pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Aug 3, 2011 12:13:42 GMT -5
The cutting of the WIC program will definitely wreak havoc on the sales of Infant Formula particularly the makers of Similac and/or Enfamil as well dairy farmers, which is maybe why in particualr the farmers get to keep the subsidies. Only because those 2 brands are seriously over-priced & you can get generic equivalents at half the cost. Right now the income qualification is 40K for a 4 person family. Cut that down to 30K & a family with a 35K income isn't just going to stop feeding their kid formula. You can get a weeks worth of the generic for $10-15 depending on where you shop. That isn't exactly a bank-breaking amount. Most people spend more on eating out each week than it costs to feed an infant with no dietary restrictions. Actually for 2011-2012 it is 41,384 (gross income), however, states, at its discretion, can lower the amount of the maximum income allowed for family size. Maryland goes by the federal quidelines. Additionally, income is not the only criteria to be able to get on the program. The woman has to be either pregant, including and up to 6 weeks after birth; postpartum, up to six months after the birth; for infants, up until the first birthday and for children up the child's fifth birthday; the residency requirement, meaning you have to live in the state in which you receive the benefits, and you must be at nutritional risk, meaning there is a medical-based (anemia, underweight and/or poor pregnancy outcome) or dietary-based condition (very poor diet) to qualify. Meaning one must meet categorical, income, residency, and nutritional risk criteria. Yeah, Similac manufactured by Abbott Labs is over priced, but maybe it was the result of one of the those no-bid contracts that the government sometimes engage in. Either way, you can only purchase what is on the vouchers and it is Similac. If a family somehow couldn't qualify, the assumption would be that they would continue to purchase formula, but would the child get the right amount by trying to make it stretch, after paying rent, mortgage, utility bills, buying a bus pass or gas for a vehicle, which may or may not have a car note but definitely insurance? Could they possibly purchase a "generic" equivalent? Maybe, maybe not. All depends on what the infant can tolerate. Finally, Abbott Labs will be screaming more than those who may no longer qualify for this program. They are making money hand over fist.
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,858
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Aug 3, 2011 12:49:52 GMT -5
Ahhh ... remember the good ol' days when women just breastfed their babies?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 3, 2011 13:01:09 GMT -5
I don't see a problem with cutting WIC. First of all the proposed cut are only a small percentage of the total budget, if anything I'd cut more. Second those women should have thought before having kids they couldn't afford to feed. I'm not into subsidizing bad choices, as they breed more bad choices.
If I were in charge of cutting the debt, first I'd cut forign aide, then farm subsidies. I think farm subsidies are crazy. After that, I'd cut the entire department of education.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 3, 2011 13:14:22 GMT -5
According to the WIC website, WIC supports 53% of all infants born in the USA.
Are we really to believe that 53% of infants actually have medically based nutritional risk & are at serious risk of their parents no longer feeding them formula because it isn't subsidized? I call BS on the claim that 53% of mothers can't find an extra $12/wk in their budget & would choose to feed their baby something else instead of formula. Some mothers would do this, but not half the mothers in the country.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 3, 2011 13:49:07 GMT -5
According to the WIC website, WIC supports 53% of all infants born in the USA.
Are we really to believe that 53% of infants actually have medically based nutritional risk & are at serious risk of their parents no longer feeding them formula because it isn't subsidized? Nope. We are to believe that people are all to happy to accept something for free. This is the very root of the problem of government subsidized handouts.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Aug 3, 2011 14:09:49 GMT -5
LOL! Is this one of those "sins of the father" predictions? Yes, I'm sure every woman on the WIC program just made bad choices. Oh how easy it would be if we could just over-simplify everything and pretend it's true! Think of how much thinking you wouldn't have to do if we can just assume WIC recipients are all irresponsible breeders and be done with it.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 3, 2011 14:16:48 GMT -5
LOL! Is this one of those "sins of the father" predictions? Yes, I'm sure every woman on the WIC program just made bad choices. Oh how easy it would be if we could just over-simplify everything and pretend it's true! Think of how much thinking you wouldn't have to do if we can just assume WIC recipients are all irresponsible breeders and be done with it. I agree. Considering how easy it is to qualify for WIC, I think it is ridiculous to start saying everyone on the program made bad choices. Even looking at programs with stricter qualifications like TANF & foodstamps, it is hard to make such broad generalizations because a lot can happen in the 9 months you are pregnant & in the 18 years after that when you are raising a child.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 3, 2011 14:46:36 GMT -5
Ahhh ... remember the good ol' days when women just breastfed their babies? Yes...now breast feeding is apparently bad for baby. Go figure. (FoxNews.com) - WASHINGTON -- Studies have long shown the benefits of breastfeeding, but a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that less than four percent of US hospitals provide the full support that new mothers need to be able to successfully breastfeed, FOXNews.com reported Tuesday.
The report, published in the current issue of the CDC's Vital Signs, examined data from the National Survey of Maternity Practices in Infant Nutrition and Care, and found that only 14 percent of hospitals actually have a written model of a breastfeeding policy.
The report also found that in nearly 80 percent of hospitals, healthy breastfeeding infants were given formula even when there was no medical reason. Experts have said this can make it very difficult for babies to learn how to breastfeed at home. Most US Hospitals Do Not Support Breastfeeding, CDC says
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 3, 2011 14:55:15 GMT -5
Ahhh ... remember the good ol' days when women just breastfed their babies? Yes...now breast feeding is apparently bad for baby. Go figure. (FoxNews.com) - WASHINGTON -- Studies have long shown the benefits of breastfeeding, but a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that less than four percent of US hospitals provide the full support that new mothers need to be able to successfully breastfeed, FOXNews.com reported Tuesday.
The report, published in the current issue of the CDC's Vital Signs, examined data from the National Survey of Maternity Practices in Infant Nutrition and Care, and found that only 14 percent of hospitals actually have a written model of a breastfeeding policy.
The report also found that in nearly 80 percent of hospitals, healthy breastfeeding infants were given formula even when there was no medical reason. Experts have said this can make it very difficult for babies to learn how to breastfeed at home. Most US Hospitals Do Not Support Breastfeeding, CDC saysNot here. We were swarmed by breast feeding NAZIs when our kids were born. I was prepared for the "Lactation Consultant" stormtroopers the second time, but the first time we were both overwhelmed. It took until day two (our son was born VERY premature) the first go 'round to tell them in no uncertain terms to get out, stay out, and leave us the hell alone. And I don't upset easily.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Aug 3, 2011 15:00:35 GMT -5
Ahhh ... remember the good ol' days when women just breastfed their babies? Yes...now breast feeding is apparently bad for baby. Go figure. (FoxNews.com) - WASHINGTON -- Studies have long shown the benefits of breastfeeding, but a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that less than four percent of US hospitals provide the full support that new mothers need to be able to successfully breastfeed, FOXNews.com reported Tuesday.
The report, published in the current issue of the CDC's Vital Signs, examined data from the National Survey of Maternity Practices in Infant Nutrition and Care, and found that only 14 percent of hospitals actually have a written model of a breastfeeding policy.
The report also found that in nearly 80 percent of hospitals, healthy breastfeeding infants were given formula even when there was no medical reason. Experts have said this can make it very difficult for babies to learn how to breastfeed at home. Most US Hospitals Do Not Support Breastfeeding, CDC sayshmm i never heard of this I went to the same hospital for all my boys and they very much advocated breast feeding everyone had a consultation with a lactation nurse and was encouraged to breast feed almost imediately after birth. Never has a nurse pushed formula or even tried giving my babies formula. Maybe our hospital is part of the 14%. Also did I miss the part where the article stated breast feeding is bad for babies?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 3, 2011 15:04:56 GMT -5
Every chain here must be part of the 14% too. The hospital I gave birth at, the one i work at, the one my mom works at and then Methodist all have lactation consultants, encourage rooming in with baby, and have breastfeeding classes and support groups.
I kinda feel like WCP that they go too far in the other direction around here.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 3, 2011 15:11:09 GMT -5
One of the huge problems with nationwide government programs is the huge difference in cost of living across the nation. These programs are not flexible & so they can't account for that difference. Giving the normal WIC amount (whatever it is) to someone in NYC for instance might not be enough for them, yet where I live the allowance might be way more than they need. That's just because of the price difference. Same is true with any government program that has a standard amount across the country. That's one of the reasons that I don't feel the U.S. government should be running these type programs (& of course the other reason is that the government is inept at running or managing, or making laws for ANY program or business). Well, you're right, but the solution or solutions we'd come up with would have to be the result of actually having a rational discussion about the administration of the program without all the hysterical threats and demagoguery that usually goes along with the suggestion that we could actually make a government program more efficient, and more cost effective. We'd have to pretend the focus is actually on solving the problems of the poor and needy instead of fueling the bureaucracy. We might even have to admit that there's little or no benefit to a needy family of having their fellow state resident's money laundered through the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. and sent back to them with strings attached. And so, nothing will happen until it has to happen-- and thankfully, we're well on our way to a point in time when the money will finally run out and we won't have to "discuss" anything-- it'll all just go up in smoke.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Aug 3, 2011 15:11:11 GMT -5
Why all of a sudden is formula feeding so important? The worlds population exploded long before formulas were even thought of and the babies did fine. When my wifes milk dried up she used powdered milk and they were fine. Not expensive and our babies grew up to be healthy adults. The one hazard I see with some mothers feeding the baby breast milk is that those who are on perscription or illegal drugs could be harmful to the baby.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 3, 2011 18:06:03 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 3, 2011 23:50:13 GMT -5
"Second those women should have thought before having kids they couldn't afford to feed. I'm not into subsidizing bad choices, as they breed more bad choices."
OK, I get it now. Since the mothers made bad choices, let the kids starve. Life is oh-so-precious only while in utero.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Aug 4, 2011 0:09:19 GMT -5
"And so, nothing will happen until it has to happen-- and thanfully, we're well on our way to a point in time when the money will finally run out and we won't have to "discuss" anything-- it'll all just go up in smoke."
"thankfully".......Really?
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Aug 4, 2011 0:39:21 GMT -5
Cutting $600 million from the program supporting the nutritional health of low-income Women, Infants and Children is pretty drastic. Especially when one considers the relative costs versus the benefits. Preventing malnutrition in that vulnerable group results in future benefits: fewer chronic illnesses (and thus less time missed from schooling and employment). Good nutrition in children decreases long-term demand for acute care/hospitalization. WIC expenditures are an investment in "prophylactic" care that result in real, tangible benefits in the future. I ask, how can we withhold essential nutrition from the needy, while still paying... over $12.4 BILLION (much of it due to "cost overruns") for just ONE military program, "Global Hawk", consisting of approximately 60 surveillance drone aircraft bought from Northrup-Grumman? 12.4 BILLION DOLLARS for a small fleet of unmanned, remotely-controlled high altitude aircraft. Here are links to two newsstories with some facts and figures: www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/business/global-hawk-is-poised-to-replace-u-2-spy-plane.htmlwww.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-15/northrop-s-12-4-billion-drone-still-vital-pentagon.html And that's MERELY ONE of the MANY such costly military programs. You wonder where all the public money went in the past few decades... guess how much it has cost the taxpayer to implement and maintain the "U-2" "Blackhawk" program? (Those are the high-altitude surveillance planes developed in the 1950's and still in use today, continuing to cost us $billions every year...) Of course, there's no way to know how much it cost... IT COSTS SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS. Powdered milk for impoverished babies did not put us in the precarious economic position we are in today. Outrageous expenditures on war toys... THAT's where the REAL spending has been.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 4, 2011 0:59:44 GMT -5
The cutting of the WIC program will definitely wreak havoc on the sales of Infant Formula particularly the makers of Similac and/or Enfamil as well dairy farmers, which is maybe why in particualr the farmers get to keep the subsidies. Although breast feeding by WIC is strongly encouraged, some qualifying women are unable to nurse and formula is very expensive. With respect to "regular" milk, one is required to buy more milk than can reasonably be consumed in a month. Considering the program is only for the nutrition of women who nurse, infants (formula drinking) and children that are under the age of 5, the most expensive purchases are the "milk" products. After the qualifying child(ren) turn 5, then a family is no longer eligible. WIC isn't something one can get indefinitely. Ah, they could actually use their foodstamps for formula, rather than pop and frozen pizzas...... Similac, and other baby formula brands are all owned by large international food companies and drug companies, not your local dairy cooperative.These companies also bid on the wic contracts with the individual states. They either rebate back to the wic program on each case of formula sold by wic, or are billed a cents off per case by wic, back to the manufacturer...... This probably also affects the actual retail price being inflated, thus people not on wic are forced to pay higher than normal prices for the formula. I believe Indiana has rebid the baby formula contract, and Gerber has been picked up as the new provider, forcing out Enfamil starting this fall. The cereals, babyfood, and juice products are also bid out by contract by wic. That is why there are specific brands that must be purchased. There are lower priced items out there, with the same quality product, but if they did not win the contract, they are out of the program.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 4, 2011 6:36:06 GMT -5
hmm i never heard of this I went to the same hospital for all my boys and they very much advocated breast feeding everyone had a consultation with a lactation nurse and was encouraged to breast feed almost imediately after birth. As did ours. Of course that was 20 years ago and as everyone keeps saying...times are a-changin'. The assumption that it is bad was drawn from the fact that so few hospitals encourage breast feeding.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Aug 4, 2011 8:56:51 GMT -5
Forgotten in the discussion about breast feeding is the long held understanding that babies breast fed develop a stronger immune system from the mothers milk. Unless of course the mother is a druggie then the baby becomes a druggie. That was the one question my wifes pediatric specialist ask my wife which she hates to take even an aspirin.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Aug 4, 2011 9:41:14 GMT -5
The cutting of the WIC program will definitely wreak havoc on the sales of Infant Formula particularly the makers of Similac and/or Enfamil as well dairy farmers, which is maybe why in particualr the farmers get to keep the subsidies. Although breast feeding by WIC is strongly encouraged, some qualifying women are unable to nurse and formula is very expensive. With respect to "regular" milk, one is required to buy more milk than can reasonably be consumed in a month. Considering the program is only for the nutrition of women who nurse, infants (formula drinking) and children that are under the age of 5, the most expensive purchases are the "milk" products. After the qualifying child(ren) turn 5, then a family is no longer eligible. WIC isn't something one can get indefinitely. Ah, they could actually use their foodstamps for formula, rather than pop and frozen pizzas...... Similac, and other baby formula brands are all owned by large international food companies and drug companies, not your local dairy cooperative.These companies also bid on the wic contracts with the individual states. They either rebate back to the wic program on each case of formula sold by wic, or are billed a cents off per case by wic, back to the manufacturer...... This probably also affects the actual retail price being inflated, thus people not on wic are forced to pay higher than normal prices for the formula. I believe Indiana has rebid the baby formula contract, and Gerber has been picked up as the new provider, forcing out Enfamil starting this fall. The cereals, babyfood, and juice products are also bid out by contract by wic. That is why there are specific brands that must be purchased. There are lower priced items out there, with the same quality product, but if they did not win the contract, they are out of the program. Not everyone that is on WIC get foodstamps and "welfare." Breastfeeding is indeed the best way to go and if done properly, the risk of becoming pregnant while nursing is greatly reduced because you do not have a period and you definitely lose the weight gained by pregnancy, the risk of breast cancer is decreased and the benefits to the baby are enormous, protects against infection, illnesses, it is better for the baby's digestion, and, there is evidence to suggest that breastfed babies are smarter. Breastfeeding was systematically discouraged over the years so women would buy formula; usually how it always works, some lobbying force gets to the government, the government favors it and next you know, people are encouraged to utilize whatever the government endorses. So although there are some who think that the people who do utilize these programs don't deserve it, the companies that benefit directly from it don't either.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Aug 4, 2011 9:43:45 GMT -5
Forgotten in the discussion about breast feeding is the long held understanding that babies breast fed develop a stronger immune system from the mothers milk. Unless of course the mother is a druggie then the baby becomes a druggie. That was the one question my wifes pediatric specialist ask my wife which she hates to take even an aspirin. That is indeed true, I had to stop breastfeeding early because I somehow caught a nasty case of poison ivy where I had to take Prednisone, so I had to stop nursing. Anything that the mother ingests, etc., comes out in the milk.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 4, 2011 9:58:17 GMT -5
hmm i never heard of this I went to the same hospital for all my boys and they very much advocated breast feeding everyone had a consultation with a lactation nurse and was encouraged to breast feed almost imediately after birth. As did ours. Of course that was 20 years ago and as everyone keeps saying...times are a-changin'. The assumption that it is bad was drawn from the fact that so few hospitals encourage breast feeding. Our hospital still strongly encourages breast-feeding, and is proactive in promoting it and teaching.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 4, 2011 9:59:56 GMT -5
"Are we really to believe that 53% of infants actually have medically based nutritional risk & are at serious risk of their parents no longer feeding them formula because it isn't subsidized? I call BS on the claim that 53% of mothers can't find an extra $12/wk in their budget & would choose to feed their baby something else instead of formula. Some mothers would do this, but not half the mothers in the country."
I call B.S on that too, 53% of babies born in this country can't possibly qualify for WIC. I wonder what math they used to figure that out. If that's really the case then WIC does really need to be cut and hard.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 4, 2011 10:40:43 GMT -5
"Are we really to believe that 53% of infants actually have medically based nutritional risk & are at serious risk of their parents no longer feeding them formula because it isn't subsidized? I call BS on the claim that 53% of mothers can't find an extra $12/wk in their budget & would choose to feed their baby something else instead of formula. Some mothers would do this, but not half the mothers in the country." I call B.S on that too, 53% of babies born in this country can't possibly qualify for WIC. I wonder what math they used to figure that out. If that's really the case then WIC does really need to be cut and hard. Since the majority of babies born in America are not white, I would believe this is possibly a true number. You also have to consider the number of children born out of wedlock, in ALL races. The income level of the women who are pregnant, are basically very limited. Modified for spelling.....
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 4, 2011 10:45:07 GMT -5
Do you think around thirty of our congressmen and women recieving them is appropriate?
Sure, nothing wrong with someone, even those in congress having interests is various sectors of the economy.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 4, 2011 12:05:45 GMT -5
Our hospital still strongly encourages breast-feeding, and is proactive in promoting it and teaching. My mother told me one time that I wouldn't breast feed. Boy would she be proud of me now.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 4, 2011 12:25:13 GMT -5
"Are we really to believe that 53% of infants actually have medically based nutritional risk & are at serious risk of their parents no longer feeding them formula because it isn't subsidized? I call BS on the claim that 53% of mothers can't find an extra $12/wk in their budget & would choose to feed their baby something else instead of formula. Some mothers would do this, but not half the mothers in the country." I call B.S on that too, 53% of babies born in this country can't possibly qualify for WIC. I wonder what math they used to figure that out. If that's really the case then WIC does really need to be cut and hard. I wasn't calling BS on the 53% number, I buy that given how high the income qualifications are to still be eligible for WIC. I just call BS on the fact that 53% of our country needs to be on WIC or these children will be neglected & suffer later on in life. WIC could easily stand to be reduced with very little impact to anyone (other than maybe the formula companies).
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 4, 2011 12:29:38 GMT -5
I have no problem with WIC, in general. I think it's a good, and necessary program. However, I do believe the qualifying criteria could be made a bit more stringent without negative impact to those who really need the help.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Aug 4, 2011 12:55:53 GMT -5
Well, the more people that are on the program the more money those that provide the product make. That could be why the criteria is less stringent, I don't know. It is a two-way street, it is not as if it is just the recipients benefitting, the companies that bid to be able to have their products purchased by virtue of vouchers, which includes the baby formula and dairy industries and, cereal makers. They are raking in the dough. Has anyone priced a box of cereal lately or even a gallon of milk? I just think that the real beneficiaries of this program are those whose products are "purchased."
|
|