Anyone here get a free cell phone?

[ERD50]

... The program is not paid for by tax revenue. Telephone companies fund the program, typically through a fee that they charge subscribers.

...

The cellphones under this program have been very useful for local homeless families and individuals looking for work and housing.

Our posts may have crossed since yours was just 1 minute after mine, but in case there are any misunderstandings:

I also think this is a useful program. I just think it should be controlled so we can do the most good for the most people. Abusers take away from those who need it (there are not unlimited funds).

Here's an article about some abuses (though I can't vouch for its accuracy w/o more research):

9 Investigates abuse of free cellphone program Lifeline | www.wftv.com

The Lifeline program allows one phone per household for lower income people who qualify. Jennifer Ayala, who has a son with a serious medical condition, qualified for the program and truly needs the service.
She has used her Lifeline phone to make emergency medical calls for her son but now she worries those abusing the program will ruin the service for people who really need the phone.

"Why do you need three phones?" Ayala asked.

9 Investigates found records showing more than 46,000 Floridians somehow got more than one free phone.

I explained my feelings about not calling this a 'tax' in that post - it's semantics.

Could someone please clarify why qualifying for this program is so terrible and working the numbers on income in order to qualify for more assistance with Obama care is OK?

Who said that qualifying for the program is 'terrible' (other than it is sad that some people are on hard times and need this program) - the question I had is why aren't there controls so it serves the intended purpose and is not abused? And according to the link above, people are cheating the system and there doesn't seem to be controls in place. That's different from someone legitimately 'working' their income to maximize tax/ACA benefits within the rules. Now, if they lie about their income, that's different.

-ERD50

 

[eridanus]

the question I had is why aren't there controls so it serves the intended purpose and is not abused? And according to the link above, people are cheating the system and there doesn't seem to be controls in place.

Are you arguing that people should only have one [mod edit] phone at a time? No one disagrees with that.

Initially, however, your "controls" were for making sure that the phone was only used for "intended" purposes and "credentialed" numbers.

Personally, I think the phone should be limited to 911 and other emergency/reporting services and should process other calls through some kind of electronic 'switchboard' with a list of credentialed numbers (employers, employment agencies and registered hiring firms, govt agencies, day care, schools, etc).

Do you think the intent of the [mod edit] subsidies was for millionaire early retirees to get cheaper health care?

"But, but, but, it's legal." you'll retort. Yeah, and so is the 250 minutes of mobile minutes. If Joe the Millionaire can qualify by manipulating income, and Bob the Impoverished can qualify by not making any income, where is the distinction? Both are moochers in their own way.

 

[eridanus]

Who said that qualifying for the program is 'terrible' (other than it is sad that some people are on hard times and need this program) - the question I had is why aren't there controls so it serves the intended purpose and is not abused? And according to the link above, people are cheating the system and there doesn't seem to be controls in place. That's different from someone legitimately 'working' their income to maximize tax/ACA benefits within the rules. Now, if they lie about their income, that's different.

Someone was offended.

We all agree that no one should have more than one Reagan/Obama phone (Lifeline was actually put into place in 1985). However, if no one lies about their income, and Joe the early retiree qualifies for Obama care subsidies, and Bob the impoverished qualifies for a free phone, where's the problem? They're both legally using a government service.

As far as intent, this does beg the question - are Obama care subsidies intended for millionaire early retirees?

 

[FUEGO]

My phone is free. Through Freedompop. But I need to look into one of those real free phones. Our AGI will be close to 135% FPL for a family of 5.

 

[eridanus]

My phone is free. Through Freedompop. But I need to look into one of those real free phones. Our AGI will be close to 135% FPL for a family of 5.

2001 wants its phone back.

Lifeline Cell Phone Service Provider | Assurance Wireless

 

[ERD50]

quote edited slightly, my point has nothing to do with partisan politics...

We all agree that no one should have more than one ...edit... phone ....edit... However, if no one lies about their income, and Joe the early retiree qualifies for ...edit... health care subsidies, and Bob the impoverished qualifies for a free phone, where's the problem? They're both legally using a government service.
...

I don't think you read my post carefully enough. If you look at the article I quoted, they were pointing to the abuse of more than one phone per person/household. I didn't say we should not provide the phones to the needy - just the opposite. I want the fraud cut so the program can do more for more with less.

But by limiting the service to its intended purpose, it would limit the abuse. What good is a 2nd phone to someone if they can only use it for emergency services or to respond to qualified employers and such? And I think we have the technology to do this sort of thing.

BTW, the plans I saw were all minimum 250 minutes per month plus 250 texts per month, and some up to 250/1000, not the 60 minutes mentioned earlier in this thread.

-ERD50

 

[eridanus]

I don't think you read my post carefully enough. If you look at the article I quoted, they were pointing to the abuse of more than one phone per person/household. I didn't say we should not provide the phones to the needy - just the opposite. I want the fraud cut so the program can do more for more with less.

No, I got that. I doubt anyone disagrees with 1 phone/user.

Before you found those abuses, and I'm sure there are plenty, you were advocating controls,

Personally, I think the phone should be limited to 911 and other emergency/reporting services and should process other calls through some kind of electronic 'switchboard' with a list of credentialed numbers (employers, employment agencies and registered hiring firms, govt agencies, day care, schools, etc).

Lifeline provides $9.25/mth for each qualified user. If a provider wants to hand out 250 minutes and an iPhone for that $9.25, where's the problem? (There is no longer a $30 connection fee given to providers.) Heck, a provider could hand out Google Glass for that $9.25.

If Bob-the-impoverished qualifies for the free phone, their provider gets the $9.25/mth, just as if Joe-early-retiree qualifies for an ACA subsidy and their provider gets $1-2-300/mth. You stated that it was "different". I see no distinction in that both are using a government subsidy.

 

[MichaelB]

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube