Judge Blocks Trump Plan to Take Away Food from 700,000+ People During Pandemic

[Iron]

You realize you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps don't you? foods classified as "Ice cream" is possible, but even then you can have those as recommended for certain circumstances, for example, after having having a tonsillectomy, physicians suggest it to help reduce the swelling. Pediapops are also used to help counter dehydration and are recommended to those with diarrhea and stomach flu. Popsicles, ice cream and sherbet are also recommended to help reduce fever, even in a hospital setting. Hell now they even have " diet ice cream" recommended for diabetics so it isn't like this is like it used to be.

The problem is when you start trying to pick and choose for others what they allowed and not allowed to have you run into counteracting physicians orders and causing unforeseen conflicts. For example, Blanket rules such as no sugary products could cause a someone with hypoglycemia to die within minutes. Even diabetics who have had too much insulin can die very quickly if their blood sugar drops too low as a result and they are recommended to keep a few pieces of candy in their purse or pocket in case of emergency at al times. People can develop conditions at any point in time thus would not have time to get everything pre approved before an event takes place. The amount of time it takes for someone to get what they need can be a matter of life and death.

Much of the problem is that people do not have equal access to the same foods. Sometimes the only store within access to their home does not have fresh food forcing them into poor diets more on that issue here:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/04/ucs-race-income-diabetes-2016.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw

Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is concerned with an equitable distribution of environmental burdens. These burdens comprise immediate health hazards as well as subtle inequities, such as limited access to healthy foods.We reviewed the literature on neighborhood ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is especially difficult for those with low income, or disabled as the only store that they can access form their home with their wheelchair or have memorized the route for if they are blind, or have other difficulties because they can only buy what the store sells. If you limit what they can buy with their foods stamps and the store doesn't sell anything of their list of approved items, they will just starve instead. Many of the elderly and disabled cannot even cook from themselves. TBH they really should extend food stamps to precooked food as well that way the disabled, elderly and homeless have options to be able to eat as well.

( Also that has Zero Impact to Trump's policy changes here.)

yikes I can't bullshit my way out of this you may actually have convinced me. The reasoning behind my opinion is that there's this wage mentality of blowing the money the moment is comes through, which is especially terrible where the salary is monthly (I heard in the US it's by-monthly in many places, which surprised me). You end up dragging yourself through the rest of the month after you've treated yourself to a steak dinner, etc. This is the same reasoning I have behind restricting food-aid (not giving it as cash only, for example), because I'd imagine people using it for luxury and for themselves instead of rationing it. I'm opposed to allowing luxury goods and recreational stuff, but not to deciding what foodstuff should be allowed, etc. (I wouldn't distinguish pre-cooked food from frozen food but I wouldn't allow cigarettes, lottery tickets, ice-cream, etc.)

 

[Avnger]

yikes I can't bullshit my way out of this you may actually have convinced me.

The fact this is your first instinct is a large problem in and of itself.

 

[Iron]

The fact this is your first instinct is a large problem in and of itself.

Ah yes, the writing instinct. It was how man first evolved, using the instinct of writing on clay tablets to transfer information before they learned how to speak.

 

[Trunkage]

??

The legal argument is explicitly that the administration is expected to justify changing rules with reasons and outcomes. Circumstances which will have a potent effect on the outcomes of rules changes sound to me like they'd be pretty relevant.

You can't talk about the pandemic. That would be political...

 

[Agema]

You can't talk about the pandemic. That would be political...

What pandemic? Haven't you heard - it's disappearing, like magic. If only we had just not listened to the scientists and not any testing, it would all have been fine.

 

[tstorm823]

??

The legal argument is explicitly that the administration is expected to justify changing rules with reasons and outcomes. Circumstances which will have a potent effect on the outcomes of rules changes sound to me like they'd be pretty relevant.

The change was proposed in December before the pandemic (likely was being worked on before covid19 existed), and is already postponed by legislation until after the pandemic. Using the pandemic as argument against the change is saying "they didn't see the future when they designed this, a future that doesn't matter because exceptions happen and work requirements got waived without this change in effect anyway."

 

[lil devils x]

The change was proposed in December before the pandemic (likely was being worked on before covid19 existed), and is already postponed by legislation until after the pandemic. Using the pandemic as argument against the change is saying "they didn't see the future when they designed this, a future that doesn't matter because exceptions happen and work requirements got waived without this change in effect anyway."

The Pandemic being brought into it because ALL policies and policy changes are expected to take into account their future impact and not only had Trump's administration NOT done that, they also didn't even account for changes that have happened repeatedly throughout our history and factor those in. Keep in mind, every policy we make has ot factor in the impact of good times and bad, and we have the great depression impact to base that off of.

The Judge bringing the Pandemic into it is showing how little foresight was put into their planning for the policy changes. We really should throw out the work requirement all together due to the disparity in how commercial and residential are spread out in reality and not even in the same county or counties and people sometimes work multiple counties away impacting other districts percentages as well. You cannot bas this on county statistics and expect that to be an accurate assessment of employment in their county due to how people live and work in reality. In addition, with the ability to work remotely, you can work states away from your actual job and that would impact multiple states unemployment statistics as well. This idea of basing it on percentages of unemployed per county is outdated and inaccurate and should be considered obsolete in the first place.