No lobster for them
I would like C. Colpo, writer of the letter “ Lobster-tail tale ”, to meet my neighbors. We all live in a well-maintained senior high-rise in the North Hills. I don't know all my neighbors, but two that I personally know get SNAP benefits (food stamps).
One is fighting cancer! One of her medications costs $3,300, but she has a copay of $655 every three months — that's with help. That does not include medications she takes for side effects and needs for her other problems. She also has to pay ACCESS, which has raised its fees for transportation.
My other neighbor, thank goodness, does not have cancer. She is anemic, but has a growth in her kidneys and doctors will not operate. She is in and out of the hospital and I don't know the cost of her medication, but I know she needs and gets help from friends.
Thankfully, both neighbors get food stamps, but with all their extra expenses, do you think they buy lobster when they can't get out of bed except for treatment? And now, the food stamp program has cut the amount they receive.
Also, C. Colpo, it is amazing that each time you are shopping, you run into SNAP shoppers who only purchase lobster, etc. I am in the stores all the time (I'm a “shopoholic”) and have yet to see anyone with food stamps buy anything but what is needed.
Eleanor Kaufman Haas
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- Thanks for the coverage
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Hiring in Westmoreland I
- Blame judges
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’