Supplemental NUTRITION Assistance Program restrictions

[jinjuku]

Boy you got triggered

I'll ask again: Can you purchase a T.V. with your HSA credit card? If not, why?

Please have the intellectual integrity to actually stop your ad-hom attacks and just answer a simple question.

 

[Steve81]

I don't see the issue here. In Point of Sale systems there is a primary database ID: The SKU. It's the same as Metadata which, being in this hobby, you should know about.

Seems like a fair bit of administrative overhead to deal with to ensure you don’t pay for poor people’s Doritos, but hey, you’ve made your position clear, and so have I.

It's not on society to ameliorate ones lack of candy and chips buying power. I don't owe you a T.V., a game system, a car, or anything of the like either.

Let's be honest here, our society is a miserable failure. People can work an honest day, and still require assistance. That's fucked, any way you dice it in my book. Now you want these people to jump through *your* new hoops to get help? Hard pass.

And I see you didn’t want to touch that little healthcare tie in either. Can’t imagine why…. Cruelty is the point, not care and compassion.

I'll ask again: Can you purchase a T.V. with your HSA credit card? If not, why?

Where did I say one should be able to? I don't think SNAP should be used to buy speakers either. But food? Yeah, that's sort of the point. Whether it meets your nutritional standards is irrelevant to me.

I looked at my last 4 weeks of purchase and we hover around 5-7%. So there could be an allotment also. That's another solution.

I'd just assume see better outreach and nutritional education so people actually WANT to change their dietary choices. That would help more than just SNAP recipients as well.

 

[highfigh]

Mmm, so we should just ban them for public consumption then, yes? Why should we allow these iconic companies to poison us? Or is it just those who need assistance that “abuse” their benefits by buying the same products the rest of us do? For shame

Should Cigarettes and booze be paid for with SNAP?

Morbid obesity is rampant in low income people and part of the problem is: it's cheap to buy food that's bad for the people eating it, but it may be comforting. Should we just enable people to kill themselves with the food they eat? I don't think so.

Too much food has substances that are killing people- the supply side needs to be addressed, but the consumers who need assistance don't need heavy medical costs in addition.

 

[highfigh]

Well, tobacco definitely wouldn’t be nutritional assistance, would it? And as a fairly dangerous / addictive drug, subsidizing alcohol seems like a fair thing to nix as well. But a bag of Doritos? Who the truck cares besides pearl clutching asswipes?

"Fairly dangerous"? Get a clue- it's one of the worst substances people can use although pipe and cigar tobaco isn't as bad as cigarettes.

I didn't use language like 'asswipes' when you banned me, yet YOU can use it? Screw that. Keep it civil.

Trans fats, sugar, simple carbs, NO EXERCISE, smoking, drinking, etc aren't a good way to live a life without more suffering. Go to public places when people aren't wearing long pants or dresses and look for people with darkened areas on their legs, around their neck and eyes- they're likely Diabetic. Look at what's in their carts- lots of crap food. Old habits die hard.

Some people need coaching, so they can make better decisions- that could be added to assistance programs.

 

[Steve81]

I didn't use language like 'asswipes' when you banned me, yet YOU can use it? Screw that. Keep it civil.

Indeed, the benefit of having been a writer here for years, unless Gene deigns to revoke those privileges. But, keep trying to tell a moderator what to do, it'll go super well.

 

[Alex2507]

I don't think SNAP should be used to buy speakers either.

Hey ... Hitler! This is still Audioholics, okay?

 

[jinjuku]

Seems like a fair bit of administrative overhead to deal with to ensure you don’t pay for poor people’s Doritos, but hey, you’ve made your position clear, and so have I.

Actually in the past food stamps and W.I.C already precluded certain classes of grocery store items.

The admin lift has already been paid for decades ago.

Let's be honest here, our society is a miserable failure. People can work an honest day, and still require assistance. That's fucked, any way you dice it in my book. Now you want these people to jump through *your* new hoops to get help? Hard pass.

I think that's a gross exaggeration. But we certainly have a lot of room for improvement.

And they aren't new hoops. As already indicated past and other current programs have this same type of 'focus'. Nutritional food supplementation.

And I see you didn’t want to touch that little healthcare tie in either. Can’t imagine why…. Cruelty is the point, not care and compassion.

I did answer that: I think people should have ready access to nutrition, housing, health care.

The FDA estimates that 20% of benefit goes into the junk food Category. So I've no issue swinging that 20% to non-junk foods.

I still think a possibility is a 7% addendum card for Candy/Chips/Snacks.

Where did I say one should be able to? I don't think SNAP should be used to buy speakers either. But food? Yeah, that's sort of the point. Whether it meets your nutritional standards is irrelevant to me.

I didn't ask you if they SHOULD.

I asked WHY they can't and I'm using the HSA credit card and a T.V. purchase as an example. Could you please do a solid here and answer that?

 

[Steve81]

I still think a possibility is a 7% addendum card for Candy/Chips/Snacks.

Id just assume go with a sugar tax as you mentioned earlier to help dissuade the purchase of absolute garbage; it’s at least a fair solution that doesn’t target one particular group, and a reasonable argument can be made regarding its impact on health care costs while nominally raising money for such. Combined with a bit of additional nutrition outreach, that could make a dent in consumption.

 

[jinjuku]

Id just assume go with a sugar tax as you mentioned earlier to help dissuade the purchase of absolute garbage; it’s at least a fair solution that doesn’t target one particular group, and a reasonable argument can be made regarding its impact on health care costs while nominally raising money for such. Combined with a bit of additional nutrition outreach, that could make a dent in consumption.

And it's already administratively done with Tobacco and Alcohol etc... But even if there were a niche tax, I think nutritional supplementation still needs to block the surgar and ultra processed snacks. Sorry but I'm not going come off that position. I think the change was long over due.

I think it was the NYT that did an interview with a food chemist. They were pointing out all the psychological research food companies put into making food addictive.

He basically said the consumer doesn't stand a chance.

Add on to that with GLP-1 blockers being all the rage, food companies are specifically working on food formulations to counter that.

It's messed up.

 

[Steve81]

It's messed up.

Very…