by mwexler on 9/21/23, 12:19 PM with 137 comments
by SkipperCat on 9/21/23, 12:41 PM
Of course, those who hate any type of government aid will have a field day with this. Such is political discourse today.
by runako on 9/21/23, 12:54 PM
The compare to consider is the markup and selection at e.g. a gas station or convenience store, where people increasingly buy food. Those places are known for high prices and low value. It's entirely possible that ordering via Uber Eats/Instacart is a better deal for folks on food aid. And selection is certainly better, relevant to the set of folks who like to shame poor people for the food they eat.
by ceejayoz on 9/21/23, 12:39 PM
by ghaff on 9/21/23, 12:46 PM
by leereeves on 9/21/23, 12:39 PM
If it's affordable this could change the lives of people without cars, but I fear it will be expensive, because UberEats currently is, and because Uber generally seems more interested in making a profit than in providing a public service.
by bryanrasmussen on 9/22/23, 6:53 AM
health benefits can be used for delivery.
this is also made reasonably clear in the article (could have been better)
Or hey, some cash you have around.
on edit: for people who are technical the interest here is almost mainly huh, yeah they separate out the invoicing of the food from the delivery and you pay for the delivery with the health benefits if you have them and you pay for the food with the stamps if you have them.
by KMnO4 on 9/21/23, 12:39 PM
by woodruffw on 9/21/23, 12:48 PM
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to allow people to use their food benefits however they want, so long as Uber is not extracting additional rent from the USG by hiking grocery prices through their platform.
by dark-star on 9/21/23, 12:47 PM
by swader999 on 9/21/23, 12:57 PM