Why do people on public assistance get free cell phones?

[paperfist]

Safelink Wireless is a government supported program that provides a free cell phone and airtime eachmonth for income-eligible customers.

"Through our Lifeline Service you will receive FREE cellular service, a FREE cell phone, and FREE Minutes every month! SafeLink Wireless Service does not cost anything ? there are no contracts, no recurring fees and no monthly charges.

Any Minutes you do not use will roll-over. Features such as caller ID, call waiting and voicemail are all also included with your service. If you need additional Minutes, you can buy TracFone Airtime Cards at any TracFone retailer Walmart, Walgreens, Family Dollar, etc). SafeLink Airtime Cards will be available soon."

To qualify in NY you have to participate in:

* Family Assistance
* Food Stamps
* Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP)
* Medicaid
* Safety Net Assistance
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
* Veteran's Disability Pension
* Veteran's Surviving Spouse Pension

Now I know Family Assistance is mainly for domestic violence people so I don't really have a problem with that, but why in the world do people on food stamps, HEAP, Medicaid, etc need a cell phone?

 

[Craig234]

Billions wased for the rich ignored, pennies spent on the poor fixated on.

 

[imported_inspire]

/facepalm.

 

[umbrella39]

R

 

[piasabird]

I would like to point out some possibilities.

First these phones may be cheaper than having to spend money on land-based phones.

Second the phones may have some kind of locator device in them like a GPS that can keeps track of where you go and what your are doing. Ever thought of that? The free phones could be a trojan horse.

The contract did not look that appealing. Costs extra for sending images. Then it costs 3 minutes to send one text message. I guess you cant complain about free though.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Billions wased for the rich ignored, pennies spent on the poor fixated on.

You forgot to include 'Bush', 'Haliburton', and 'Cheney' in your post. Please correct it.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Billions wased for the rich ignored, pennies spent on the poor fixated on.

That's a bit outside the scope here, Craig. I'm sure most of us are as concerned about those billions, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about this.

 

[Pulsar]

My visceral reaction is, of course, "Great - more ridiculous handouts, blah blah".

Then I think about it. Pretty much everyone in the US needs a telephone. It may not be a necessity in quite the same way that food is, but it's pretty much a necessity anyway. There are a lot of things you can do over the phone that are cheaper than doing by mail - and MUCH cheaper than having to travel somewhere to do it.

If we can agree on that to begin with, then the discussion starts.

What is the best way to get poor people into a phone? Is it to install a land-line with a monthly fee regardless of whether you use it or not, that is locked to one location (poor people change locations often) etc etc?

Or is it smarter to get a cheap $20 pay as you go phone that go WITH them, regardless of location, and be used and paid for.

Obviously, I think if you accept that a phone is a necessity in our society, then I think the end solution is pretty clear - the cell phone wins for a large number of reasons.

I look forward to the argument that a phone is not a necessity in this day and age - I think opponents would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. In fact, I think a Phone is more necessary than a car is in many parts of the country where mass-transit is available in some form.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I think water and electricity are more important than cell phones. Should we provide those for free as well?

 

[paperfist]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I would like to point out some possibilities.

First these phones may be cheaper than having to spend money on land-based phones.

Second the phones may have some kind of locator device in them like a GPS that can keeps track of where you go and what your are doing. Ever thought of that? The free phones could be a trojan horse.

The government is paying the bill on the cellphones, of course they aren't cheaper then landlines. Maybe Walmart should be in-charge of governmental purchasing, then at least I won't feel like I'm getting the total shaft on my tax dollars.

Sure I thought of that, but why would you want to track food stamp people? It's certainly not to watch their double dipping activities, and then swoop in and clean up their acts.

Look, I'm sure there's an awful lot of people who need help and I'm sure most of them aren't abusers, but WTH do they need cell phones for? 911? You can dial that number without service.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Billions wasted for the rich ignored, pennies spent on the poor fixated on.

Who's ignoring what now you say??? Last time I checked a whole lot of people were a whole lot of pissed off by the gov't bailing out big business and banks.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Craig234
Billions wasted for the rich ignored, pennies spent on the poor fixated on.

Who's ignoring what now you say??? Last time I checked a whole lot of people were a whole lot of pissed off by the gov't bailing out big business and banks.

Case in point. The bank & insurance bailouts were a pretty small slice of what big business get from the government. But if we say a couple words about bailouts that means we can just ignore the huge amounts that we flush down the toilet for farm subsidies, bankrupcy laws, environmental laws, governmental regulations etc.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I would like to point out some possibilities.

First these phones may be cheaper than having to spend money on land-based phones.

Second the phones may have some kind of locator device in them like a GPS that can keeps track of where you go and what your are doing. Ever thought of that? The free phones could be a trojan horse.

The contract did not look that appealing. Costs extra for sending images. Then it costs 3 minutes to send one text message. I guess you cant complain about free though.

as if they'd ever pay for any extra services they would use? or pay attention to the contract in the first place... find out what congressman's son-in-law runs the provider...

 

[piasabird]

Try finding a payphone now adays and you will see the delimna. There are fewer and fewer payphones and phone booths for the indigent public to use.

I think land based phones can be more expensive. The typical policy for a house phone often has all kinds of extra charges added on to it. I looked at my bill once and it costs $30 a month for the phone service, but when you added the other add on charges and fees associated with the phone, it was typically costing more than $60-$70 a month just for the phone. This was the option for a phone with all local minutes free.

However, we went with a cell phone and the per phone cost is lower, but then everyone has to have a cell phone which kind of puts a damper on the price savings.

Then I recently added a local DSL phone from AT&T. My local bill was around $23.00 for a month. The difference is you pay for the minutes you use, but you can get incoming calls. My daughter wanted this phone for a business reason. So the type of phone service you get often depends on how you want to use your phone. This would not be a good idea if you were using a Modem to get onto the internet. It also depends on how many minutes you spend on the phone.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
My visceral reaction is, of course, "Great - more ridiculous handouts, blah blah".

Then I think about it. Pretty much everyone in the US needs a telephone. It may not be a necessity in quite the same way that food is, but it's pretty much a necessity anyway. There are a lot of things you can do over the phone that are cheaper than doing by mail - and MUCH cheaper than having to travel somewhere to do it.

If we can agree on that to begin with, then the discussion starts.

What is the best way to get poor people into a phone? Is it to install a land-line with a monthly fee regardless of whether you use it or not, that is locked to one location (poor people change locations often) etc etc?

Or is it smarter to get a cheap $20 pay as you go phone that go WITH them, regardless of location, and be used and paid for.

Obviously, I think if you accept that a phone is a necessity in our society, then I think the end solution is pretty clear - the cell phone wins for a large number of reasons.

I look forward to the argument that a phone is not a necessity in this day and age - I think opponents would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. In fact, I think a Phone is more necessary than a car is in many parts of the country where mass-transit is available in some form.

It's necessary to an extent, but that doesn't mean the government should provide it. $20/month is affordable enough for anyone who works.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Pulsar
My visceral reaction is, of course, "Great - more ridiculous handouts, blah blah".

Then I think about it. Pretty much everyone in the US needs a telephone. It may not be a necessity in quite the same way that food is, but it's pretty much a necessity anyway. There are a lot of things you can do over the phone that are cheaper than doing by mail - and MUCH cheaper than having to travel somewhere to do it.

If we can agree on that to begin with, then the discussion starts.

What is the best way to get poor people into a phone? Is it to install a land-line with a monthly fee regardless of whether you use it or not, that is locked to one location (poor people change locations often) etc etc?

Or is it smarter to get a cheap $20 pay as you go phone that go WITH them, regardless of location, and be used and paid for.

Obviously, I think if you accept that a phone is a necessity in our society, then I think the end solution is pretty clear - the cell phone wins for a large number of reasons.

I look forward to the argument that a phone is not a necessity in this day and age - I think opponents would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. In fact, I think a Phone is more necessary than a car is in many parts of the country where mass-transit is available in some form.

It's necessary to an extent, but that doesn't mean the government should provide it. $20/month is affordable enough for anyone who works.

If you're living below the poverty line and working, $20/month isn't something you can toss around willy-nilly, especially if you require foodstamps and such to make ends meet.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Billions wased for the rich ignored, pennies spent on the poor fixated on.

 

[dainthomas]

Haha, gotta love the faux-outrage. Do you people even read?

Any Minutes you do not use will roll-over. Features such as caller ID, call waiting and voicemail are all also included with your service. If you need additional Minutes, you can buy TracFone Airtime Cards at any TracFone retailer Walmart, Walgreens, Family Dollar, etc). SafeLink Airtime Cards will be available soon. Your exact benefits, including the number of free Minutes you will receive, depend on the state you live in. Please enter your ZIP code to get the details for your state.

Looks like a cheapo base plan, probably starting at a hundred minutes or something. In bulk, I wouldn't be surprised if the gov't was getting them for $10-15/mo tops. I'm sure the budget for the congressional Christmas party well exceeds this.

Of course, there is the added benefit that having a cell phone might help the disabled and the destitute find employment. I'm sure riding around on the bus looking for jobs would be made much easier without having to find a payphone.

Unless of course they want to stay unemployed and broke to continue getting such a SWEET deal! I mean, who wouldn't for $10-15 a month? Am I right?

Edit: It's not like the government is giving people free HBO or something. This is a program which could easily help people get OUT of poverty. I really don't understand the thought process around here sometimes.

 

[Modelworks]

Not this again.
Look up lifeline on google. It has been around for 20 + years. The only difference is suddnelink is providing the same thing in place of the lifeline. They can have one or the other but not both. It is cheaper for the government than paying for a landline. They get a $10 tracfone and 60-70 minutes per month. That is it. Anything more and it comes out their pocket.

My grandmother had lifeline from the state years ago. It showed up as a $15 credit on her phone bill. She could only make local calls with it. She got it because her income was about $500.

 

[boomerang]

There is no recurring monthly fee for a TracFone. Phones can be had for as little as $10 for the initial purchase - for the phone itself. Some are even free. It pretty clearly states that additional minutes are the responsibility of the individual.

I'm as against government waste as the next concerned citizen (many here don't understand where the government gets its money from) but I have no issue with this. Of course the devil may be in the details.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Pulsar
My visceral reaction is, of course, "Great - more ridiculous handouts, blah blah".

Then I think about it. Pretty much everyone in the US needs a telephone. It may not be a necessity in quite the same way that food is, but it's pretty much a necessity anyway. There are a lot of things you can do over the phone that are cheaper than doing by mail - and MUCH cheaper than having to travel somewhere to do it.

If we can agree on that to begin with, then the discussion starts.

What is the best way to get poor people into a phone? Is it to install a land-line with a monthly fee regardless of whether you use it or not, that is locked to one location (poor people change locations often) etc etc?

Or is it smarter to get a cheap $20 pay as you go phone that go WITH them, regardless of location, and be used and paid for.

Obviously, I think if you accept that a phone is a necessity in our society, then I think the end solution is pretty clear - the cell phone wins for a large number of reasons.

I look forward to the argument that a phone is not a necessity in this day and age - I think opponents would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. In fact, I think a Phone is more necessary than a car is in many parts of the country where mass-transit is available in some form.

It's necessary to an extent, but that doesn't mean the government should provide it. $20/month is affordable enough for anyone who works.

If you're living below the poverty line and working, $20/month isn't something you can toss around willy-nilly, especially if you require foodstamps and such to make ends meet.

Then dont go with a phone? I know, the horror!

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a free speech issue.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's a free speech issue.

How is talking over a private network at cost a free speech issue?

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's a free speech issue.

Ahhhhhhh, I see what you did there!
*golf clap*

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
If you're living below the poverty line and working, $20/month isn't something you can toss around willy-nilly, especially if you require foodstamps and such to make ends meet.

Then dont go with a phone? I know, the horror!

You try finding a job without a phone.