Metal Sludge Gossip Board

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_ ... ger_report

WASHINGTON – More than one in seven American households struggled to put enough food on the table in 2008, the highest rate since the Agriculture Department began tracking food security levels in 1995.

That's about 49 million people, or 14.6 percent of U.S. households. The numbers are a significant increase from 2007, when 11.1 percent of U.S. households suffered from what USDA classifies as "food insecurity" — not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle.

Researchers blamed the increase in hunger on a lack of money and other resources.

President Barack Obama called the USDA's findings "unsettling." He noted that other indicators of hunger have gone up, such as the number of food stamp applications and the use of food banks. And he said his administration is committed to reversing the trend.

"The first task is to restore job growth, which will help relieve the economic pressures that make it difficult for parents to put a square meal on the table each day," Obama said in a statement.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the numbers could be higher in 2009 because of the global economic slowdown.

"This report suggests its time for America to get very serious about food security and hunger," Vilsack told reporters during a conference call.

The USDA said Monday that 5.7 percent of those who struggled for food experienced "very low food security," meaning household members reduced their food intake.

The numbers dovetail with dire economic conditions for many Americans. And they may not take the full measure of America's current struggles with hunger: Vilsack and the report's lead author, Mark Nord with USDA's economic research service, both emphasized that the numbers reflected the situation in 2008 and that the economy's continued troubles in 2009 would likely mean higher numbers next year.

The report also showed an increasing number of children in the United States are suffering. In 2008, 16.7 million children were classified as not having enough food, 4.3 million more than in 2007.

Hunger advocates said they were not surprised by the numbers, and said the problem among children, in particular, is lamentable.

"What should really shock us is that almost one in four children in our country lives on the brink of hunger," said David Beckmann, the President of Bread of the World, an advocacy organization.

Vilsack said that it would take a concerted effort to reduce the number of Americans who face a lack of food and said he hoped that the stark reality of Monday's report would inspire action. The numbers could have been much worse without adequately funded food aid programs, such as food stamps, he said.

"There's an opportunity here for the country to make a major commitment to focus on ways we can improve this process and make sure that food is safe and available for everyone," he said.
___________________

some people would argue that access to proper nourishment is even more of a right than access to health care, perhaps the government needs to pass some kind of food mandate as well, if they can force us to buy insurance, why not food, in fact why not anything they think is necessary for us to have?

Or maybe we could stop paying agribusiness subsidies to NOT grow certain foods in a retarded attempt to artificially keep prices up and maybe take a shot at making food LESS expensive for consumers.

enter your username wrote:

SmokeyRamone wrote: some people would argue that access to proper nourishment is even more of a right than access to health care

That's why govt. provides food stamps.

SmokeyRamone wrote: perhaps the government needs to pass some kind of food mandate as well, if they can force us to buy insurance, why not food, in fact why not anything they think is necessary for us to have?

The mandate isn't to baby sit Americans and force them to do what's good for them. A mandate has to exist if insurance companies are required to provide coverage to people who are sick. Otherwise, people would simply wait until they are sick to purchase insurance. The money to pay for sick people comes from the premiums paid by the people who are healthy and don't file claims.

The govt. doesn't have to force people to purchase food. People purchase food because they are hungry.

right, people purchase food because they're hungry, but the article I posted said almost 50 million people are having trouble doing that, sure there are food stamps, but apparently not enough if 1 in 7 people are still having trouble

it's funny how the government passed a law years ago requiring hospitals to treat people without any regard to whether or not they have insurance or can pay their bills, but when it comes to insurance companies, Obama wants to appease them by forcing everyone to do business with them, sure, I understand the rationale, but I still think the rights of the individual should come before the rights of the corporation

But when they do that you whine about socialism.

I've never whined about socialism, the point of this thread was to point out the parallels and similarites of two different situations and wonder if the government would or could ever address them in similar ways

Reagan passed a bill in 1986 which required hospitals to provide emergency care. Care to poor people including illegal immigrants is paid for by emergency medicaid. They're not required to provide non-emergency treatment. If you need chemotherapy, you can't go to an emergency room and get it.

you're right, it's emergency care, it's not all encompassing

They're not trying to "appease" the insurance companies and you don't get it even though you think you do.

Insurance companies are like casinos. The customer bets that he is going to get sick and the doctor bill is going to be more than the premium. The insurance company bets the customer isn't going to get sick.

If people only buy insurance when they are sick, the insurance company is in the position of a casino where everyone wins. That's not a viable business model. It's not a matter of appeasing anyone.

If you don't have a mandate but force insurance companies to provide coverage to sick people, then you might as well close down the private insurance industry and go with govt. as single payor.

I understand how an insurance company works, and my major objections to the reform are admittedly more philosophical and fiscal than anything else, I just don't think a fiscally irresponsible government has the right to dictate how I spend my money, especially after they've already taken 30% right off the top, I don't care what their reasoning is, it's just plain wrong, I can take care of myself without having a big nanny government breathing down my neck threatening to turn me into a criminal if I don't fall in line like a good little minion and do what I'm told with the money I work hard to earn

when Obama was campaigning he said he was not for a mandate like Hillary Clinton was, so either he was lying through his teeth, or he had some other kind of plan in mind to reform health care, I'd like to hear that other plan, but considering how many other lies he's been caught in, I'm guessing he didn't have one

More Americans SHOULD go hungry. Fatasses.

upinsmoke wrote:More Americans SHOULD go hungry. Fatasses.

lmao

The mandate isn't to baby sit Americans and force them to do what's good for them. A mandate has to exist if insurance companies are required to provide coverage to people who are sick. Otherwise, people would simply wait until they are sick to purchase insurance. The money to pay for sick people comes from the premiums paid by the people who are healthy and don't file claims.

so, the healthy are mandated to pay for the sick.
bait and switch for what's already the current way of paying for the uninsured..
it's ridiculous to think that the insurance companies are going to eat the expenses without passing it onto the consumer,
which leads to this:

If you don't have a mandate but force insurance companies to provide coverage to sick people, then you might as well close down the private insurance industry and go with govt. as single payer.

i'd like to believe in the rainbow of health care for all, but this will lead to universal health care.

absolutely fabulous wrote:

The mandate isn't to baby sit Americans and force them to do what's good for them. A mandate has to exist if insurance companies are required to provide coverage to people who are sick. Otherwise, people would simply wait until they are sick to purchase insurance. The money to pay for sick people comes from the premiums paid by the people who are healthy and don't file claims.

so, the healthy are mandated to pay for the sick.
bait and switch for what's already the current way of paying for the uninsured..
it's ridiculous to think that the insurance companies are going to eat the expenses without passing it onto the consumer,

This is the way medical insurance operates now. The reason larger corporations offer better coverage for a lesser cost than smaller employers is because they have a larger employee base to spread the cost. There is no bait and switch, only a revelation of your ignorance.

absolutely fabulous wrote:which leads to this:

If you don't have a mandate but force insurance companies to provide coverage to sick people, then you might as well close down the private insurance industry and go with govt. as single payer.

i'd like to believe in the rainbow of health care for all, but this will lead to universal health care.

"health care for all"=universal health care. Are you actually referring to a single payer system like Canada or a public/private hybrid like the UK? Do you even know?

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: "health care for all"=universal health care. Are you actually referring to a single payer system like Canada or a public/private hybrid like the UK? Do you even know?

Magic 8ball says NO.

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

absolutely fabulous wrote:

The mandate isn't to baby sit Americans and force them to do what's good for them. A mandate has to exist if insurance companies are required to provide coverage to people who are sick. Otherwise, people would simply wait until they are sick to purchase insurance. The money to pay for sick people comes from the premiums paid by the people who are healthy and don't file claims.

so, the healthy are mandated to pay for the sick.
bait and switch for what's already the current way of paying for the uninsured..
it's ridiculous to think that the insurance companies are going to eat the expenses without passing it onto the consumer,

This is the way medical insurance operates now. The reason larger corporations offer better coverage for a lesser cost than smaller employers is because they have a larger employee base to spread the cost. There is no bait and switch, only a revelation of your ignorance.

it's not the only way health insurance works, but those numbers are also used by what the goverment pays for the uninsured, too. but, in the end.. it's just moving numbers from here to there.. the 'newly insured',
will still be paid by taxpayers, with a different name

absolutely fabulous wrote:which leads to this:

If you don't have a mandate but force insurance companies to provide coverage to sick people, then you might as well close down the private insurance industry and go with govt. as single payer.

i'd like to believe in the rainbow of health care for all, but this will lead to universal health care.

"health care for all"=universal health care. Are you actually referring to a single payer system like Canada or a public/private hybrid like the UK? Do you even know?

hmm, you don't see that their will be a demise of private insurance, causing the government to step in at a later date??

it's audacious of you to think that this bill will not eventually lead to universal healthcare.

i'm thinking maybe you don't care..

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: "health care for all"=universal health care. Are you actually referring to a single payer system like Canada or a public/private hybrid like the UK? Do you even know?

Magic 8ball says NO.

Truth.