My BIL has one of these. He does not have a landline. He's on SSI disability and it's just one of the resources he qualifies for. He can't work due to mental illness issues. It's a relief for the family that we can now reach him by phone. Prior to this we had to call his neighbor in the apartment next door if we had an emergency and needed to reach him.
My 79 year old mother receives about $1K/month in SS. That's it. Other than SS and medicare, she receives no other direct government assistance. This income puts her at the official poverty level. Admittedly, she also has about $85K in savings and she lives in what was a church subsidized apartment building so her rent is comparatively low. Despite living at the poverty level, my mother is able to pay for both a landline and cell phone. She has a car, cable TV, and dial-up internet access. If my mother could not afford phone service and I wanted to be able to contact her in an emergency, I believe it should be my responsibility as her child and family member to pay for the service (undoubtedly, she would decline help). While I realize everyone's situation is different, it seems likely that the vast majority of families could swing the $100/yr necessary for a low-cost cell phone plan to keep the communication lines open with a relative suffering from financial hardship.
What baffles me is the generous allotment of 250 voice minutes and 250 text messages every month (this is the Lifeline provision in California). Huh? Do people really need to communicate this extensively with essential services? I probably spend 30 minutes/yr on the phone with what might be considered essential services (medical appointments, utilities, etc). To be honest, it is probably closer to 10 minutes/yr. Granted, I am looking at this from a minimalist perspective. I am in good health. I am not homeless. I am not looking for a job. I am not a parent so there is no need for me to contact schools or day care centers. But 250 minutes a month? Do parents really spend 4 hours every month speaking with their kid's teachers on the phone? And text messages too? I just don't get it - the need for the average person to spend so much time on the phone. But I do not get Facebook either.
I am not sure if this baffles me as a fee/taxpayer, a frugal person, a luddite who does not even own a cell phone, or as an introvert who does not need to spend hours on the phone every day blithering to people on the other end. This is unlike the rather loud woman in Wal-Mart yesterday who seemed compelled to follow me around the store just so I could hear every word of her cell phone conversation:
"I am going to kick his f****** a** if he ever does that again" (in the food section), "I told her that in private, she had no right to tell her mom" (in the health products section) ... "she needs to get a lawyer and sue his a**" (in the household goods section) ... "he better not ever talk to me like that" (down in electronics).
Lady, do you realize half the store can hear every word of your bleeping conversation? While I doubt this woman was using a free phone, I still don't get it.
Yes, there are people in real need who deserve our help. But there are also a lot of people who take advantage of free situations. I certainly do. Between 2004 and 2010, the State of California through its Consumer Assistance Program paid me about $2000 for costs related to my car (e.g., car repairs). They even purchased my car from me in 2010 for $1000 even though the car had essentially no blue-book value. This was free money from a so-called financially strapped state to a person in the top few percent. Or consider the ER-people here with decent portfolio's but small incomes who are or will receive ACA subsidies. I doubt it is any different with Lifeline service or free cell phones. Some people have a real need. A lot of people don't.
