OT: Shifting SNAP to Blue Apron type service

[scotchtiger]

Thoughts? Seems logical to me. The high-level concept:

• About half of the normal food stamp (SNAP) monthly allotment would come in the form of a Blue Apron style box delivered to the recipient's home
• The other half would still be on their EBT card
• Saves the government $130 Billion over 10 years
• Reduces fraud and waste
• Probably results in healthier eating, which will reduce Medicaid costs

It's great to see some outside-the-box thinking with entitlements.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/13/food-stamps-blue-apron-americas-harvest-box/

 

[Howard's Jock]

i like it and agree,,but its already on the round table

 

[scotchtiger]

i like it and agree,,but its already on the round table

Missed it, but who will read my hot take over there anyways?

 

[ChucktownK]

I'm perfectly fine with it, and I like the different thinking, but they'll never pass it.

 

[GoChargers]

Love it!

 

[CUtiger (actual)]

Do you think people will become more or less responsible if we take away all “entitlements”?

Do you think people will make better or worse decisions if there was no such thing government assistance?

 

[steele-tiger]

I think it is worth discussing a similar optional proposal where recipients can select non-perishable items from an Amazon Marketplace, but shipping a box of perishable food has a lot of logistical issues.

It works OK for Blue Apron on a weekly basis, but we will typically have some less than great looking produce in our box every few shipments (we probably do it one or twice a month). We are also not counting on it, so we are not going to go without food if we don't get Blue Apron. Nor it is a threat to be stolen off our porch while we are at work. We don't have any dietary restrictions.

You create an optional marketplace on Amazon (or similar) that takes SNAP, but allows a customized box of non-perishable items once a month and is an alternative to food deserts and shopping at the corner store then I think it is a pretty good idea.

Just shipping a bunch of generic boxes to everybody probably isn't going to work.

They should really just eliminate soda and candy from the list of eligible items, but the food lobby is way to entwined in politics for that to happen.

 

[bflow22]

I would rather them just put more limits on which food items could be purchased. Some of the stuff you see being bought is a disgrace to the mission of providing enough food to get by for those going through hard times.

It should never be used to buy junk food such as potato chips or cookies or soft drinks. It should also never be used to buy luxury or high end produce. The abuse is rampant. We have an obesity "epidemic" yet this program allows people who cannot afford health care to buy unhealthy foods. Is that not counterproductive and an easy fix to eliminate all unhealthy foods from eligibility?



Straight from the USDA website:

“Junk Food” & Luxury Items

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

• Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
• Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP Congress considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of Food Stamp Benefits

Energy Drinks
When considering the eligibility of energy drinks, and other branded products, the primary determinant is the type of product label chosen by the manufacturer to conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines:

• Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods
• Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible

Live Animals
Generally live animals and birds are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. Live seafood such as lobsters, fish and shellfish may be purchased with SNAP benefits.

Pumpkins, Holiday Gift Baskets, and Special Occasion Cakes
Pumpkins are edible and eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. However, inedible gourds and pumpkins that are used solely for ornamental purposes are not eligible items.

Gift baskets that contain both food and non-food items, are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price. To read our most recent notice about Gift Baskets, click here.

Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price of the cake.

 

[scotchtiger]

I think it is worth discussing a similar optional proposal where recipients can select non-perishable items from an Amazon Marketplace, but shipping a box of perishable food has a lot of logistical issues.

It works OK for Blue Apron on a weekly basis, but we will typically have some less than great looking produce in our box every few shipments (we probably do it one or twice a month). We are also not counting on it, so we are not going to go without food if we don't get Blue Apron. Nor it is a threat to be stolen off our porch while we are at work. We don't have any dietary restrictions.

You create an optional marketplace on Amazon (or similar) that takes SNAP, but allows a customized box of non-perishable items once a month and is an alternative to food deserts and shopping at the corner store then I think it is a pretty good idea.

Just shipping a bunch of generic boxes to everybody probably isn't going to work.

They should really just eliminate soda and candy from the list of eligible items, but the food lobby is way to entwined in politics for that to happen.

This would apply to mostly non-perishable items. Even the meat looks like it will be canned:

The proposal, called “America’s Harvest Box,” would reportedly contain “homegrown” products, sourced from American farmers and producers. Shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, canned fruit and vegetables are among the items that would be included in the box.

 

[mskoonce]

This is a serious question, not trying to make a political point. How can they send food to SNAP recipients for cheaper than these people can purchase food from a grocery store? We all agree that the Federal Government is inefficient and wasteful, and the grocery stores are extremely efficient and have supply chains already in existence. How does this save money?

I agree with the earlier posts about further restricting what can be purchased, but this idea sounds like a disaster to me. Maybe I am missing something...

 

[bflow22]

Per my post above SNAP can currently be used to purchase:

Soft Drinks
Candy
Cookies
Ice Cream
Energy Drinks
Steak or other meats (including luxury cuts like Filet Mignon, etc.)
Any seafood (including gourmet Shrimp, scallops, oysters, Tuna steaks, etc.)
Live Lobster, live fish, live shelfish etc.
Gift baskets
Halloween pumpkins (because people eat pumpkin all the time....)
Birthday Cakes

The list goes on......

Am I the only one who has an issue with this list of permissible items? Very few, if any of those items, are essential items. Many of them are straight up bad for you which should be a big deal since these same people are a huge liability on our health care system.

 

[Daytontiger]

If you really want to kill off the few grocery stores that are left in America's poor communities, this is a great way to do it.

I work in the grocery industry.

I doubt that the government would be able to buy at wholesale prices and then run this program with a smaller margin than grocery stores already do.

Most major retailers sell certain staples at extremely low margins or even at a small loss to get people in their stores. I doubt the government is going to be handing out gallons of milk for $1.99 like it costs here in the Midwest.

--Mr. DT

 

[Howard's Jock]

perhaps im wrong but my initial reason for liking this is that it prevents abuse of the system where parents use EBT for the items above and dont feed their kids properly...am i off base?

 

[mskoonce]

perhaps im wrong but my initial reason for liking this is that it prevents abuse of the system where parents use EBT for the items above and dont feed their kids properly...am i off base?

No, I get your point completely and I dont think it is off base. I am just questioning how they are going to save money by doing this. It just seems like it will cost more money to ship an equivalent amount of food to someone than it would for them to buy in a grocery store. I thought the desire of most conservatives was to shift programs to the private sector, and this does the opposite.

 

[Howard's Jock]

No, I get your point completely and I dont think it is off base. I am just questioning how they are going to save money by doing this. It just seems like it will cost more money to ship an equivalent amount of food to someone than it would for them to buy in a grocery store. I thought the desire of most conservatives was to shift programs to the private sector, and this does the opposite.

point well made...i wasnt coming from that perspective so much as whats better the underprivileged angle...at this point both parties are for bigger and more spending...despite what lip service they may give to the contrary

 

[iceheart08]

republicans: government is inefficient and shouldn't be trusted!

also republicans: lets create the largest food delivery platform in the world and let the government run it! Sonny Perdue is great at this sort of thing! No existing supply chain? NO WORRIES, we are the government, we got this!

 

[scotchtiger]

If you really want to kill off the few grocery stores that are left in America's poor communities, this is a great way to do it.

I work in the grocery industry.

I doubt that the government would be able to buy at wholesale prices and then run this program with a smaller margin than grocery stores already do.

Most major retailers sell certain staples at extremely low margins or even at a small loss to get people in their stores. I doubt the government is going to be handing out gallons of milk for $1.99 like it costs here in the Midwest.

--Mr. DT

Only applies to items with a longer shelf life - not a regular gallon of milk. Canned goods, rice, beans, peanut butter, etc. Do grocery stores discount those items to get people in the stores?

 

[scotchtiger]

republicans: government is inefficient and shouldn't be trusted!

also republicans: lets create the largest food delivery platform in the world and let the government run it! Sonny Perdue is great at this sort of thing! No existing supply chain? NO WORRIES, we are the government, we got this!

It's just an idea right now. Republican innovation will likely lead to leveraging existing private distribution systems (ex. Amazon).

 

[spskillz]

This is a serious question, not trying to make a political point. How can they send food to SNAP recipients for cheaper than these people can purchase food from a grocery store? We all agree that the Federal Government is inefficient and wasteful, and the grocery stores are extremely efficient and have supply chains already in existence. How does this save money?

I agree with the earlier posts about further restricting what can be purchased, but this idea sounds like a disaster to me. Maybe I am missing something...

They probably get a good deal on the cost of food and delivery mechanism, making it cheaper.

 

[YadaBlah77]

Republicans one minute: "Fvck your liberal nanny state."
Republicans the next minute: "The Federal government will choose your groceries for you, peasant."

 

[mskoonce]

They probably get a good deal on the cost of food and delivery mechanism, making it cheaper.

So they are going to get a better deal on the cost of food and delivery mechanism than the grocery stores do? Someone has to manage it, people have to run it, etc. And do it for cheaper than basically just giving them a card? I dont see it.

Again, I get it that some of the stuff they can now purchase with this money is kind of ridiculous and maybe by restricting that it can save money. I just dont see the Federal government saving any money with this idea, which is why I think it is destined to fail.

 

[iceheart08]

It's just an idea right now. Republican innovation will likely lead to leveraging existing private distribution systems (ex. Amazon).

and still save money somehow?

its hard for me to see this as anything other than half-baked idiocy.

as usual @steele-tiger's measured response makes sense to me.

nevermind that all this canned shit will be absolutely LOADED with salt and wont actually be more healthy.

 

[CU_TrialLawyer]

Thoughts? Seems logical to me. The high-level concept:

• About half of the normal food stamp (SNAP) monthly allotment would come in the form of a Blue Apron style box delivered to the recipient's home
• The other half would still be on their EBT card
• Saves the government $130 Billion over 10 years
• Reduces fraud and waste
• Probably results in healthier eating, which will reduce Medicaid costs

It's great to see some outside-the-box thinking with entitlements.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/13/food-stamps-blue-apron-americas-harvest-box/

@scotchtiger sounds like a bleeding liberal idea. You want the government to tell people what they can buy + put Walmart out of biz? Yikes. Go watch Maddow.

 

[scotchtiger]

and still save money somehow?

its hard for me to see this as anything other than half-baked idiocy.

I see idiocy as continuing to do the same thing with entitlements - or even expand them as Obama did and Clinton would have done - and expecting anything other than growing costs. At least this is a fresh idea. Let's model it out and see where it lands. Maybe the combination of:

• Bulk buying power
• Private sector innovation to support distribution
• Reduced fraud and waste
• Healthier poor population due to narrower food choices
• Better nutrition for many kids
  
• Increased incentive to move off SNAP

...will result in a net benefit to the country, both fiscally and otherwise.

 

[clemsonpaw00]

so if i have this correct, @scotchtiger and others, the same people that complain incessantly about the way the government mismanages things, want that same government to run a complicated meal delivery service for poor people?

the cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming.

 

[scotchtiger]

so if i have this correct, @scotchtiger and others, the same people that complain incessantly about the way the government mismanages things, want that same government to run a complicated meal delivery service for poor people?

the cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming.

I want us to explore an alternate way of doing things. Maybe this particular idea makes sense, maybe it doesn't. Our current method sucks (expensive, prone to fraud, poor are unhealthy), so looking for creative alternatives is a good thing.

Do you disagree with evaluating new ways of administering poorly run entitlement programs?

 

[brandoncross]

Just shipping a bunch of generic boxes to everybody probably isn't going to work.

Beggars can’t be choosers right?

 

[brandoncross]

I think this is a great idea in 2 ways. One is discussed her with healthier food to the less fortunate. Two, is I feel like this could help the financial shortage in the agricultural industry with less harvests wasted.

 

[spskillz]

So they are going to get a better deal on the cost of food and delivery mechanism than the grocery stores do? Someone has to manage it, people have to run it, etc. And do it for cheaper than basically just giving them a card? I dont see it.

Again, I get it that some of the stuff they can now purchase with this money is kind of ridiculous and maybe by restricting that it can save money. I just dont see the Federal government saving any money with this idea, which is why I think it is destined to fail.

Yes. I'm not sure why this is even in doubt. Further, grocery stores have mark up to make their own profit and they have the USPS.

 

[iceheart08]

Also, you all seriously believe that a family that relies on SNAP shouldn't be able to buy a birthday cake? Thats real life for you all?

While the ****ing military loses billions of dollars? And this is what you are worried about?

 

[mskoonce]

Yes. I'm not sure why this is even in doubt. Further, grocery stores have mark up to make their own profit and they have the USPS.

I havent seen our government purchase ANYTHING or run any program for less than the private sector could. Remember the stories about the $200 hammers and $400 toilet seats, does that ring a bell? Everything the Federal Government does is expensive and turns into a bloated bureaucracy. How is that even in doubt? As someone else said, the grocery business runs on some pretty low margins, and they are already in the grocery business.

 

[Steven15]

Also, you all seriously believe that a family that relies on SNAP shouldn't be able to buy a birthday cake? Thats real life for you all?

While the ****ing military loses billions of dollars? And this is what you are worried about?

Yes. Maybe if they want to buy a luxury item such as a birthday cake they can work to buy one, like everyone else

 

[iceheart08]

Yes. Maybe if they want to buy a luxury item such as a birthday cake they can work to buy one, like everyone else

The overwhelming majority of snap recipients work.

 

[spskillz]

I havent seen our government purchase ANYTHING or run any program for less than the private sector could. Remember the stories about the $200 hammers and $400 toilet seats, does that ring a bell? Everything the Federal Government does is expensive and turns into a bloated bureaucracy. How is that even in doubt? As someone else said, the grocery business runs on some pretty low margins, and they are already in the grocery business.

The only time I've seen this is on the movie Independence Day.

 

[scotchtiger]

Also, you all seriously believe that a family that relies on SNAP shouldn't be able to buy a birthday cake? Thats real life for you all?

While the ****ing military loses billions of dollars? And this is what you are worried about?

People can buy whatever they want... with money that they earn. Surely they can save enough so that they don't need government assistance to buy a grocery store cake a couple of times per year?

Government provided nutrition assistance should be limited to the essentials.

And we should work to reduce waste in the military in parallel.

 

[Steven15]

The overwhelming majority of snap recipients work.

That's encouraging, however not enough clearly.


To your point I don't really like the idea of giving people money for luxury items. I do in fact like the idea that money is going to people in need. As a society I believe a major part of our duty is to help those in need. Providing birthday cakes doesn't fall under that category IMO. I would guess a large portion of the country feels the same... Maybe those who do believe birthday cakes are a need can set up a separate "birthday cake charity" and give as much batter as their hearts desire?

 

[FLaw47]

I havent seen our government purchase ANYTHING or run any program for less than the private sector could. Remember the stories about the $200 hammers and $400 toilet seats, does that ring a bell? Everything the Federal Government does is expensive and turns into a bloated bureaucracy. How is that even in doubt? As someone else said, the grocery business runs on some pretty low margins, and they are already in the grocery business.

Medicare has less administrative overheard than private insurance. (Note: the "half true" rating here refers to Bernie Sanders overstating how much we would save simply by switching to Medicare for All, not how much the admin costs are.)

 

[1Clemzunfan]

Thoughts? Seems logical to me. The high-level concept:

• About half of the normal food stamp (SNAP) monthly allotment would come in the form of a Blue Apron style box delivered to the recipient's home
• The other half would still be on their EBT card
• Saves the government $130 Billion over 10 years
• Reduces fraud and waste
• Probably results in healthier eating, which will reduce Medicaid costs

It's great to see some outside-the-box thinking with entitlements.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/13/food-stamps-blue-apron-americas-harvest-box/

I'm not opposed to anything that is effective at stopping fraud and abuse within our social programs. But I think this plan has a long way to go to being that type of plan. But again, I'm interested in learning more.

What's funny to me is that everyone gets all fired up about food stamp abuse based on the scenario of someone buying lobster and steak on food stamps, but the reality is you can't buy much steak and lobster for $4 a day, which is the average daily amount. It just doesn't add up. I was behind a lady at the grocery store about a month ago who was receiving benefits. She had an infant son with her and there wasn't one frivolous thing in her cart and she wasn't driving a nice car and didn't have fancy clothes or a name brand purse either. Sadly, there are some out there that may abuse the system, but it's not even close to the majority. 83% of SNAP benefits are going to households with a child, a person with a disability, or a senior citizen.

If you are really worried about the deficit, like I am, we need to have a discussion about the $1 Trillion dollar budget deficit that was just proposed for FY 2019. Or better yet, let's talk about the fact that the FY2018 actual spending deficit is going to come in at around $900 Billion plus after a proposed budget deficit of just over $400 Billion in the budget proposal Trump submitted last March. The actual deficit spending in Trump's first full year for FY2018 is going to come in 40% larger than the preceding year and more than 100% greater than Trump's own budget proposal he submitted.

Republicans are spending and running up the debt worse than the liberals right now. That's just a sad fact.

But give them credit, they know all they have to do to get their base to turn a blind eye to their spending is to turn the focus to welfare and foodstamps, which is where all simpletons seem to think all of the waste leading to that $1 Trillion annual deficit is coming from. In reality it is only a fraction of a single drop in the bucket of over-spending.

 

[Daytontiger]

Only applies to items with a longer shelf life - not a regular gallon of milk. Canned goods, rice, beans, peanut butter, etc. Do grocery stores discount those items to get people in the stores?

Yes, constantly. Probably not to the extent of what you would consider "staples", but margins on canned items, dry rice / beans are not great. 20% range. You are looking at government to expand that to maybe 30% and operate an expensive warehousing system. Retailers can make it up by charging 40-60% on things like candy, soft drinks, and convenience foods. Government can't. It's a money loser from Day 1.

A better idea would be limiting the amount of sugary foods that could be purchased with SNAP. That would be a burden on the private sector for sure, because you would be relying on the retailers to set up a system that would essentially gatekeep the ability of people paying with a certain mechanism to buy certain things. Plus, it would cause chaos at the front end for the first month or two when people start getting rejected from buying Coke with their EBT card. But the burden on retailers would be much smaller.

Some municipalities are already taxing sugary beverages a lot more than water / milk. So the infrastructure is already there in some places. Just have to build it out.

I like this idea much more than having government be the provider of the service. The system itself already works pretty well. Users of the system do buy about 2% more sugary beverages than the non-users, so it is a concern.

--Mr. DT

 

[scotchtiger]

Yes, constantly. Probably not to the extent of what you would consider "staples", but margins on canned items, dry rice / beans are not great. 20% range. You are looking at government to expand that to maybe 30% and operate an expensive warehousing system. Retailers can make it up by charging 40-60% on things like candy, soft drinks, and convenience foods. Government can't. It's a money loser from Day 1.

A better idea would be limiting the amount of sugary foods that could be purchased with SNAP. That would be a burden on the private sector for sure, because you would be relying on the retailers to set up a system that would essentially gatekeep the ability of people paying with a certain mechanism to buy certain things. Plus, it would cause chaos at the front end for the first month or two when people start getting rejected from buying Coke with their EBT card. But the burden on retailers would be much smaller.

Some municipalities are already taxing sugary beverages a lot more than water / milk. So the infrastructure is already there in some places. Just have to build it out.

I like this idea much more than having government be the provider of the service. The system itself already works pretty well. Users of the system do buy about 2% more sugary beverages than the non-users, so it is a concern.

--Mr. DT

I'm okay with that approach. We already do it with HSA cards and qualified medical expenses- why not with EBT cards and qualified nutritional expenses?