Whenever government takes action that smacks of imposing values on a group of people, critics abound on both the left and right. The most recent case in point is a proposal to remove soda from the list of foods that may be purchased with food stamps. Liberals worry government is discriminating and stigmatizing the poor, while conservatives criticize the state’s perceived paternalism.
From both liberal and conservative perspectives, however, removing soda from a taxpayer-funded food maintenance program for the poor makes good sense.
Two questions should guide such decisions. Does government have the moral authority to impose such standards? Is there a demonstrable good achieved in doing so?
Assistance should come with no strings attached and no preaching, some argue. But government-funded assistance programs have always made distinctions relating to standards. The occupants of subsidized housing must comply with a series of rules that don’t apply to nonsubsidized renters. College students with drug convictions are ineligible for federal aid. And food stamps can’t be used to pay for beer or wine.
The second question, whether society as a whole gains, is easily answered. Soda has no nutritional value and is clearly linked to tooth decay, diabetes and obesity, which in turn contributes to a host of health problems.
Drinking soda instead of water or low-fat milk is one of a handful of key causes identified in the sharp rise in childhood obesity rates. Once a child — or adult — struggles with obesity, a decline in health snowballs.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program, already has models to address this. It bans the purchase of “foods of minimal nutritional value” in its school lunch program and the Women, Infants and Children program. WIC recipients are given vouchers for specific nutrient-rich foods. School subsidies require adherence to USDA nutrition standards. Soda, whether sweetened with sugar or artificially, as well as carbonated drinks enhanced with traces of vitamins or minerals, are excluded from both programs.
Further, the food stamp program recently was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “The new name reflects our focus on nutrition and putting healthy food within reach for low-income households,” its Web site states. “SNAP helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health.”
Not allowing soda purchases would fit perfectly with that mission.
If Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services does apply for a waiver from the federal rules for food stamps, as Jonathan Shenkin, president-elect of the Maine Dental Association advocates, material educating food stamp recipients about healthful beverage choices should be included with the vouchers.
Dr. Shenkin, a Bangor dentist, led the way in pushing the city of Bangor and then the state to ban smoking in vehicles when minor children are present. His soda initiative will be as controversial as the smoking ban was, but like tobacco, soda poses a health threat. Financing the purchase of soda is not a good bang for the taxpayer buck.
The cost of providing health care for the poor, which is borne by all taxpayers, has grown to unacceptable levels. Reasonable steps, like getting soda off the list of food stamp foods, should be taken as soon as possible.
On 11/20/08 at 1:15 AM,
ryanrrobbins wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
So far nobody has produced any evidence that soda has contributed more of a "burden" to government-financed health care than other more "acceptable" foods and beverages. All we have is thin anecdotal evidence from a dentist, without any perspective whatsoever on whether any perceived "dangers" of soda can be severely mitigated or outright eliminated through proper oral hygiene. Further, the editorial fails to address the undeniable fact that such a change in policy would treat poor people unfairly. Why not advocate for a "sin" tax on soda, if the beverage is such a danger to our health? Why not advocate eliminating water from food stamp-eligible items, because it's free outside of stores? Where does the micromanaging of people's choices end?
On 11/20/08 at 9:09 AM,
Bangorian wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I suggest that in addition to making soda off limits to food stamp receipients, the State also require every dentist with a State licenses to provide dental care to a minimum number of Mainecare recipients. It is hard to find a dentist who will accept Mainecare. I think that needs to change, particularly if dentists are going to dictate public policy.
On 11/20/08 at 9:39 AM,
hrdwkngmom wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Unfortunatly it is hard to find a dentist in this State that accepts ANY insurance! My husband and I both have dental plans for our children and the monthly cost is outrageous...The plans are horrible even with comprehensive...Dentists only accept what they want for insurance and it is unfair to all..Mainecare or not..
My son had a Skateboarding accident a few years ago, he was wearing all his gear and a mouth guard. The skateboard came up and hit him in the mouth ripping all his front teeth from their roots and laying them on the roof of his mouth. The EMMC ER had to call an on call oral surgeon whom in the OR had to put his teeth back in and wire them in ald also placing a maxillary stabalizing unit to hold his broken jaw together to heal. We have 2 insurance plans and 2 dental plans...I thought we were ok...
3 weeks later we recieved a bill for 4000.00 and a letter telling us NONE of our insurance would cover the costs because WE DIDN'T FIND A DENTIST WHO ACCEPTED OUR INSURANCE..WE???? This guy was an ON CALL ORAL SURGEON...We were then told we would be reimbursed after we showed proof of payment..We toolk a cash advance off a credit card to pay this dentist to get a letter we were NOT being reimbursed for he did not accept ANY insurances period!!
They then told us we had to find a different dentist to finish the work in his mouth and to remove the metal wiring or we would be responsible for paying this dentist all costs for he did not accept any form of insurance!
Not one dentist in this state would help us! Not one dentist would touch his mouth for they HAD NOT done the ORIGINAL work!
Long story short..We have had to pay out of pocket for all the work that was done, 1800.00 just to remove the metal brackets they placed in the OR in the Emergency Dept! Then the dentist charged us an extra 250.00 to put him to sleep because in his own words.." He will be a fish out of water if you don't"...
4 years later and more than 8000.00 in dental bills...My son's teeth are dying and every attempt to save them have failed...I know have to come up with money to place implants....Our insurance..Well they wont cover it because it was caused by an accident....
This dentist and every other dentist in this State don't really give a rats about the outcome of children's dental care..All they care about it the payment..If they didn't over charge for the work they did the MaineCare children wouldn't suffer....
The best Dentist in this town Dr. John Frachella of the Bangor city dental clinic..Well he retired and walked away for all the care he gave was to people who couldn't afford it and had MaineCare...Wel;l MaineCare never paid him resulting in his retirement...What a shame...
This dentist needs to give up his practice and become the "advocate" he claims to be....He is all wrapped up in political empowerment...He's missing the point that the parents of these kids with dental needs..Well they can't afford to pay his prices or any other dentist in this town!
On 11/20/08 at 11:21 AM,
Tired2008 wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I oppose my hard earned tax dollars to be used for soda. We don't honor food stamps for beer, or other alcohol so why would we honor
food stamps for soft drinks? FOOD STAMPS, not luxury stamps.
On 11/20/08 at 11:43 AM,
onthefence wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I have seen many toddlers running around with a nursing bottle or sippy cup of soda...and they are chubby already. But to be fair I don't think they were all food stamp recipiants children...I honestly believe soda and high calorie snack foods should be taken off the foods allowed to be purchased with food stamps. Even more important I think food stamp recipiants should have some sort of cooking from scratch education. I so often see carts full of low quality, high fat/salt foods in the grocery store and wonder if the purchaser even knows how to cook a low-cost, nutritious meal. Too many people who receive food stamps waste money on 'food' which had little to no nutritional value. On the other hand I think stamps should cover toilet paper, laundry soap and diapers. If the surgary snacks and soda was eliminated, then maybe they could add a few non-food necessities. I also don't believe it's another Big Brother situation, I thinks it's about the best use of our tax dollars and the health of the next generation. Something has to be done about obese children and this is one way to further promote good health. I'm no 'tree-hugger', granola...just someone who wants our tax dollars spend wisely.
On 11/20/08 at 11:46 AM,
Sunnyside wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
How much nutrional value in boxed mac & cheese? In twinkies? They are eligible items and are purchased because they stretch the montlhly allowance further. It is time to connect the dots.
On 11/20/08 at 12:29 PM,
Mainefriend wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
hardwknmom, that is a tremendously sad story. I totally feel for you and your children. While reading your comment I was wishing that I was a dentist. I would have offered myself to help you however at this point it may me too late. It is a sad state when the government takes better care of the individuals who don't try to help themselves first. I know how you feel and am truely deeply sorry for the horrible treatment you have been put through. I am also a non-recipient of mainecare and pretty proud of it, however the current coverage our family has is mediocre at best, especially compared to the mainecare system and I work for a hospital!!!
On 11/20/08 at 1:52 PM,
jimmyk wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Seems fair. If you don't agree with it, don't take the food stamps. Most gov funding comes with conditions on spending. No one is being treated unfairly here. No one is being told they can't drink soda, the state is just not gonna pay for it. Why is this even an issue?
On 11/20/08 at 2:45 PM,
hrdwkngmom wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Mainefriend..Thank you..I feel worse for my son who doesn't smile as one should..I have looked into Lumineers for they are cheaper than the implants and we will be traveling to NH soon for a consultatiom. Keep our fingers crossed is all we can do now...
The thing I didn't understand at all was how the hospital and insurance compmanies could place it on my shoulders saying I didn't call a Surgeon that accepted my insurance...I guess I should have told my son to wait while I got out the phone book and used the hospitals phone to call all the dentists/oral surgeons in the book...Sad indeed...They are called "On cal Oral Surgeons" for a reason..Well, atleast that's what we'd all assume...
On 11/20/08 at 2:57 PM,
SethFortier wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The issue for me is government telling people what they can do and how they must live. It has been a recurring theme on the BDN comment boards this week. Where does it end. As others have said there are other things that you can buy with food stamps that aren't all that good for you. Believe me I wish that people on food stamps spent their money more wisely. But I'm not going to be the one to tell them they can't buy soda. I don't want the government to tell me I have to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle. Or that I have to wear a life jacket. And I really hate the fact that they can tell me that I have to wear a seat belt. We are on a very slippery slope. What if they begin to tell you where and what you can eat. It's always in the name of health care costs. As I've stated on other posts this week, I don't agree that soda is this huge dental problem that the dentists claims it is. I've got great teeth and I drink alot of soda everyday. And I'm not overweight either. There are other factors contributing to the health problems that this dentist sees. Is he going to have the government make brushing for two minutes twice a day mandatory as well? What about flossing and rinsing with a good mouth wash? Or maybe he thinks the government should make everybody exercise for 20 minutes. I'm kind of ranting but I think you get my point. The state government got enough to worry about than whether people on food stamps are buying soda.
On 11/20/08 at 3:25 PM,
mainah_mom wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
well put sethfortier!!
On 11/22/08 at 5:30 PM,
solothoughts wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
reading the story of the boy and the skateboard above made me feel as though that mom is right. It is not just about soda, although a large contributor. Dentists make it difficult for anyone in this state to recieve dental care. Their costs are high and people in financial distress cannot afford to go. Children need to be taught to brush anf floss daily in the proper way for the proper time. It is not just about soda Shenkin...If you are so concerned about the Maine children's teeth you should not only focus on soda and foodstamps. Put your energy into a program for the local schools..Make a true difference where ALL Maine children reap the benefit!
Post a comment about this story
You must be logged in to post a comment.
click here to log in.
