SC Gov. pushes to limit food stamp purchases to healthy items.

[Cosmic201]

COLUMBIA: Haley pushes to limit food stamp purchases to healthy items | Politics | The State

South Carolina, long at the back of the line in health care, wants to take the lead among states in the battle against obesity by allowing only healthy foods to be purchased with food stamps.

Gov. Nikki Haley on Thursday joined leaders of three state agencies to announce plans to seek a waiver from the federal government to change the food stamp program. Haley noted that South Carolina has the eighth highest rate of obesity among states.

Read more here: COLUMBIA: Haley pushes to limit food stamp purchases to healthy items | Politics | The State

So the question I pose you folks is; agree or disagree? Why?




Personally I think we can ban certain types of foods from being purchased with food stamps easily without breaking any real issues.
I would ban the purchase of chips, soda's, candies.


I think that is a common sense solution that doesn't go into landmine issues.

[Grandadmiral]

Nice idea, but what I see as a major problem is price. Most of the foods that they would consider healthy is also the most expensive, which means recipients would be able to spread purchases so far. I like the idea, but I think controlling costs needs to be seriously looked at.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by Grandadmiral

Nice idea, but what I see as a major problem is price. Most of the foods that they would consider healthy is also the most expensive, which means recipients would be able to spread purchases so far. I like the idea, but I think controlling costs needs to be seriously looked at.

On a per calorie basis, maybe. But most of those calories are empty.


I can feed myself a lot longer and much healthier on $20 worth of rice, beans, and canned vegetables than I could on $20 on any processed foods.

I lived on less than $20 a week for food for almost 3 years during college. I was able to eat healthy (much healthier than I eat now) and on more than just Ramen noodles.


Rice and beans are incredibly cheap and filling. It only takes a handful of seasoning to make them great tasting and it is extremely easy to vary so that you don't get sick and tired of them. I was often able to buy canned vegetables for 50 cents a can, sometimes even 3 for $1. I learned what times to go to grocery stores to pick up the discounted meats, often able to get ground beef for less than $1 a pound.


I would pick up fruits that were in season and on sale. Often you can buy bags of bananas that were about to turn for less than $1. Slice them up, freeze them, and using other fruits you got on sale and froze can make a great fruit smoothy on a daily basis.


Frankly, I could fill myself up cheaper than I ever could on crappy food. Even if I could buy more crappy food for the $1.

[saintfan-n-alex]

Yes on chips and cokes, no on Mac n Cheese etc. ( those foods that may not be healthiest but offer nutrician)

Foods can be more exspensive but when you eliminate "snack foods" the monies are more directed at foods that maynot be purchased when including snack foods

Won't go through though ironic as it is

[BHM]

Meats, beans, flour, corn meal, fruits, vegetables, pastas, milk and grains should be the main food items.

The problem I see is how many parents are going to get up in the morning and cook oatmeal? Is it better that child eats at least a bowl of sugary cereal versus going to school hungry? Who and how will we classify what is healthy or not?

The only way I could see this working is to limit the purchases to basic food items such as flour, eggs, milk and meats. That if course does not mean they would eat any healthier. A bowl of oatmeal is healthier than a bowl of Fruity Pebbles but what about a bowl of oatmeal with three spoons of sugar dumped in the bowl?

Why does the government refuse to report what items are being purchased? Something i just learned which I thought was interesting, JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits.

The More Americans That Go On Food Stamps The More Money JP Morgan Makes

[Stealth Matrix]

Essentially saying... you want junk food? Go work.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by Oye

Now if they would only ban the purchase of unhealthy foods that make people obese, I could really get behind it. If I had a nickel for every time I was behind someone at the clinic who was on Medicare and 80 pounds overweight, well I'd be able to afford a Soloflex....

At some point taxpayers are going to be subsidizing your health (if they've/we've not already somehow). Do you think we ought to monitor your BMI so that it doesn't get much higher, thereby increasing the taxpayer burden because of your poor health choices?

Where do you want to draw the line? What if someone told you that to buy all the unhealthy, junk food you want that you had to sign a waiver forgoing any public subsidizing of your health care for the rest of your life - would you agree to that? Eat badly for 64 years - that's your choice. But no Medicare for you when you turn 65. Is that a fair compromise?

What if as children, they were never properly taught the benefits of healthy eating? What if for most of their child hood, they were left to feed themsleves in a house filled with junk food. The poor eating habits then carried with them into adult hood. What if these people are working two jobs most of their life to make ends meet and do not have time to cook healthy meals? Do we deny these people health insurance of government medial care?

[SaintJ]

Nothing wrong with the suggestion. More basic nutritional education would help, too.

As usual, there are no easy answers, but if this makes it politically more palatable without the reflexive "blame the poor" that some parties reflexively go to, and the same bill would also call for nutrition education and maybe school breakfasts....I'm in.

[crosswatt]

So, if the government is providing, then freedom of choice is no longer an option. Noted.

[DaveinCoalinga]

The problem is the enforcement and costs involved which is why most states have taken and relaxed most requirements. I agree personally with it. However, what do you consider healthy? Our opinions are probably very different. For example my sister in law-a 31 year old mother of three was so proud of herself for making homemade spaghetti. Her definition was heating up a jar of sauce (1/4 sugar or HFCS) and making noodles (non whole wheat). Healthy to some, certainly not in my opinion. My point is where do you draw that healthy line? Of course my opinion is making it raw foods, whole grains, lean meat and seafood, and then making people actually cook meals for their families. If they don't like it, get off the welfare. However that's never going to happen.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by SaintJ

Nothing wrong with the suggestion. More basic nutritional education would help, too.

As usual, there are no easy answers, but if this makes it politically more palatable without the reflexive "blame the poor" that some parties reflexively go to, and the same bill would also call for nutrition education and maybe school breakfasts....I'm in.

We already have school breakfasts. Even during the summer months.

[Galbreath34]

I don't know that Haley is qualified to talk about food choices. She looks like she straps on a bag of oats every meal.

[MLU]

I think a much more effective solution would be if the SC Government used their influence and rid the state of unhealthy food...

[dtc]

Originally Posted by Grandadmiral

Nice idea, but what I see as a major problem is price. Most of the foods that they would consider healthy is also the most expensive, which means recipients would be able to spread purchases so far. I like the idea, but I think controlling costs needs to be seriously looked at.

I wish I had a loud buzzer gif because I bet that while logical and reasonable, your assumption that SC would include things like fruits, vegetables and whole grains with fresh items as "healthy" would be completely wrong.

Pizza is a vegetable. What is more likely is that they would define certain lobbyist backed unhealthy foods on a list and only allow them.

This is SC we're talking about, right?

[V Chip]

Is the point that we don't want our money going towards food that is bad for you?

If so, can we extend the law to politicians, firemen, police, teachers, anyone who gets money from the government? If you reduce your tax bill via itemizing and credits, you have to account for exactly where that money went and prove it wasn't to things that are bad for you?

I think we should extend it to sex outside of a legal marriage, too. Oh and speeding. If you have your own vehicle and you get government money, you have to have a car that is regulated and cannot ever go faster than a posted speed limit.

No Saints games!! That's wasteful! No TV, you should be working. If you get money from the government you have to sell your TV. Strict controls on your internet -- no porn or TMZ or blogging or Facebook -- NO SR.COM YOU WASTEFUL SLOTH!!

"Less government!!!! (Unless it's me telling the rest of the country how to live, then that's OK because they are poor or gay or watch anything besides Fox News or are otherwise 'not like me.')"