaply? Poor women are usually served by Planned Parenthood, community clinics, and state health departments. These have been underfunded for decades and there has been over a 25% decline in real dollars in public funding for family planning for the poor since 1980.

[snip]

Even working people–people who aren’t sucking on the public tit, as we might say–find that they have to pay for the most reliable birth control out-of-pocket. A number of insurance plans that cover all other prescription drugs specifically exclude prescription contraceptives. In 2001, a report cited that although 99 percent of people with employer-based health plans have prescription drug coverage in general, only 64 percent have coverage for oral contraceptives. It was a battle to get Federal Employees this benefit; one year Congress had to enact special appropriations to cover it because Bush himself excluded it. HMOs tend to be better than other large-group health plans, but even so many HMOs fall short. For example, only about 60% cover devices such as the Norplant. **

Back when I was fresh out of grad school, before my health insurance kicked in at my job, I used to go to Planned Parenthood. There are several here in Chicago, but I went to the one ironically across the street from the Loyola U. campus. Since I’d only been working for a month or so and had no insurance, they charged me a reduced rate. I was (unfortunately) not in need of contraception at the time (I was going for regular gyn stuff), but they had a sign up in the waiting room that H.S. (and I believe also college) students could get the Pill for free, and everyone else on a sliding scale. (I believe other forms of B.C. were on a similar arrangement.) All PP locations in Chicago are accessible by public transportation, and it never took me more than a few days to get in for an appointment.

Before that, when I was a Federal employee making almost no money and with a health plan that didn’t cover contraception, I used to get it from PP. Later I had a horrible accident and round of surgery with an accompanying post-surgical blood clot, and they wouldn’t see me for contraception after that because of the risks for someone with a history of blood clots; they simply didn’t have the internal medicine resources to monitor someone like me.

Come to think of it, although I’ve been in the workforce basically full-time for 12 years now, I’ve always had insurance with prescription coverage, but never had B.C. coverage until a couple of years ago. And I’ve never had an insurance plan that covered any form of B.C. besides the Pill, which struck me as ridiculous given that many people can’t use it for medical reasons. (After my blood clot, it took a long time to convince my doc that it was safe to go back on the Pill; it’s not that I’m prone to blood clots, but I broke my leg while on the Pill, and immobility and leg surgery both greatly increase one’s opportunity for blood clots.)

OK, I’m babbling now. I blame the various bronchitis meds.

[wonky]

*Originally posted by Eva Luna *
**And a perfectly valid point you had, indeed.

But how many people who have babies while on welfare, or indeed how many people who call themselves Catholics, are themselves morally opposed to contraception? Is there any decent-sized subgroup that is morally opposed to contraception, but not to having sex outside wedlock? I’d guess that most people who accidentally get pregnant do so due to no, incorrect, or inconsistent contraception usage, not due to a religious opposition to artificial contraception. **

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems you’re ignoring the segment of the population that is strict Catholic, married, and becomes pregnant accidentally.

Julie

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by jsgoddess *
**I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems you’re ignoring the segment of the population that is strict Catholic, married, and becomes pregnant accidentally.

Julie **

I’m not ignoring them; I’m taking a wild guess that they aren’t a huge proportion of welfare recipients.

[KellyM]

Guin, they already offer free nutrition classes (through one of our state university’s extension program, at least back when I was on food stamps). They weren’t heavily patronized. When you’re working poor with children you don’t have time to go to classes.

[wonky]

*Originally posted by Eva Luna *
**I’m not ignoring them; I’m taking a wild guess that they aren’t a huge proportion of welfare recipients. **

Okey doke. That’s fair.

Julie

[Mtgman]

I agree that people should be taught basic nutrition. Why is this relevant to a debate on welfare though? Are welfare recipients less likely to know about nutrition than the notoriously nutrition-agnostic population of the US in general? So far the prevailing sentiment seems to be that it is possible to REQUIRE welfare recipients have higher standards of nutritional awareness and compliance than the population as a whole simply because they are recieving aid. Why? Why is self-determination, choosing one’s own diet is an example of this, linked to financial status?

Want to pass laws requiring basic nutritional education for the entire population? I’m fine with that. Singling out the impovrished individuals/families who are recieving aid and imposing(under threat of homelessness/starvation) dietary restrictions on them seems to give the finger to the idea of both Equal Protection and self-determination, not to mention privacy.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Shodan]

Singling out the impovrished individuals/families who are recieving aid and imposing(under threat of homelessness/starvation) dietary restrictions on them seems to give the finger to the idea of both Equal Protection and self-determination, not to mention privacy.

But the right to privacy is not absolute.

I don’t hear a lot of objection to the idea of not allowing people on welfare to use their publicly supplied funds to purchase beer and cigarettes. So the principle of restrictions on what they can purchase seems to have been established.

The trouble comes where it usually does - where rights conflict. People on welfare have a right to privacy, which is considered to include the right to spend money as they see fit. So do people not on welfare, and when the government takes money from them to give to others, they have the right, or at least the expectation, that the money will be spent in ways designed to maximize its benefit.

I think we can take it for granted that the people on welfare aren’t going to like the restrictions, if we decide to place them. The responsible ones, who are already spending their welfare check in responsible, cost-effective ways, will resent the inconvenience of not being allowed to splurge occasionally. The irresponsible ones will resent the inconvenience of not being allowed to splurge constantly. And both resent being treated like children. Even if that is done for their own good, or is deserved.

Regards,
Shodan

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by KellyM *
**Guin, they already offer free nutrition classes (through one of our state university’s extension program, at least back when I was on food stamps). They weren’t heavily patronized. When you’re working poor with children you don’t have time to go to classes. **

Very true. I was thinking more along the lines of pamphlets and things.

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

Mtgman, this isn’t so much a debate on welfare as it is one on whether people who are purchasing their groceries using taxpayer money (food stamps) should be allowed to use those food stamps to purchase junk foods, which are actually taxable in most states.

My argument, as well as the argument of some others, is that, no, food stamps are there to make sure the poor are getting adequate nutrition, and therefore, the purchases should be restricted to nutritious foods.

I think the argument that food stamp restrictions amount to “legislating the diets of the poor” is ludicrous. If your groceries are mainly being paid for by food stamps, surely there is couple of dollars up from your discretionary income that could be used to buy the kids a treat of chips or a candy bar.

Also, food stamps can be used to buy household staples such as flour, cooking oil, sugar, butter… I don’t object to this because these ingredients can be used to make nutritious foods such as bread, cornbread (homemade cornbread… yummy), etc, or to sweeten foods that would otherwise be bland. So, does nobody know how to bake cookies from scratch anymore? A homebaked cookie still warm from the oven has it all over a package of Chips Ahoy… and, if not exactly a health food, isn’t nearly as bad for you since it doesn’t have all those weird chemicals and hydrogenated oils and things in it.

Also, as far as “not letting the kids have treats” goes… I used to have a boss who did not allow his much adored daughter to have things like cookies, candy, chips, etc. If she wanted something sweet, he gave her fresh fruit. At the age of five, her taste buds had gotten so used to her healthy diet that when she tasted candy, she didn’t like it. Also, he got lots of compliments on how polite, well behaved and intelligent his little girl was. Maybe the fact that he raised her on home cookin’ without the preservitives and refined sugar had something to do with that?

[Eva_Luna]

I think some of you are neglecting a basic distinction here: that between food which has nutritional value, but isn’t necessarily the most economical (as in a good cut of meat), and food which is cheap, but has so little nutritional value that one can barely call it food at all (as in soda).

I have no problem with food stamp recipients having freedom to choose how to spend their food dollars. I can certainly understand the occasional purchase of a steak, if one has arranged one’s food budget that way. And I know it takes more effort to eat a balanced diet on a budget than it does to eat crap.

I just don’t understand why people would choose to eat predominantly crap, given the choice, even if it does generally require more effort to eat healthy food. And that goes for non-food stamp recipients, too, although most of them probably have more wiggle room in how they distribute their grocery dollars. Especially if you have kids, though, you are shortchanging them in the health department by feeding them crap, which has all sorts of long-term repercussions for their success in life. Well-nourished kids do better in school, for example, which has all kinds of implications for whether your kids will be able to break the poverty cycle.

And FTR I am in favor of more nutritional education for everyone. We had it at all levels of my elementary and secondary education. To me, it should be part of every person’s basic life skills. But I do think that if you are receiving outside assistance to live your life, that you have a moral and practical responsibility to use that assistance wisely, and to take advantage of any available opportunity to improve your abilities in that department.

I don’t know if the government would be the best entity to decide the meaning of wise use of assistance and every available opportunity; they are likely to botch it too much of the time. So I’m in favor of education for food stamp recipients, but not necessarily in favor of further restrictions on the use of food stamps.

(BTW, can you buy OTC medication with food stamps?)

[KellyM]

Guin, there were a variety of pamphlets, handouts and even a little cookbook free for the taking in the food stamp office. I don’t think I saw anyone take one, ever, any time I was down there.

WIC was a bit more aggressive about nutrition information, but not much.

[KellyM]

Thea Logica, a lot of food stamp recipients (27% of households) are “working poor”. The working poor often do not have enough time left over for extensive cooking activities; the average food stamp household containing wage-earners brings in $753/month in gross income, the equivalent of 35 hours a week at minimum wage.

25% of households also receive Social Security, meaning either that one or more recipients is disabled (13% of all recipients) or elderly (10% of all recipients). Many elderly or disabled individuals will be unable to do extensive cooking. The majority of elderly recipients, and a substantial fraction of disabled recipients, live alone.

To expect single parents working full-time or near full-time, disabled individuals, and the elderly to commit substantial amounts of time to cooking is unreasonable. These categories cover at least 1/3 of all food stamp recipients, and possibly as much as 1/2.

Eva Luna, OTC medications are not eligible under food stamps, although some herbal concoctions might be.

(Source for statistical claims: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Memo/Support/03/2001-characteristics.htm)

[Eva_Luna]

I don’t see why it’s unreasonable to expect single parents working full-time to spend time cooking. My mom (a single mom with 2 kids) certainly did. When the kids are old enough, they can help. I did. By the age of 10, I cooked a few family meals, and by the time I was in high school, I cooked about as much as my mom did. There were plenty of times that she would call me from work when I was home from school and tell me to start dinner.

Even elderly and disabled people can frequently spend some time cooking. I managed to work full-time and cook for myself for the entire year I was without the use of one leg after surgery. My grandparents, who are in their 80’s and not in the greatest of health, cook for themselves. It’s difficult, but it can be done.
I’m not talking about making crown roasts of beef or elaborate Julia Child-type recipes, but it can be done with some creativity and planning. You would be amazed at the things I learned to do while standing on one leg.

[KellyM]

Eva Luna, there are enough recipients that would not be able to spend the time, day in and day out, to cook every meal from scratch (which is what some people seem to be demanding) that such a rule is unreasonable. We’re not talking about cooking some meals that way; we’re talking about forcing all recipients to cook all their meals that way.

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by Thea Logica *
My argument, as well as the argument of some others, is that, no, food stamps are there to make sure the poor are getting adequate nutrition, and therefore, the purchases should be restricted to nutritious foods.

This seems contradictory. Junk foods are actually “adequate” nutrition. What seems to be the proposition here is that legislation or rules be enacted to make those on welfare actually have MORE nutritious diets than the average American. **

I think the argument that food stamp restrictions amount to “legislating the diets of the poor” is ludicrous. If your groceries are mainly being paid for by food stamps, surely there is couple of dollars up from your discretionary income that could be used to buy the kids a treat of chips or a candy bar.**

Actually, no. Many and manifold are the necessities that food stamps won’t provide for. I’ve known recipients of food stamps who didn’t have enough change to do their laundry at the campus laundrymat, but they still had food. Between clothing for the kids, rent, car payment, toiletries, and the myriad of other items that can’t be purchased with food stamps the welfare family frequently has no discretionary income left.**

Also, food stamps can be used to buy household staples such as flour, cooking oil, sugar, butter… I don’t object to this because these ingredients can be used to make nutritious foods such as bread, cornbread (homemade cornbread… yummy), etc, or to sweeten foods that would otherwise be bland. So, does nobody know how to bake cookies from scratch anymore? A homebaked cookie still warm from the oven has it all over a package of Chips Ahoy… and, if not exactly a health food, isn’t nearly as bad for you since it doesn’t have all those weird chemicals and hydrogenated oils and things in it.**

Surely if nutritious foods are so much better than the prepackaged food then the best thing to do is up the FDA regulations and make those horribly unhealthy foods either come up to par or go away for all Americans. Why single out the people on welfare?

I maintain that it is a violation of equal protection, self-determination, and privacy rights to impose restrictions on what types of FOOD can be purchased with food stamps. You want to rule something as non-FOOD(like tobacco and alcohol) that’s fine, but junk food, while unhealthy, is still FOOD and you can still live on it. Now if you want to start discussing if Chips Ahoy should actually be considered food then the gourmet in me is going to rally right behind the “It’s crap!” banner. But as long as it is food, then it is fair game. Oh, and some states DO tax food, so “if it’s taxed it shouldn’t be eligible” doesn’t really work. Bizzarely enough, Virginia actually taxes food at a HIGHER rate than non-food items.(5% sales tax on the “food” category and 4% general)**

Also, as far as “not letting the kids have treats” goes… I used to have a boss who did not allow his much adored daughter to have things like cookies, candy, chips, etc. If she wanted something sweet, he gave her fresh fruit. At the age of five, her taste buds had gotten so used to her healthy diet that when she tasted candy, she didn’t like it. Also, he got lots of compliments on how polite, well behaved and intelligent his little girl was. Maybe the fact that he raised her on home cookin’ without the preservitives and refined sugar had something to do with that? **

Excellent! Great for him, and great for her! Now, would you like to put laws in place to make sure everyone on welfare raises their children like this? Or everyone in general? Are you advocating forcing other parents to adopt the same rules for thier children that he chose for his?

Enjoy,
Steven

[even_sven]

*Originally posted by Thea Logica *
**Also, as far as “not letting the kids have treats” goes… I used to have a boss who did not allow his much adored daughter to have things like cookies, candy, chips, etc. If she wanted something sweet, he gave her fresh fruit. At the age of five, her taste buds had gotten so used to her healthy diet that when she tasted candy, she didn’t like it. Also, he got lots of compliments on how polite, well behaved and intelligent his little girl was. Maybe the fact that he raised her on home cookin’ without the preservitives and refined sugar had something to do with that? **

Well I had a cousin who’s parents never let her have candy or soda. So she would sneak it whenever she could. She’d visit friends and gorge on junk food. She’d steal candy from supermarkets. And she was a brat to top it off. When she moved out, her diet became instantly unhealthy and she gained fifty pounds because she never got a chance to learn moderation, how to manage her temptations reasonably and how to control her urges on her own.

Whereas I was given a piece of candy or sip of soda now and then, and given a enough oppertunities to eat myself sick to learn not to do that anymore. I now have an extremely healthy diet because I am used to setting my own reasonable limits and food never got the chance to become a control issue.

So there.

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

KellyM cooking from scratch isn’t really all that labor intensive, if you do it right. Ever hear of a handy little invention called a crock pot? Put your meat, seasonings, veggies, etc. in the pot in the morning, turn it on, when you come home from work, voila, dinner’s ready and waiting. And there are many recipies for quick ‘n’ easy single-dish meals easily available- go to the library and look in magazines. So, the “I don’t have time to cook” argument doesn’t really wash.
Mtgmt, I agree in principle that the poor shouldn’t have their diets legislated, but when it comes to welfare recipients, we are talking about people who are using other taxpayers’ money to purchase their food, and I think the taxpayers should have a say in how that money is spent.
Also, I do believe that working people who are just scraping by should have an easier time getting government aid- the eligibility requirements are such that someone working for a low wage in an area where the cost of living is high (like Las Vegas, where the wage scale vs. cost of living is so skewed that people work two jobs and share rent with a roommate and are still just hanging on by their fingernails) doesn’t really stand a chance- say you live in an apartment where the rent is $600 per month- only $400 of that can be credited toward your expenses, so a pretty good chunk of your outgo is not taken into account when eligibility is determined (at least for a County medical card, I don’t know about food stamps and other forms state and Federal welfare programs).

[KellyM]

Thea Logica, a crock pot is a substantial investment when you have zero disposable income.

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by KellyM *
**Thea Logica, a crock pot is a substantial investment when you have zero disposable income. **

I see them all the time, used, some still in the original box, at the thrift shop a block from my house. They usually run anywhere from $2 - 5. New ones at Target can run $15-20. You can make that money up in a few meals on the difference in cost between cooking from scratch vs. eating procesed foods, less if you’re feeding several people.

[KellyM]

Eva Luna, make up what money? When you’re buying food with food stamps, there’s no money to make up. You can’t use food stamps to buy cooking utensils.