EDITOR'S NOTE: I've revised and read through this a couple of times, and even to me, it sounds like sour grapes, middle class problems, and as though I'm begging for handouts. But I think the bigger issue isn't what I get, but rather that people and institutions in positions where their purpose is to help, have to be held to a higher standard of service and differentiation.
"Just be glad you're getting anything."
That's what it feels like sometimes when dealing with certain government institutions that are designed to help those less fortunate or otherwise struggling in our society. This past year, I find myself out of any regular paying work. It turns out that starting your own
comic book publisher doesn't pay
well (at all at first) or have a
good insurance plan. My wife is working, but a part time retail job has surprising the same benefits as being a self publisher.
So that means that while I'm looking for work in my chosen field of education, we're also currently applying for various programs to help provide us and our son with healthy food and medical care. For us, this meant applying to three programs:
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (aka food stamps, or SNAP),
WIC, and
Medicaid.
SNAP: We were turned down for this program right away. They have a scale that shows the maximum income per household, and we're actually a few hundred bucks above the limit. Fine, we're not the poorest people on the block, but still, we're struggling pretty hard. Would it make more sense to base the eligibility on usable funds, rather than gross income? As it's currently set up, SNAP works fine for those very close to the poverty line, and those who have been at this point for some time. However, if you are someone who was previously employed and living a lifestyle above the poverty line, this program is next to useless.
I was going to roughly break down my own finances, but in the interest of generalization and sloth, I found this chart, which is pretty accurate to our situation.
| Monthly Expenses | One Adult | One Adult, One Child | Two Adults | Two Adults, One Child | Two Adults, Two Children |
|---|
| Food | $232 | $378 | $448 | $594 | $740 |
| Child Care | $0 | $572 | $0 | $572 | $1,012 |
| Medical | $76 | $151 | $152 | $227 | $302 |
| Housing | $1,185 | $1,318 | $1,185 | $1,318 | $1,318 |
| Transportation | $232 | $397 | $464 | $629 | $794 |
| Other | $188 | $369 | $376 | $557 | $738 |
| Monthly After-Tax Income That's Required | $1,913 | $3,185 | $2,625 | $3,897 | $4,904 |
| Annual After-Tax Income That's Required | $22,956 | $38,220 | $31,500 | $46,764 | $58,853 |
| Annual Taxes | $1,706 | $2,678 | $2,387 | $3,373 | $4,161 |
| Annual Before Tax Income That's Required | $24,662 | $40,898 | $33,887 | $50,137 | $63,014 |
(from
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/counties/36081)
Between my unemployment insurance, and my wife's current wages, we're making just a smidgen less than $2400 a month. Hardly comfortable, but there are certainly far worse off people. So, if the required monthly income AFTER taxes is $3,897, and we're bringing in >$2400, we're already below the living wage line. Of course, it is possible to live below that line. I'm not looking for a government handout to buy iPads with, just enough to survive until we can right our own ship. (
1)
The problem that's ignored by the SNAP program is that many expenses that we could formerly afford aren't easily opted out. For instance, our cell phones. Our plan has many minutes, data plans (required with certain phones), and some other features. We've already trimmed those features, but canceling entirely to get a cheaper plan would cost us up to $175, per line, since we're in the middle of a contract. We can't afford to get out of our plans, and we don't have a land line to rely on.
Another such expense is our car, which I bought when our family was expanding and I had a steady job. I admit it, I love having a car, even though in NYC you don't NEED one. Still, we have family out of state, we have an elderly dog with a vet on Long Island, my mother has severely limited mobility and relies on me for transportation. I do try to not drive too much, to save on gas. I pay about $600 a month between car payments and insurance. I currently owe more than it's worth, so selling isn't a viable option. Coupled with the added expenses our family would incur if we didn't have our own car (cabs, rental cars for travel, ability to shop competitively around the city), we'd lose more money in the short term by getting rid of the car that I can't afford. So the car stays.
There's more of these types of expenses, student loans come to mind (though I'm in the process of consolidating and deferring those right now, but that takes time) and other credit lines that we're trying to deal with without further wrecking our credit.
Had we been living an impoverished lifestyle before, these wouldn't be problems we're facing. Of course, there'd be other, more serious issues, but that doesn't lessen the fact that I have an iPhone and a minivan but I can't afford groceries.
WIC: Here's the one that really gets me going. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women,
Infants and
Children, also known as WIC. Let me get this out of the way right away; WIC can be a lifesaver. Studies have shown that women enrolled in the WIC program during pregnancy have a lower incidence of medical issues and a higher probability of carrying to full term than women of the same socio-economic status who do not participate in the program. WIC takes a huge burden off in buying groceries, usually.
The problem is that the program provides you with a very strict, unchangeable set of items which you can purchase. This doesn't come up very often, but I can't imagine we're the only family who's ever run up against these issues. For most people, the standard package is probably fine. For instance, my son is 11 months old. So, when we just signed up, we were approved for assistance and given WIC checks to purchase formula (a specific brand, despite the fact that he's been on a different one for his whole life. Luckily he's not too sensitive about this anymore,) and a certain amount of jars of baby food. The problem? My son doesn't eat baby food anymore.
To help him not be fussy, to make sure he's got a balanced diet, and to save money, we'd been making a lot of our own home made baby food, and lately, he's just been eating grown up food. He regularly eats whole bananas, rice & beans, bread, apples, pears, raspberries, cheese, soup, chicken, and just about every other food in this house. So I asked the WIC "nutritionist" if we could get the equivalent checks for just fruits and veggies. No, apparently there's no ability to substitute or approve that, because he's less than a year old even though he's been eating that more wholesome and complete food for about a month already.
This doesn't even mention the contracts that plague the system. I don't pretend to know anything about the funding that goes into this program, but it's apparent that profits play a bigger part in the purchasing decisions than nutrition or thrift. I've got a nice long rant worked out about the types of bread you're allowed to purchase. Here's the short version- you're not allowed to buy the healthiest option, forced into the middle of the pack, regardless of price. With the baby options, aside from the jars/fresh veggies debate, there's also a preference for a certain brand of cereal. The check specifies a brand, even though there's another we prefer, that has less additives, AND is less expensive. So, I'm not allowed to go for the more natural option, even though it's cheaper? Wouldn't that both be better for my child, and less drain on the state?
Basically, if your kid isn't in the middle 50% of the bell curve, you're screwed, or you need to compromise and give your child something that is less than ideal and developmentally inappropriate for him or her.
Medicaid: I haven't dealt with them much yet, just got the baby signed up. The one immediate frustration is that we're looking for new doctors, as our pediatrician doesn't accept it. Why are doctors given the choice to accept or not? Insurance is suppose to pay for services, they say up front which ones are paid for, what difference does it make to their bottom line where the check comes from?
Of course, Medicaid itself has different options and HMOs you can choose. But not all are available to all people. I saw on the list that there is an Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield option, but I don't make enough for that.
What? THAT'S WHY I'M APPLYING FOR MEDICAID.
Working as a public school teacher in Washington, DC during what was pretty much a war between the teacher's union and the school district, I witnessed many of the same ideological problems that I'm now seeing with these social assistance programs. I know, I'm a bleeding heart liberal and unabashed romantic idealist. That doesn't take away from the fact that if an institution makes a mission statement to help those less fortunate, to try to level the playing field for those who do not have the power in our society to do it themselves, then that institution needs to be held to a high standard of doing right.
If I had to distill what I learned as a special educator down to one word, it would be
differentiation. Not every kid needs the same thing to succeed. Said out loud, it sounds painfully obvious, doesn't it? How is this any different from people who are at an economic disadvantage? Not everyone who needs a hand needs the same cookie-cutter package. Some of these programs are doing a great disservice to those they pledged to help.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where I discuss the paternalism and assumptions about those that require services that drive these poor decisions.
