Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Hamburgers are anything but healthy, and fruit juice usually is refined with plenty of sugar and can be classified to be as unhealthy as usual soft drinks. There is an extremly strong statistical link between education level/social class, and food-induced health problems and obesity. The poor and uneducated tend to eat that bad stuff by greater ammounts than the more educated or people with higher income in general, since it is cheaper, tastes good, and knoweldge on its bad quality is not present in the individual's mind, even more it often is part of the "way of life". Since treating food-induced health problems also is at the cost of the tax and insurrance payer (health insurrance and social wellfare), all this bad stuff (too much bad fats, too much salt, too much sugar, too much alcohol, tobacco in general) should not be sold in state-run shops at all, I think - and should not be available for food stamps.
No need to exaggerate it. But some healthy sanity should be applied, I think. Bad food habits probably produce the biggest share of the health system costs alltogether. And others have to pay for it - me as a netto-payer says "thank you for your egoist stupidity, Sir." If somebody gets hit by fate withoiut it beign his fault, then I support the idea of insurrances. But if insurrances get abused to finance the egoism or the self-induced stupidity of somebody, then I have a problem with that - and no, I refuse to be "solidaric" in such a scenario. I am not solidaric with the egoist or the stupid.
|
Oh yes, healthy foods should be included, but not Luxury foods like this. A t-bone is more more "healthy" than a normal cut of meat because of all the fat it has in it...and you can get 96% lean hamburger if you want. But I just can't see a nutritional reason for people on food stamps being able to get crab and hamburger. Plenty of other healthy alternatives out there that don't cost over 10.00 a pound if you know that to look for (which honestly probably isn't beef at all, rather chicken, pork, or fish). I'd have no problem a family picking up a salmon fillet for 6.99 or so. it's a fine healthy cut of meat, not the cheapest but good for you.
I'm just saying. Crab and Fine steak does not really make sense at all, it's not more healthy or anything. It's just well, Luxury food that has no other warrant to it other than being tasty and very, very expensive per pound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
So if Pennsylvania and North Carolina can have state-run liquor stores, why not a state run grocery store? Welfare benefits would only be good at state stores that only carry basic necessities (hamburger meat instead of snow crab legs, fruit juice instead of beer and wine).
|
Overhead. Plain ad simple. It's expensive to run a store. I probably can't say who, but the place I work for has an overhead from stock loss alone that equals the total profit of 8 stores alone per year (and it really pisses management off as well
). And that does not include other costs. It would cost a huge amount of money per year for enough "state" stores for people to have reasonable access...lets remember not all welfare takers have good transportation. It would just be prohibitively expensive to build or buy a government store that fills these needs.
However, the easiest thing to do would be to just make these items not accepted through the food stamp system.