Last year, several states tried to ban purchases of “unhealthy” foods using government assistance. They were unsuccessful in their endeavors, but should they have been?
Anyone who knows me, knows that I’m graciously liberal at heart. I’m one of those people that enjoy paying taxes, because I honestly feel like I can help contribute to people who may be in a spot worse off than me. We’d never get anywhere in life without getting help from someone (at some point).
In my opinion, tax funded programs, like the food stamp program, are crucial for our country. This program is meant to help people who are struggling. In this economy, it’s not uncommon to know someone who taking advantage of this help. But with assistance usually comes responsibility, and the question has been asked – “If a person needs to utilize a program such as the food stamp plans, should the government be able to put guidelines on what that person can purchase with the aid?”
It’s no secret that there is a strong occurrence of an obese population in poorer areas in America. For years, it’s been assumed that high calorie foods tend to be cheaper, and consequently consumed by lower income families. There’s also a notion that obese people tend to have more medical issues than their healthy counterparts, and in turn raise insurance costs for everyone.
So what if we made it easier for people to make healthier choices? Granted, cheeseburgers taste a heck of a lot better than celery, but if we’re going to help those in need, shouldn’t we actually make sure they’re getting the proper nutrition?
Some may see restrictions of government programs as unconstitutional. Others think if you’re willing to rely on your government to help you, you need to abide by the government’s rules. “Beggars can’t be choosers” so to speak.
What do you think?