A Healthier America

Amidst all of the talk of reforming health care and fixing the economy, one very important issue with society is being ignored by politicians. This issue is the obesity problem in the United States. Now in some cases, people are overweight because they do not care what they eat. Other people are overweight because of their genes or their health. The government has no control over the weight of these people. However, there is one large group of people that can be helped by the government with their weight problem. Ironically, this group consists of the people are unable to afford food.

In my first paper in Intro to College Writing, I wrote about the WIC program and how it protects the rights of children to receive proper nutrition. As a recap, this program provides food aid to expectant mothers, infants, and young children. WIC pays for specific healthy food items to properly nourish mothers and young children. Only healthy foods can be bought with WIC - the cash register at supermarkets reject any foods with corn syrup or too much sugar. There is even a limitation that only wheat bread can be bought because it provides more essential nutrients to young and developing children. Unhealthy foods are cheaper, so the less fortunate often buy the unhealthy food so they can buy more of it. The limitations are a good thing because they allow WIC to provide children with healthy foods to start their diets off in the right direction.

A program that does not provide the same nutritional protection is the EBT program. The only restrictions on EBT Food Stamps are that cigarettes, alcohol, taxes goods, and prepared foods cannot be bought. Cookies, chips, soda, fruits saturated in corn syrup, and other junk foods are free game when it comes to buying food with EBT. I am a cashier at Market Basket and many orders I ring through that are paid for using EBT are loaded with fatty foods such as these. Many times, people buy more junk than actual food and it breaks my heart to see how obese many children are that are on EBT. I often see people watching the total for their order and they always grab candy bars to use up the rest of their card. This is a very unhealthy habit and in my opinion, any money not used buying regular groceries should be returned to the government to help someone else in need. "Using up what is left on the card" on impulse items (gum and candy) is very wrong and is taking advantage of the program.

There is another part of the EBT program and that is EBT Cash Benefits. With Cash Benefits, a certain amount of money can be used to buy taxes items as well (i.e. toilet paper, stamps, cutlery). There is a problem with this as well; the Cash Benefits portion of the EBT Card can be withdrawn from an ATM to provide an untraceable source of cash. This cash can be used to buy cigarettes, booze, and it can even be used for gambling (although these are not the intended purpose of the cash). I see people insert their EBT card into the ATM at work and walk directly to the Customer Service Desk to buy cigarettes with the cash they just withdrew. This also saddens me because that money was supposed to go to help the family/children with basic necessities. Parents neglect their kids to get themselves a fix of nicotine, and the government does not prevent this from happening.

One day, I figured out that 21% of my paycheck is taken out in taxes (and I am just part time, making often less than $100 a week). A large amount of these taxes are taken out for Food Aid programs such as WIC and EBT. I am all for helping those in need who do not abuse the system, but it frustrates me when that much hard earned money is taken out to help nourish people, who end up morbidly obese because the government is not restricting all food aid programs. Only healthy foods should be allowed. As far as Cash Benefits goes, people should not be allowed to take the money out of an ATM and they should only be allowed to buy the intended products of the program like toilet paper and paper towels. I love the WIC program for it achieves its goal of properly nourishing expectant mothers and their babies/young children. Other programs need to be reformed to have limits like the WIC program so they can do what they are intended to do. By limiting foods to only being healthy foods, manufacturers will end up reformulating their products so they will contain less fat, sugar, syrup, and sodium. They will reformulate their products so they don't lose profit (I see more junk food bought with EBT than I see bought with cash, credit, and debit orders). When programs like EBT are reformed, America will be at a healthier weight. When Americans are in better shape, they will have less health risks like heart attack and stroke. With less risk of disease, lives will be saved and our new Universal Health Care will not need to spend as much. With less government spending in one area, it can create more jobs and help more people. By creating more jobs, less will be reliant on government programs, leading in even less government spending. More people will then be paying into the system, resulting in more money for the government. The cycle will then continue. By fixing broken food aid programs, people will be thinner, healthier, and end up employed. The U.S. government will also have more money to help others and to pay back its own debts. A simple reform of the EBT program will fix many societal issues, including childhood obesity. So why do our politicians keep ignoring the issue?

Please voice your opinion. Am I right, do we need food aid reform? Is my logic incorrect? Am I too cynical of the programs? Does anything need to be changed at all?


For further reading:
http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/17533/

An article that provides great coverage on the abuse and loose rules of EBT is at http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/banking-lending-credit-services-payment/15173799-1.html

Healthcare Reform

Healthcare originally was for people who could only afford it and now the reform is so everybody can have it. This affects social justice because it is making healthcare equal for everyone, but is it actually hurting people in the long run. You could live in the healthiest state, but the reality is that people in your state still go hungry every night and this reform would help them be able to have a steady income to live on and to be treated if they receive a disease. There are 46.6 million people without health insurance.
Is it fair for the people that have health insurance to get these benefits, they are paying for it because they can afford it. The reform wants to make it so that everybody has healthcare and that it is all equal. In doing this it makes everybody have benefits, which might help the population increase because less would be dieing from diseases and starvation, but the personal care might go down towards patients because there would be less people in the health field to help them, and there might be an overload in patients. Also, care to the elderly might go down because they will get less benefits since they are older and if this happens is it fair to them. I don't think it is. There are 81% of uninsured families that have at least one adult working, but still don't have insurance because of their job and they can afford it on the salary they are getting. People who used to have insurance might have lost it because now companies are taking away their insurance because it is cheaper for them, which i think is wrong to do. When creating this healthcare reform you have to think about the cost it is going to have because it is going to be expensive to pay for every body's insurance, which will put the United States in more debt.
The main problem I am getting to is, Is it fair for us to accept the Healthcare Reform because it makes everybody have equal insurance? Does that make it better for everyone? Is this reform a good thing to accept into our lives? I think we won't really know until we try it out, but if the coverage for other people goes down is it worth hurting some people to help out other people?
If you want to read the article the site is http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/marapr2007p24.shtml .