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.
And where exactly in the report does it claim this overlap is a direct link to obesity?
This is like your birth rate debacle.
No mention, because these reports do not individually or collectively provide (not could they based upon the study design limitations) a causal link, a correlation, cannot determine a significant effect, can not provide a cause and effect relationship.
Obesity, is driven and mediated by multiple factors. Poverty, is even more compex. Confounding factors galore. Food assistance programs muddy the water as well, that's why research articles I've linked to pages ago that try to isolate a variable or two (with this same NHANES study), provide better context, because the studies are greater controlled. Many peer reciewed, published papers, highlighting the benefits of SNAP, for instance, on dietary choices and weight. Even the USDA report in this thread that never ends highlights that SNAP users eat the least sugary, oily foods out of all three groups. However, despite reiterating this in many different fashions, there's an irresistible fixation on an item demonstrated in these posts. Read the early first few pages, where before 'we'learned above research design and limitations, lol, the statements were more assuredly assertive.
Eligibility does not translate to program participation or even use.
What do you not get about 59% of participant families participating simultaneously in 2 or moreMAJOR FNS public assistance food programs?
"...FNS commissioned a study that detailed the extent of multiple participation in four major FNS programs—SNAP, WIC, SBP, and NSLP—for a 4-month period in 2006. The study reported that among the families that participated in at least one of the four major programs, about 41 percent participated in only one, and 59 participated in two or more programs."
Honestly, I've never seen so many excuses made for keeping the poor obese and unhealthy. What do you and the other posters in this thread hell bent on keeping the poor disproportionately obese get out of advocating for ruining their health?
SNAP people have the resources to buy food, but the food they are buying isn't healthy. That's the issue.
Lastly, I'm not against elimating redundant programs, it's your conclusions have issues with.
Quote:
If you think the U.S. Census data that those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't is wrong, how do you explain the fact that 45% of all births in the U.S. are paid for by Medicaid, the free health care public assistance program for the poor?
No it's the conclusions you reach from the data. Like I said in the other thread.... taking a snap shot after a decade of high illegal immigration and an economic crisis that wiped out trillions in private assets, along with the millions of jobs that have been lost and aren't coming back.
Honestly, I've never seen so many excuses made for keeping the poor obese and unhealthy. What do you and the other posters in this thread hell bent on keeping the poor disproportionately obese get out of advocating for ruining their health?
What excuses? Are you confusing excuses with explanations again? It's a complicated world out there, certainly more complex than you repeating the same data point.
No mention, because these reports do not individually or collectively provide (not could they based upon the study design limitations) a causal link, a correlation, cannot determine a significant effect, can not provide a cause and effect relationship.
Obesity, is driven and mediated by multiple factors. Poverty, is even more compex. Confounding factors galore. Food assistance programs muddy the water as well, that's why research articles I've linked to pages ago that try to isolate a variable or two (with this same NHANES study), provide better context, because the studies are greater controlled. Many peer reciewed, published papers, highlighting the benefits of SNAP, for instance, on dietary choices and weight. Even the USDA report in this thread that never ends highlights that SNAP users eat the least sugary, oily foods out of all three groups. However, despite reiterating this in many different fashions, there's an irresistible fixation on an item demonstrated in these posts. Read the early first few pages, where before 'we'learned above research design and limitations, lol, the statements were more assuredly assertive.
Anyone with a half a brain knows there are mulitple factors to obesity, some folks on here have a narrative they like to purport.
SNAP people have the resources to buy food, but the food they are buying isn't healthy. That's the issue.
So how does giving them 158% instead of 100% of the resources they need to acquire sufficient nutrition (OIG's example) help them? It doesn't. It enables them to eat even more of the unhealthy foods they choose, thereby fostering their VERY high rate of obesity and ruining their health:
Obesity Rate of Adults Income-Eligible for SNAP (Food Stamps):
Participants: 44% Nonparticipants: 33%
Source: USDA. I've posted the link to the source.
The income-eligible adults who don't receive food stamps have an obesity rate that is in line with higher income earners. But those who receive food stamps have a MUCH higher obesity rate. The difference is extremely statistically significant.
If they're not eating the food bought with that 58% too much (the example of duplication in FNS programs given by the OIG) in public assistance free food benefits, what are they doing with all that extra in food stamps. Cite your source (s).
Stores in inner cities charge higher prices for food as there are no large supermarkets within a reasonable commute, of course it costs more than other areas. Even in poor urban areas, commercial rent is more expensive than in rural or suburban areas and they need to make profit by charging higher prices. I'm shocked this escaped you.
You want to see food taken out of poor people's mouths for your own smug self satisfaction but why haven't any of you conservatives supported government subsidized food markets that offer low priced wholesome food in urban ghettos?
Stores in inner cities charge higher prices for food as there are no large supermarkets within a reasonable commute, of course it costs more than other areas. Even in poor urban areas, commercial rent is more expensive than in rural or suburban areas and they need to make profit by charging higher prices. I'm shocked this escaped you.
If food was costing them SO much, and it was SO hard for them to get, why are 44% of adult SNAP participants obese?
Obesity Rate of Adults Income-Eligible for SNAP (Food Stamps):
Participants: 44% Nonparticipants: 33%
Source: USDA. I've already posted the link to the source.
The income-eligible adults who don't receive food stamps have an obesity rate that is in line with higher income earners. But those who receive food stamps have a MUCH higher obesity rate. The difference is extremely statistically significant.
Quote:
You want to see food taken out of poor people's mouths for your own smug self satisfaction but why haven't any of you conservatives supported government subsidized food markets that offer low priced wholesome food in urban ghettos?
No, I want to see liberals stop enabling adult SNAP participants' obesity and ruining their health. What kind of a sick person physically abuses others like that just so they can hypocritically "feel good" about themselves?
No, I want to see liberals stop enabling adult SNAP participants' obesity and ruining their health. What kind of a sick person physically abuses others like that just so they can hypocritically "feel good" about themselves?
Once again, assigning cause.
Once again, listing a causal relationship between SNAP receipt and obesity.
You cannot assign cause.
I know you want to assign cause, I know you want to scream from the mountaintops, "SNAP causes obesity." Cut SNAP, the poor will all magically become normal weight, their health status will regress back to the mean. I do think your latter statement at the end is quite a projection, btw.
Is SNAP perfect, is the USDA perfect, is the FNS 15-arm program perfect. No, it's not. Nothing is. However, it does cater to a diverse set of individuals, and, their needs. The program works to the best of its ability, in the context of poverty, which most individuals recognize, is incredibly complex to study, understand, and alleviate.
You can argue and post until the cows come home regarding overeating, but, as we discussed in a few pages ago, the USDA is not following individuals, over time, in a randomized study from birth, to understand and tease apart these items. The peer reviewed, published research articles that do try to tease apart a variable or two, (considering how complex poverty truly is), mainly find positive associations with SNAP use. And not just SNAP, but, WIC, school lunches, many of the supportive service programs.
Setting aside all of the research design, limitations, reports, the opinions, the theories, the data, I guess I just don't understand your rationale of repeating the same few bits; what is your eventual goal or objective?
Cut out duplicative services? The USDA per its letter in the report you've linked, covers this. If you feel they are not doing their job, maybe you should call them directly. Please report your experience if so.
Cut out SNAP? Is that what you want? You should add that in your call to the USDA, OIG even.
Ensure the poor aren't bilking the system? A system that knowingly is making them fat? Again, find the contact information of the USDA contact in that letter. I'm sure she would love to hear from you. I'll provide my e-mail address so you can bcc on the correspondence.
Improve the health status of the poor? That's a way bigger discussion than what's been myopically focused upon here.
You just keep going around in circles.
I asked you this before, you conveniently never answered any of my questions--do you work with the poor? In public health? Governmental policy? Nutrition? Research? Social Services? You've ranted on this thread for two days now, but, in reality, outside of City-Data, do you actually try to improve the system (and the health of the poor children and adults you have in your mind when posting these graphs), the system that you've dedicated about 15 pages worth of commentary alone to via this thread?
Last edited by MobileVisitor09; 07-25-2015 at 04:12 PM..
This might come as a surprise to you... overeating does in fact cause obesity.
Both the OIG and FNS authorities themselves have gone on record stating FNS participants are getting overlapping and duplicate FNS program food services and food stamps. They're getting too much in public assistance food benefits and are eating too much. 44% of adult SNAP participants are obese, as opposed to only 33% of the income-eligible who don't get food stamps, and only 32% of higher income earners.
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.
However, despite reiterating this in many different fashions, there's an irresistible fixation on an item demonstrated in these posts. Read the early first few pages, where before 'we'learned above research design and limitations, lol, the statements were more assuredly assertive.
