Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a nutshell, the least expensive source of calories happen to be those that are richest in fat, starch and sugar. With a typical poverty-level of financial resources available for purchasing food, you can purchase a vast amount of food where such things are abundantly present, or a small amount of calories from fruit, vegetables, lean protein, etc. If you're judging the "How can someone afford?" question assuming healthy choices, then you're not seeing all the possibilities.
In a nutshell, the least expensive source of calories happen to be those that are richest in fat, starch and sugar. With a typical poverty-level of financial resources available for purchasing food, you can purchase a vast amount of food where such things are abundantly present, or a small amount of calories from fruit, vegetables, lean protein, etc. If you're judging the "How can someone afford?" question assuming healthy choices, then you're not seeing all the possibilities.
I actually watched the video and while the link is nice it really doesn't fit this particular situation.
She has a 1000+ cal bedtime snack. Just that is about 5 dollars of cheap food.
33,000 - 3500/day in just chocolate.
Chocolate isn't that cheap anymore.
Hershey bars are a dollar each at about 200 cals. Thats 16$ a day in just chocolate.
Then add in the 29,000 additional calories...its going to start to get expensive.
I think a big change that needs to happen is not allowing purchases of junk food on any state funded food program.
I don't know why people think healthy food is expensive. A bag of potatoes, a bag of carrots, even a bag of frozen chicken breasts is much cheaper than junk food. When I buy junk food for my kids (chips, etc), it's about $3 a bag, and the bags are smaller than they used to be.
I go the the fruit/vegetable market store, and all the fruits and veggies are dirt cheap compared to the "convenience" food.
Do away with the Link card after 6 months, open locally based food pantries with the staples (powdered milk, canned fruits, veggies, meat, etc) and people will be forced to eat healthier if they want the govt to pay for it, plus it will save the taxpayers a ton of money.
Of course, just like asking people to produce an ID when voting, this will be seen negatively by the mainstream press
I think a big change that needs to happen is not allowing purchases of junk food on any state funded food program.
This is, to quote conservative pundits, very "nanny state." It is really odd to me, that in general we feel like we should be able to force our values on people because they are receiving "assistance" instead of dealing with the structural problems that are causing the issue.
The question isn't, "why are people on disability able to purchase large amounts of junk food." The question is "why is that our food system has made it cost effective (or calorie-effective) to purchase junk food over better alternatives."
Why don't lettuce farmers or squash farmers or carrot farmers get the subsidies that corn and soy farmers do? Why haven't we made a concerted effort to make healthier cheaper, so our neediest residents can afford it? There is lots of evidence that eating better (and avoiding the hormones and chemicals) leads to decreased incidence of ADD, better health outcomes and a whole ton of positive benefits, and saves money in the future (reducing the need for expensive health care later). But we'd rather allow cheap processed fillers and additives made from corn and soy.
The only "restriction" I'd support on "government assistance" is a subsidy on produce and other healthier items so people can feel empowered to choose them since it is in budget and cost effective.
This is, to quote conservative pundits, very "nanny state." It is really odd to me, that in general we feel like we should be able to force our values on people because they are receiving "assistance" instead of dealing with the structural problems that are causing the issue.
The question isn't, "why are people on disability able to purchase large amounts of junk food." The question is "why is that our food system has made it cost effective (or calorie-effective) to purchase junk food over better alternatives."
Why don't lettuce farmers or squash farmers or carrot farmers get the subsidies that corn and soy farmers do? Why haven't we made a concerted effort to make healthier cheaper, so our neediest residents can afford it? There is lots of evidence that eating better (and avoiding the hormones and chemicals) leads to decreased incidence of ADD, better health outcomes and a whole ton of positive benefits, and saves money in the future (reducing the need for expensive health care later). But we'd rather allow cheap processed fillers and additives made from corn and soy.
The only "restriction" I'd support on "government assistance" is a subsidy on produce and other healthier items so people can feel empowered to choose them since it is in budget and cost effective.
But it wouldn't be a moral value issue. More like a medically correct diet or fact.
At least for me. If it doesn't cover smoking, or drinking why should it cover other foods that are harmful or empty calories?
Why? Because its more profitable for the companies to process these raw ingredients into forms that can be filled with things that preserve shelf life, bulk them, condense them for cheaper storage etc. Just one of the reasons. Then you can play "follow the money" to see why certain people get the perks they do. Look at who they know and who they worked for.
The way they handled the independent farmer vs. corp farms..well thats another thread. That whole change of the industry and who runs those larger corps have a lot to do with it. Backscratching each other rich while the people get sick..but thats ok..they also have their hands on all the meds you need..for a price. Kinda sounds a bit devilish..no?
You can't force a grown adult to go on a diet or give a up booze or drugs or unprotected sex, too much tanning, whatever.
Adults are free to make their own choices and with that freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility to make GOOD choices, seek help when they need it, or face the consequences of doing nothing...
I don't think that you can look at extreme cases like this particular woman and try to create policies/rules/restrictions on everyone else "for their own good". Most people will never, ever be in that woman's situation and I doubt that very few of us could eat 33,000 calories/day even if we wanted to. And, seriously, who in their right mind would want to do that?
Most people get "fat" on a far more normal calorie intake and, yes, you can most certainly gain weight on healthy foods, too. I did.
This is, to quote conservative pundits, very "nanny state." It is really odd to me, that in general we feel like we should be able to force our values on people because they are receiving "assistance" instead of dealing with the structural problems that are causing the issue.
The question isn't, "why are people on disability able to purchase large amounts of junk food." The question is "why is that our food system has made it cost effective (or calorie-effective) to purchase junk food over better alternatives."
Why don't lettuce farmers or squash farmers or carrot farmers get the subsidies that corn and soy farmers do? Why haven't we made a concerted effort to make healthier cheaper, so our neediest residents can afford it? There is lots of evidence that eating better (and avoiding the hormones and chemicals) leads to decreased incidence of ADD, better health outcomes and a whole ton of positive benefits, and saves money in the future (reducing the need for expensive health care later). But we'd rather allow cheap processed fillers and additives made from corn and soy.
The only "restriction" I'd support on "government assistance" is a subsidy on produce and other healthier items so people can feel empowered to choose them since it is in budget and cost effective.
Well it isn't always true that people receiving assistance are always looking to purchase cheap junk food...sometimes that junk food can be quite expensive, as in the case of some combination gimmicky toy/candy type products.
I think you are asking some good questions. I however don't see everything in the produce aisle as expensive. A bag of potatos, whole heads of cabbage, or regular carrots are generally reasonable. The items I might desire on any given day can be pricy though...like strawberries etc.
Well it isn't always true that people receiving assistance are always looking to purchase cheap junk food...sometimes that junk food can be quite expensive, as in the case of some combination gimmicky toy/candy type products.
No, Americans are looking to purchase cheap junk food. Let's say that at any given time 15% of Americans are receiving public assistance. But fast food consumption increases with income level. In fact, the growth in fast food is the most among people with $80-90K income. Who can afford better stuff. As income rises, so does fast-food consumption, study finds - latimes.com
If cheap junk food didn't sell to everyone, it would not be a multi-billion dollar business. It is just stereotyping that only "poor people on public assistance" drive consumption of crappy food. It is an american problem. The difference is, as you move up the food ladder, you spend a lower percentage of your income on food, so you can afford the good stuff and the bad stuff.
But it wouldn't be a moral value issue. More like a medically correct diet or fact.
At least for me. If it doesn't cover smoking, or drinking why should it cover other foods that are harmful or empty calories?
Why? Because its more profitable for the companies to process these raw ingredients into forms that can be filled with things that preserve shelf life, bulk them, condense them for cheaper storage etc. Just one of the reasons. Then you can play "follow the money" to see why certain people get the perks they do. Look at who they know and who they worked for.
The way they handled the independent farmer vs. corp farms..well thats another thread. That whole change of the industry and who runs those larger corps have a lot to do with it. Backscratching each other rich while the people get sick..but thats ok..they also have their hands on all the meds you need..for a price. Kinda sounds a bit devilish..no?
I watched the Escape Fire special on CNN this weekend about AMerican Health Care. Or as they phrased it, "we have terrible health management/health care, but good disease treatment (and drug delivery)." The US is a great place to be once you are really sick, but we don't care about you not catching it in the first place.
We focus all of our attentions on treating the disease once you have it, but zero energy on preventing the disease in the first place.
It is really all about paying the big guys more, Monsanto, big pharma, for-profit hospital systems....
It is a really interesting special. I recommend it! Real stories about all sorts of people that ran into issues, and doctors who are working on health management and not disease treatment. Oh and discussions on how doctors are paid for volume not quality of care. Oh and you know, how treatment = drugs and not lifestyle changes.
I know people do like to hate on Kaiser, but I think they are aiming to tackle health problems from the right angle. Disease prevention. I love how they offer low cost nutritionists (like $5-10 per session) and workshops for people who are on the way to diabetes and heart problems....so they don't get them in the first place. And practice what they preach buy having farmers markets onsite, encouraging people to take the stairs (and building design that incorporates people actually walking.). A great philosophy in my book.
What is annoying to me is the social cost of our system supporting people whohave aaddiction. They get medicaid, food stamps, social security benefits, housing. It is like rewarding people for having addictions.
Off the public dime. People who have addictions should be offered treatment. Blow out of treatment, no more benefits. Ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
