you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (42 children)
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (41 children)

    Why is it in our interest to pay for food that causes obesity and health issues?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I want you to consider what you would do if you had $300 per month to buy food. How often would you use any of that money to buy soda and candy? Would you do it on a regular? Or would you do it just for special occasions to lift your spirits when things were bad?

    This isn't about health this is about punishing the poor for being poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I would spend very little of it on candy and soda, but not every person makes the same choices

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    If the concern was really about health, they'd be regulating maximum sugar % in all sodas and candies, not banning them to the poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    If you want to buy sugar on your own dime, you can hurt your own health. But why should the government pay for it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not based on income. It's based on whether the government is paying for it or the person is paying out of their own pocket.

    Similarly, school meals should be healthy and not include sweets and soda

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Just kill that market. They basically make money off creating a health epidemic in the first place, at what point will we say maybe greed shouldn't be more important than our health? Remember who was lobbying fat is bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You do realize that banning candy and soda is not going to ban sugar. Sugar is a staple product and will always be available on food stamps. Soda is just a processed item, same as candy. In exactly the same way as Dinty Moore canned stew and Campbell's soups. Should those be banned too? How about bread? It's a carb and it's processed. Let's make the poor people make their own bread cause fuck them for being poor.

    Where should the line be drawn?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If I'm paying for it, it's my interest. If it's your personal decision, then do what you want

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If that's your stance you might wanna leave the low hanging fruit where it is and pick something that actually matters. Just my two cents. Like defense spending.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Defense spending is the most important function of government. Without it we can't help Ukraine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What if it's not happening that much and this is just a shoe horn to get legislation to destroy benefits? What if most states already remove some purchases from the EBT/food stamp total?

    It's like drug testing for welfare. It's sounds like a good idea until you realize it costs millions, produces almost no results and the government performing said drug tests can't be bothered to not do it in s corrupt way?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Unlike means testing, it will cost nothing. You just update the list of what is covered. Then it's forever banned from food stamps

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    as someone else pointed out a specific example that comes up regularly (this is apparently already how it works): 1 particular brand of peanut butter was available, but their lite version wasn’t… with a cart full of groceries, figuring out exactly what gets paid for with what or what needs to be put back isn’t a fast process… this takes not only the persons time, but the cashiers time and everyone behind them in the queue

    these are things we call negative externalities: costs forced to other places in the system without being accounted for in price

    there are many, many, MANY more costs associated with any government program and intervention but this specific example would cost the country as a whole far more than the occasional unhealthy snack

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But it's not lite peanut butter. It's all items that are marked candy and soda. That's a clear category

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    that’s not how any of this works… UPC codes (barcodes) only have the category as broad as “Food, Beverages & Tobacco”, brand names, product names, etc

    you have to maintain some database of UPC numbers to categories, which is how things like variants of peanut butter slip through… and good luck if you want to buy some smaller brand that isn’t on the governments radar

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Because giving more people reasons to enjoy life benefits us all. Also, fuck rich people. We should all be clamoring to take as much from them as possible to improve the lives of those who have less.

    You can drink soda and eat candy without becoming obese or having health issues as a result.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Then start with ag subsidies. But that's if you're serious about fixing the problem and don't just want to punish poor people for being poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No food individually "causes" obesity and health issues. Overuse of some foods can. If we want people to be healthier, maybe we should offer free accessible cooking classes, or (gasp) not put people in the position where they have to work so much to pay the bills they don't have time to prepare healthy food.

    All this does is punish people who are already in shit circumstances. Maybe they want a treat for their kid, maybe they want to have a fun movie night, maybe it's none of your business?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sugar causes obesity and health issues. There's no recommended daily intake for sugar because it's not required by the body.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments