SNAP/EBT/Food Stamps

[Wolfgang]

4 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

my wife cares. She'd prefer sci fi or a documentary.  My friends care.  They were recording as well.  I'm sure they're watching now. Wha sports fan wouldn't be?  You're ridiculous.

I would do the same.  Is your child hungry?  There was a decent jazz band in the cidery.   didn't miss an inning.. not ashamed.

 

 

 

 

[nedboy7]

22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@nedboy7 just wondering if you have any thoughts on what a reasonable health plan might look like for your family of two?  Monthly costs..,ded etc?  You indicated about $2,300 this year, with a 30% increase in 2026.   What’s fair given your income, health etc? 

Maybe I didn’t state it clearly?  My premium for a couple will be $15.6k this coming year. 8k each deductible. So potential to spend over 30k for a couple. Since we are the highest per capita for health premiums I think it would be reasonable to be expect about half of that.  Which is common in other countries. Your thoughts? 
I have had experience in health care billing and know what types of things go down.  I think the current system has immense room for improvement. 

Edited yesterday at 03:38 PM by nedboy7

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Ted Striker]

On 10/30/2025 at 8:41 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

But if you've ever gotten a bill for a hospital stay

 

A hospital! What is it?

[Che Guevara]

Reading the posts throughout this thread, there appears to be themes that reoccur and those themes seem to center on the idea of who is or is not deserving of SNAP benefits and what SNAP means as a cost to taxpayer and the government and whether those costs are 'just.'  In terms of cost,

https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-does-the-federal-government-spend-on-snap-every-year/country/united-states/

SNAP represents 1.5% of federal budget expenditures at roughly $100 Billion per year.  

 

If people are really concerned about deficits and the role of social spending in driving deficits, SNAP seems like an odd starting point for that conversation.  The USDA's own website tracks the SNAP data. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research 

 

Note, the USDA is currently run by a Trump appointee and they have a political message at the top of their page that claims that the democrats have caused the government shutdown.  Of the data that is tracked, the USDA notes that SNAP spending creates a 1.54 times multiplier.  What this means is that for every $1 of SNAP benefit spent, the economy generates $1.54 in economic benefit.  In this regard the program is a benefit to the economy.  But, the issue isn't whether SNAP benefits are a benefit to the economy, the issue for those concerned about the deficit is that SNAP represents social spending that contributes to the deficit.  The US is looking at a $1.78 Trillion deficit for fiscal year 2025.  Eliminating all SNAP benefits would reduce the deficit to roughly $1.77 Trillion dollars.  A $1.78 Trillion versus a $1.77 Trillion budget deficit seems trivial.  A program that generates positive economic spillovers, reduces malnutrition, and is a targeted poverty reduction tool, that is low cost to taxpayers, should probably not be the focal point of a deficit reduction policy.  If I was in charge and tasked with making a legitimate dent in the budget deficit, SNAP would probably be one of the last places I would look for cost savings.  Instead, I would look at the big budget items and see where I could make a sizeable dent.  If, of course, that was the sort of issue I had concerns about.

 

On another note, there is another idea that SNAP beneficiaries are gaming the system.  And, in all likelihood there probably are some folks that have figured out how to game the system.  But, in the grand scheme of the SNAP program, the numbers look pretty normal and consistent.  The peak year, outside of the COVID years, in absolute terms, of recipients was 2013 when over 50 million (about 51 million) Americans received benefits.  And, 2013 makes sense in terms of SNAP recipients.  Looking at the data there are several big jumps in SNAP recipients 2008-2009 the numbers jump by 10 million from 25 to 35 million Americans and then from 35 to 45 million Americans in 2009-2010.  2008-2010 was the Great Recession with the unemployment rate over 10% in the fall of 2009, so, of course, the number of recipients would rise.  From 2010-2013 there is a much more gradual rise as the lingering high unemployment rates of the Great Recession persisted.  But, after 2013, the absolute number of SNAP recipients declines year over year (Obama to Trump) by 15+ million recipients down to about 35 million Americans in 2019.  Of course, with COVID there is another spike in recipients to 65 million and, predictably, coming out of COVID the numbers again decline precipitously to what is now about 41 million Americans (12.3% of the population) which is closely in line with the amount of poverty in the country.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  For me, I think $100 billion, relative to all of the other expenditures that our government makes, is a small price to pay for a program that is means tested and provides resources so people can purchase food, an actual basic need.

[Homelander]

Each person on this board stands far nearer to qualifying for SNAP than to achieving billionaire status.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

On my first day @USDA, we told every state to send us

their SNAP data so we could make sure illegal immigrants

aren’t getting benefits meant for American families.

29 states stepped up. 21 blue states refused — and two

SUED US FOR ASKING!

 

And guess what? In just the states that cooperated, we’ve

already uncovered massive fraud.

 

The Democrat Party has turned its back on working Americans

and built its entire strategy around protecting illegal aliens.

They know if the handouts stop, those illegals will go back home,

and Democrats will lose 20+ seats after the next census.

 

There’s a new sheriff in town.

@POTUSwill not tolerate waste, fraud, or abuse while hardworking Americans go hungry.

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

Illegal Aliens Milk SNAP For Taxpayer-Funded Free Food

by Beth Brelje

 

Many illegal aliens who are not eligible for SNAP benefits were nonetheless saved from scrambling for food Friday when a judge forced funding for the program to continue in November. Both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) have been under threat as the budget impasse in Congress continues. SNAP was slated for suspension on Nov. 1 when the federal SNAP funding mechanism ran out. An appropriation bill must be passed to fund it.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2025/11/03/illegal-aliens-milk-snap-for-taxpayer-funded-free-food/

 

 

 

 

[Che Guevara]

Secretary Rollins can say that there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but unless there is evidence presented, it is just a political (and ideological) statement.

 

According to a 2019 USDA report (Trump's first term) the USDA's own reporting came to the following conclusions:

“SNAP’s Quality Control (QC) system earns a solid “A” grade. Over 99 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible." 

Of course, the USDA has taken down their own report (from the first Trump Administration).

 

By implication SNAP is not full of waste, fraud, and abuse.  1% ineligible recipients is indicative of an efficient system.  Sure, try to root out the 1% "fraud," but, again, aren't there far bigger fish to fry when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse.  For example, will the DOW (Department of War) pass an audit? https://fas.org/man/eprint/contract-fraud.pdf In 2018, according to the then Department of Defense, the US lost $334 billion to contractor fraud between 2013 and 2017.  $334 is 3+ years of the entirety SNAP funding, and that was just self reported defense contractor fraud.  

 

2/3 of SNAP recipients are either children, the elderly, or people with disabilities who, well, are not going to work.  1/3 of SNAP recipients are working and are poor.  

 

Rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse is a worthy cause.  And, I think, a good starting point would be to look at the places where there is actual waste, fraud, and abuse as opposed to picking around the edges of a low cost program that is designed to assist poor people in having food.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/2/2025 at 10:36 AM, nedboy7 said:

Maybe I didn’t state it clearly?  My premium for a couple will be $15.6k this coming year. 8k each deductible. So potential to spend over 30k for a couple. Since we are the highest per capita for health premiums I think it would be reasonable to be expect about half of that.  Which is common in other countries. Your thoughts? 
I have had experience in health care billing and know what types of things go down.  I think the current system has immense room for improvement. 

Thanks for the reply.,

 

I read it as you saying $1,000/month premium (you and your wife total), $8,000 deductible each, and that you met your deductibles.  That $12,000 + $8,000 + $8,000 = $28,000/3 = $2,300/month.   Now, going up to $1,300/month, same deductibles and presumably you end up at $2,600 per month all in.

 

Again--I don't quite understand how routine care adds $8,000 each to your cost last year, but that's only because my experience is different.  In years where I paid out of pocket for a colonscopy @ $2,700, we're still well below $5,000 total for routine well-care.  

 

Anyway--I agree that $2,300 - $2,600 out of pocket is a significant expenditure.  Context matters though--if you're a fat cat like Fergie with substantial assets and wealth, it's quite affordable.  Probably less than (or not much more than) his country club dues/rounds of golf/club house obligations.  

 

I think I'm in your camp as to where it should be--a range for a couple in the $1000-1,500/mo, with sensible deductibles in the $5000 range, $7,500 total for a family.  However, until we address all the issues----regulation, government overreach, health insurance company costs and efficiencies, and care costs w/ physicians/hospitals/tests etc nothing gets accomplished.  

 

All this said--in the event of a serious illness, I am firmly convinced that $2,300 is money very well spent.

[The Frankish Reich]

Of course there's waste, fraud, and abuse.

 

But notice what the MAGA folks do when they are losing an argument? They make it about illegal aliens. So here we go again.

 

The Republicans passed the BBB without Democratic votes. If they wanted to add assurances that illegal aliens could not directly or indirectly benefit from SNAP, well, they could've done that. Don't fall for this latest deflection. 

[B-Man]

 

 

The “S” in SNAP stands for supplemental.

 

No one should use SNAP as 100 percent of their household food budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

The “S” in SNAP stands for supplemental.

 

No one should use SNAP as 100 percent of their household food budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So .... the talking point is now:

 

- Democrats, and Democrats alone, are the people preventing you from obtaining the SNAP benefits you were promised under the law we Republicans passed.

- SNAP is an awful program riddled with fraud that enriches illegal aliens who have no right to even be here.

 

Makes sense to me! Play the American people for the fools that they are. MAGA does one thing right: it never underestimates the stupidity of its voters.

[All_Pro_Bills]

9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for the reply.,

 

I read it as you saying $1,000/month premium (you and your wife total), $8,000 deductible each, and that you met your deductibles.  That $12,000 + $8,000 + $8,000 = $28,000/3 = $2,300/month.   Now, going up to $1,300/month, same deductibles and presumably you end up at $2,600 per month all in.

 

Again--I don't quite understand how routine care adds $8,000 each to your cost last year, but that's only because my experience is different.  In years where I paid out of pocket for a colonscopy @ $2,700, we're still well below $5,000 total for routine well-care.  

 

Anyway--I agree that $2,300 - $2,600 out of pocket is a significant expenditure.  Context matters though--if you're a fat cat like Fergie with substantial assets and wealth, it's quite affordable.  Probably less than (or not much more than) his country club dues/rounds of golf/club house obligations.  

 

I think I'm in your camp as to where it should be--a range for a couple in the $1000-1,500/mo, with sensible deductibles in the $5000 range, $7,500 total for a family.  However, until we address all the issues----regulation, government overreach, health insurance company costs and efficiencies, and care costs w/ physicians/hospitals/tests etc nothing gets accomplished.  

 

All this said--in the event of a serious illness, I am firmly convinced that $2,300 is money very well spent.

Wonder about your plan because in general colonoscopy examinations fall under "preventative care" which my health plan covers In Network at zero cost and i understand other commercial insurance plans also cover. This as part of the ACA legislation. Not sure what your exact plan is but here's the ACA list.

 

https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

I'm Sorry, But HOW MANY Illegals Get Food Stamps?

Stephen Green

 

It's astounding, the things we learn when the money runs out and governments actually have to start prioritizing for a change. As the Schumer Shutdown drags through Week Five with no end in sight, the country's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — aka "food stamps" — ran out of money on Saturday. And given who was taking, it's a miracle that there was any money left at all.

 

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins reported yesterday that earlier this year, "we told every state to send us their SNAP data so we could make sure illegal immigrants aren’t getting benefits meant for American families. 29 states stepped up. 21 blue states refused — and two SUED US FOR ASKING!"

 

That's because we're spending billions on benefits to illegal aliens. 

 

My guess is that the Center for Immigration Studies — which bills itself as "low-immigrant" yet "pro-immigration" — was being a bit ironic with this headline: 

Illegal Immigrants To Be Hit Hard As SNAP and WIC Benefits Expire.

 

 

{snip}

 

I have a solution. Two, actually.

 

The first solution is that all welfare programs must require proof of citizenship. Please note that I did not say "proof of legal residence." Non-citizens who are non-able to care for themselves or their families have no business being here. We have enough trouble taking care of our own.

 

Until fairly recently, that's the way every country in the world has treated legal immigrants, and we must get back to it. Not only because of the expense, but because of the type of immigrant attracted here by all of the self-destructive largess. We want — we need! — makers, not takers. 

 

Before we get to the second solution, allow me to bring to your attention the case of native-born American Maggie Aragon, just featured on KOAT 7 New Mexico news. 

 

"Maggie Aragon has been a SNAP recipient for more than three decades."

That's not "assistance." That's a lifestyle.

 

The second solution is to recognize that a food program that pays for everything from Almond Joys to Zapp’s Potato Chips is neither supplemental nor nutritional. SNAP ought to be limited to ingredients for making meals, not prepared junk foods.

 

It doesn't help that it's a lifestyle we're stupid enough to import from overseas because, as CIS put it, "this situation raises important policy questions, including whether it makes sense to have an immigration system that allows in so many people who turn to taxpayers to support their children."

 

It only makes sense if you're trying to take the most productive and self-reliant people in history and turn them into something else. 

 

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/11/03/im-sorry-but-how-many-illegals-get-food-stamps-n4945533

 

Edited 6 hours ago by B-Man

[Wolfgang]

While everyone debates over the usual superficial nonsense...

 

The shutdown continues...

 

I'm cool with that...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Wonder about your plan because in general colonoscopy examinations fall under "preventative care" which my health plan covers In Network at zero cost and i understand other commercial insurance plans also cover. This as part of the ACA legislation. Not sure what your exact plan is but here's the ACA list.

 

https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/

 

 

 

Correct, and as I mentioned earlier, I've had my issues with health insurance cos.  Due to immediate family history with colon cancer, I started screening when I was 41 or 42 and I'm approaching mid-60s.  Zero issues so far, no polyps over 20+ years.  However, according to...someone, somehwere...my screening is not considered preventative due the family history, I believe they refer to it as diagnostic.  I have spent considerable time and effort with the insurance company, the doctor's office on their coding, and get absolutely nowhere.  

 

Now, back to perspective and context--at some point along the way, I realized that my issue was just a dollars and cents issue, and that there are people with real life challenges and on a scale of 1-50, my problem was a 5.  Comparing my financial situation with Ned's, well, my outcome was pretty darn good.  And most importantly, having witnessed advanced colon cancer in one of the most important people in my life, things ultimately became pretty clear to me.  I wrote the check.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So .... the talking point is now:

 

- Democrats, and Democrats alone, are the people preventing you from obtaining the SNAP benefits you were promised under the law we Republicans passed.

- SNAP is an awful program riddled with fraud that enriches illegal aliens who have no right to even be here.

 

Makes sense to me! Play the American people for the fools that they are. MAGA does one thing right: it never underestimates the stupidity of its voters.

This time around, the S in Shutdown stands for Schumer.  Well, technically it stands for Shutdown but it could actually be the first letter in Schumer, too, in a crossword puzzle format.  

 

Appeal to your leadership to end the shutdown.  This is on them. 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This time around, the S in Shutdown stands for Schumer.  Well, technically it stands for Shutdown but it could actually be the first letter in Schumer, too, in a crossword puzzle format.  

 

Appeal to your leadership to end the shutdown.  This is on them. 

 

 

 

Hey, I've already said I think this shutdown thing is bad strategy on the part of the Democrats. But I'm not a registered Democrat, and my reps really don't care what I think.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Hey, I've already said I think this shutdown thing is bad strategy on the part of the Democrats. But I'm not a registered Democrat, and my reps really don't care what I think.

 

These are the people who believed in the magic of Joe Biden intellect and ability to lead the country.  They believed so passionately they put him out on a debate stage and watched him implode,  and still believed in him thereafter.  They thought it happened because he had da sniffles.   

 

Surely you can convince them of something as straightforward as doing what they have always done, in a time when they should always do it.   

 

Maybe try the crossword puzzle thing?