Welfare AND Healthcare Reform Idea
I'm sure you've all seen it: The less fortunate, fat kid eating *Insert fast food here* and the parents not worrying(or knowing) about nutrition. I did some work around foreclosure valuation in college, and spent a solid two summers driving around in what I've deemed "The Hood" in Boston.
Fast forward to a recent conversation with a coworker: Her mom works as a nutritionist in a poorer area, and encounters the following on a regular basis:
Mom comes in with 3 obese kids in the 8-14 range. Two of the three are diabetic, and all have McDonald's bags in hand. The nutritionist knows that they are on welfare, and their healthcare is paid for by the government. Every single visit, she recommends that they stop eating the fast food because it's killing the kids, but mom says they're fine and that if anything happens the hospital will take care of them. I'm not saying that this is what everyone on welfare does, but it's also not an isolated incident.
My personal belief is that the concept of welfare is good, but the execution not so much. I believe that everyone has the right to eat, but if you want junk food get a job. I have no problem being taxed to pay for your healthcare, as long as you're not doing anything that could be detrimental to your health.
Idea:
Instead of giving people EBT cards to use wherever accepted, why not just set up a network of food dispensaries? These establishments would add minimum wage jobs, and cut out the middleman in grocery transactions (even with the low margins on many products). This would also ensure that people are purchasing healthier food, and welfare money isn't abused because there wouldn't be any actual currency. Obviously there would be a large upfront investment required to do this, but it would go hand in hand with the current push to get more fresh vegetables into poorer areas dominated by convenience stores instead of supermarkets.
Before the "Comrade" comments start, think about it: If everyone got an ID card that had zero value on it, but was registered in the system, they could get a certain allocation/allowance of food for the week. X pounds of protein (raw or cooked, for those that don't cook), X pounds or servings of vegetables, and a predetermined number of "miscellaneous" items that can be used on treats/less healthy items. Have a birthday coming up? Use them to get a birthday cake. Have a kid? You get baby supplies for the week. Obviously there would have to be some type of algorithm that says "your household is X, you get Y," but it's definitely doable.
This would force people eating for free to eat healthier, which would (hopefully) help with the impoverished obesity epidemic. The argument that people should have the right to choose what they eat is valid, but my counter is that if you want to choose what you eat, get a job. If you can't, the purpose of welfare at its core is to keep you fed, not let you pick and choose.
It would also eliminate the need for the free spending money that some recipients get. This is old news, but this lady was fired for denying a sale of Cigarettes to someone paying with an EBT card (although it was a legal transaction):
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/18898515/2012/06/27/nh-store-clerk-fir…
Bottom line: Less or equal money spent on welfare food while creating jobs and reducing healthcare costs through healthier diets for assistance recipients. Zero dollar value also drastically reduces risk of program funding abuse.
When was the last time you saw something healthy at 7-11?
This could work well in Urban areas, but not in rural areas.
Also, in Illinois I believe that there are restrictions on Food Stamps (the Link Card). I believe that they can only buy raw foods and not ready to serve food, candy, booze, tabacco, etc...
I assume that most people use the foodstamps to get food to fill their cabinets and then use their money to get the McDonalds.
I agree with your train of thought, but I'm not sure it applies here.
I do believe that anyone receiving government aid should be drug tested.
If we're really thinking outside the box, why not an individualized fat tax. Here's how it would work:
Person would get a physical done, find what their BMI is by a profession doctor. Anything over 15% BMI, the person has to pay a 1% tax for every 1% BMI they're over 15%. Person is provided a card that is scanned when purchasing any food.
Person going to McDonalds, is not able to buy anything unless they provide their card to scan to the cashier. No card, no food. If they do give their card, it gets scanned and the fat tax get's added on to their bill. All the money collected goes towards the Medicare general fund. Fresh food and non-processed foods would be exempt.
Probably only workable in an Orwellian world, but the main idea is threefold. 1. Promote weight loss/management by pegging weight to a punitive item (i.e. the tax), 2. Disincentivize consumption of less healthy items such as fast food or junk food, and 3. Provide additional revenues to Medicare to cover medical costs of these fat peoples' lifestyle.
My suggestion really goes against my conservative principles (people should be responsible for themselves vs. government intervention), but if taxpayers are ultimately going to be on the hook for people like that in your post, they should have to give up/be penalized for being stupid.
BMI is a terrible way of thinking about it. My purely lean mass, based on 1-bf% is 12 pounds higher than the "ideal" weight for my height/age, making it impossible for me to reach what is the "normal weight" BMI class, without losing muscle and bone mass. The issue becomes what metric you use, because each one will somehow catch people in it that are truly healthy.
You could always go for the digital BF% meters, those are usually relatively accurate, especially if the same model was used everywhere.
This is really the answer - taxpayers should not be on the hook for these people. Easier to reform welfare than orchestrate some giant social engineering initiative, despite what Bloomberg would lead you to believe.
People who require the government to support them like parents should be treated like children. The government should tell them what to do, how to do it and when. You cannot expect money to be handed to you without strings attached.
Love this, SB if I had one to give.
OP, when you say "The Hood", I'm guessing places like Mattapan, Roxbury, Dorchester, area.
The thing with these areas is that, there's a McDonald, Burger King, KFC, etc... on every other block, it's hard to force someone with little income to go spend $6-8 on a salad, which they most likely will not enjoy instead of throwing down a few burgers for $4. I know for myself, growing up in those neighborhoods, when I had $10 to last me for a week, I was buying cheap junk food, it was not until I had some income where I started to eat healthier and going to trader joe's and those grocery store.
The primary reason that lower-income people are more overweight is because the unhealthiest and most fattening foods are the cheapest. If you were broke and had just three dollars to spend on food today, would you buy a head of broccoli or a Super Value Meal with French fries, a cheeseburger and a Coke?
I am all for welfare reform but it's hard to get to a happy medium. I just feel sometime, the individuals/parents (like the mother in your post) are just negligent.
Yes, those are a few of the areas (and my use of "The Hood," was more for fun, not disrespect).
I agree with your comment, and the goal of these "food dispensaries" (Salad Mae?) would be to eliminate the $4 value meal vs. $8 salad vs. head of broccoli argument altogether. The ultimate goal would be to have zero currency exchange, just an exchange of food, and no discretionary spending money. It would change that decision to free head of broccoli or get a job.
Again, it's your right to eat, but a privilege to decide what you eat. I'm very conservative and dislike the idea of this much government involvement, but at this point in time as a college graduate with a great job (counting my blessings), I dislike the government spending and erratic budget cuts even more.
If an individual receiving assistance has their own source of income, he/she can go exercise his/her privilege of eating whatever he/she would like to. Otherwise, the process would be:
Walk into dispensary & swipe ID (or check phone app) See how much food you can get, and from which categories Pick out food for the day/week Go to the clerk and hand over the ID Food is marked on your account as having been picked up.
It's essentially like a digital punch card, and people could either stop in to get a meal or come in to do grocery "shopping." The most important step would be making it sound like an upgrade to the system, where people can get "better food and not worry about prices" or something along those lines.
Then there's always the fun conversation my friends toss around that if you're on an aid program like this and physically able, you should be doing community service as a way to "earn" these benefits until you find better work.
No worries, I didn't take your "hood" comment with any disrespect.
Your idea seems like a valid one, but with that idea comes a load of micro-managing by the government, and also I'm sure they would have to make partnerships with local super markets in order to find a happy medium as far as what necessary income balance is needed by certain individuals to spend on groceries.
I just feel like this will be an on going problem for decades to come, obesity in low socioeconomic areas has been prevalent for DECADES, we can only hope for a reform.
This is why you don't give children a choice. People on welfare should be handed food, have someone wake them up, have a government bus take them to work, have a government parent make them clean up. Their television should be regulated, their spending should be regulated, everything.
I will happily pay more in taxes for more social programs if they are administered this way. Plenty of menial jobs in every city that welfare recipients can do to provide them discipline and a work ethic. McDonalds is for people who work and pay taxes, same thing with booze, drugs and cigarettes.
This is also why I support soda taxes, fast food taxes, etc. Tax the shit out of it. I can afford it and will consume it at my leisure, but it is regressive and thereby dissuading to poor people. We could even have a bifurcated pricing structure depending on AGI.
^^^ I like the above idea. Make sure birth control is mixed into every meal also.
Enim dolores distinctio quasi aut. Alias incidunt officiis autem similique. Rem aliquam deleniti ea quos explicabo amet.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...