Hacker News Reader

Comment by aeternum | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The problem here is that healthier food tends to cost more, so you'd essentially be forcing people to buy less food unless you also simultaneously raised the disbursement. And then a certain wing of the media starts screaming about how the poor are eating organic salads on the backs of taxpayers.

Sounds reasonable in theory but has little basis in our current political reality.

I hate this common trope about health food costing more. Beans, lentil, rice, potatos, carrots, onions, cabbage, garlic don't cost a lot, add some additional cheap proteins like chicken and eggs and you're good to go for like $50 or less per week per person. And if you can buy in bulk and freeze, then it can get even cheaper.

Assuming access to a reliable cooker, safe storage, time to food prep and enough education in cooking to be able to cook. Some people on assistance fail all of those boxes, many fail at least one

It’s not a tripe. A lot of these aren’t even available in food deserts, whereas soda and garbage is ubiquitous in every corner stores and gas station etc.

Could it be because we are subsidizing that soda and garbage via SNAP? Especially in low income areas?

As the great Charlie M used to say: "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome"

but we can't change it because that means we are making poor people miserable

That is part of the problem, yes. Not SNAP itself, which is good, but the fact that it can be used to buy garbage.

You should be restricted from buying soft drinks, chips, candy, etc. with SNAP/EBT, just like you can't buy cigarettes and alcohol with it. But nobody is willing to take on BigFood, and are content to let them prey on the poor with taxpayers footing the bill.

The second problem though is that if you restrict SNAP eligible food, you still have to provide healthy alternatives -- fresh veggies, fruit, grains, etc. -- at subsidized prices for SNAP recipients so they can actually survive on it.

It's such a shameful situation, and one that gets very little attention from either party.

Reform is needed, yes, but this is a stupid comment.

By your own argument 75% of SNAP is spent on normal food, mostly by people who need it

So why not reform it? It seems like an easy way to get bipartisan support and compromise. To put the numbers in perspective, the US only had 3000 deaths due to starvation (almost all of which are mental health issues rather than lack of access to food). This is compared to 280k-500k deaths due to overeating.

Cut the 25% and keep the 75% that is spent on normal food. By the other comments you can see that even that seems quite unpopular as it is seen as policing food for poor people?

Do you know how much money SNAP gives people, and how much junk food and soft drinks cost? Like have you actually done the math on anything that would lead you to your opinion?

Jesus christ, what is wrong with the people in this country? Why are you do obsessed with policing what other people eat?

There are a huge number “poor people deserve to be miserable” people in this country, and even here on HN. It is horrifying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com