Freedom of Choice?

Recently my husband was home on a day off, he’s having some hip problems, and he spent a significant amount of time on the couch watching daytime television.  I rarely watch daytime television for one simple reason, it stinks. Everything is either talk shows competing for the Jerry Springer prize, soap operas (which I have always despised), and occasionally a decent show, like Rachel Ray (for the cooking part, it’s okay) or Ellen, which let’s face it, even if you disagree with her lifestyle, she’s really funny. I did happen to catch part of a news segment, however, that though short was very thought provoking.

In the news some politician had made a statement along the lines of ‘The ability for Food Stamp users to purchase food that is bad for them, is a contributing factor to the American obesity problem.’  The shit storm started immediately and viciously.

The statement was countered by such statements as ‘it’s a constitutional right to choose what I eat’ and ‘trying to prevent the purchase of unhealthy foods via the Food Stamp program would be impossible’.

Okay, here’s the thing. It wouldn’t be that difficult at all. The program already refuses the purchasing of alcohol and tobacco products.  While it would require work and effort, it could be accomplished.  The State of Missouri has a program called WIC-Women, Infants, and Children.  This program has successfully functioned for more than 20 years, and you know what? You can only purchase healthy food. Milk, eggs, cheese, veggies, low sugar cereals, etc. You can even use it at some of the farmer’s markets and to by your own veggie plants. If one state can do it, why can’t others?

Reducing the ability to purchase high fat foods would appear to have a great impact on the users of the program. Appearances can be deceiving.  Currently there is a whole underground market for EBT cards (there are no longer actual food ‘stamps’, its done electronically via a card similar to a debit card) that thrives because of this type of limitation. People regularly sell their EBT cards in exchange for half, or less, of the monetary value it contains. Why? Well, it’s precisely so that they can purchase the forbidden products. EBT users cannot buy the cigarettes or alcohol they want, so they sell their grocery money for half of its value and use the cash to make the purchases.

Yes, I know this for a fact. We have been approached outside of grocery stores multiple times by people wanting to do exactly that. These people usually say things like, ‘give me your grocery list, I’ll go buy your stuff, then you pay me half of it in cash’. Why?  Because the use of electronic cards means they can use your purchase habits against you. If you sell your card and someone takes it several hours away and uses it, bingo, you’re popping up as an anomaly.  EBT fraud comes with stiff penalties if you get caught. By waiting outside a store they normally frequent, they aren’t changing their patterns.

Just a point of fact here, participating in anyway in this type of arrangement is illegal and subject to prosecution. While there are many people who use the program as intended, it’s a case of one bad apple spoils the bunch.

Which brings me down to the arguments presented:  Is restricting the purchase of high fat actually going to make a significant impact on obesity rates?  Is it a ‘right’ of someone using a federal program to use it however they wish?

I can see both sides of this. As a tax payer, I’m keen towards restricting it. Why, because most of those people that are using Food Stamps are also on other government programs, like Medicare and Medicaid.  Obesity is an extremely costly condition, medically speaking.  That creates a larger burden on the Medicare and Medicaid systems, which is funded by tax dollars. There is a larger burden on the medical community, also, because of unpaid bills. Hospitals write off a huge amount of money each year for unpaid bills connected to under insured or uninsured patients. That translates into higher bills for those that can pay.  We won’t even discuss the whole insurance industry right now, it would take far too much room.

So I can see the idea of it working, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, is it not?

Then you have the whole ‘it’s my right’ idea. I can see this too, as I don’t like the idea of someone telling me I cannot purchase something I want to eat or drink.  On the other hand, I tell myself ‘no’ all the time. ‘Don’t need the calories’ or ‘there are so many calories in that with so little benefit, I’ll pass’.  I think David probably gets sick of hearing me say that.  He’s uber skinny and can eat like a garbage disposal with no weight gain, me, well I gain wait just rolling by the donut counter in the grocery store. Partially because of the wheelchair, but partially just because that’s the way my body works.  So I self-regulate a lot. There are types of obesity that are rooted in medical causes, and types that are not. Saying no to everyone, even if they don’t have an obesity issue, to curb the ones that do, doesn’t sit right.

Is it really a ‘right’, though? Does a person have a right to be a burden on the Food Stamp and Medicare/caid systems because of their (non-medically induced) weight? Do they have the right to force the taxpayer to pay their food and medical bills because of their weight issues? Tricky question, that.  Even trickier would be how to decide who fits that category.  Who can certify that a person with obesity is from bad eating habits or medical causes? We all know that there are doctors out there that would say it was one or the other for a patient that annoyed them long enough about it, just as there are others that never would.

Then what? Force those people into exercise and diet programs? That would outstrip the Food Stamp and Medicare costs in a hurry.  Not to mention having half the country screaming ‘Socialist!’ As I said before, the Missouri WIC program already does some of these things. The parent participating has to take classes on nutrition, cooking, and healthy choices for them and their baby, if they wish to receive the free food. The problem is, most don’t really ‘learn’ from it and discard what they have been taught as soon as the last voucher has been redeemed. (WIC only lasts until a child is of a certain age, under 5 I believe but it’s been a while since I looked.) At that point they go back to whatever habits they had before.  

So would restricting actually work?  In theory, yes, but theory isn’t real life. Is it a good idea, well maybe, but it would take quite the effort to work it all out. 

So, how do you feel about it?

Does freedom of personal choice outweigh the increased tax payer burden?

Do you think it would be possible to implement such restrictions?

Do you think it would actually make a significant impact on America’s Obesity Epidemic?

I love these types of discussions, because everyone has their own unique view on subjects, things I might not have thought of, and I believe that gathering the largest amount of information is the best way to work out a real question. I emphasize ‘Discussions’ here, as that is what it is. Please feel free to comment in a civilized manner, without any name calling or political party flag waving. This is not a political discussion, merely an ideological exercise.  

Thanks for reading!

TH