Free cell phones a civil right????

[Sword]

Quote:
Barring rape, It's really easy to not have kids if you don't want them, even without drugs and abortions. It's free, no nasty side effects, and no one can complain about the ethics or anything. Just display slightly more self control than an unfixed animal. Problem solved.

You first, love.

I already do.

 

[saddina]

Quote:
You first, love.

I already do.

Alas, large percentages of the population do not share your fortutide. When ideals must be thrown out, practicality should be the next step.

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
that's a pretty harsh deal for a married couple though. "yes darling I love you, but the family planning clinic doesn't exist anymore. So we will never consummate our marriage"

I put "never" because the only 100% sure way is to never have sex and women can get pregnant well into their 50s or longer, depending on when they finish menopause. And, honestly, if a woman is a virgin when she finishes menopause (which can last 5 years on average) , it's not too likely that she is going to say "OK lets go for it!"

 

[twentynine]

Their is so much wrong with this thread that I can't even begin to get my mind around it.

Civil right? I think this is the most over used none sense ever.

You have the simple right for what you can earn........

Land line, cell phone, niether are a civil right, you don't earn'em, you don't have'em.

Tri-Care is pretty good health insurance for military dependants. Including military and their dependants in a thread such as this, is the likes of comparing apples to oragatangs.

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
actually, the point of bringing up military families is that THEY can easily qualify for these services. The vast majority of these services are used by people who work hard, have 2 jobs, and are trying to survive. No one claimed that they are a civil right, but in many cases they are a necessity. Don't have a phone? How do you get (or keep) a job? How do you know that your hours have changed and you have to go in on your day off?
A few bad apples spoil the barrel.

The good thing about the cell phones is that there is actually less chance that the phone can be used for idle chit-chat. With a land line, you can make all the local calls you want and spend 23 hours a day on the phone with Sally Sue talking about your soaps. Or have your mother's uncle's cousin's husband's sister call from Russia and tell you about her bunion problem. With the cell phone, you only have 250 minutes PERIOD. Once they are gone, they are gone.

 

[welsummerchicks]

The cell phone programs weren't started because 'cell phone service is a 'civil right' - calling it that's just some ridiculous political manouvering and media sensationalizing.

The programs were started because providing cell phones is a cost effective way to prevent an INCREASE in the costs of SSI, SSDI, etc.

I am very much in favor of people collecting SSI, SSDI and Medicaide/Medicare having a simple cell phone with basic service and limited minutes.

Having the ability to contact a doctor or emergency service or agency, can prevent such a person from becoming much MORE disabled - AND more expensive to take care of.

I'm also in favor of parents with children having basic cell service, and people at risk.

Again, assuming these people are all the usual stereotypes - lazy, un-deserving, money grubbing and cheaters and fakers, oh and don't forget the racial stereotypes, doesn't really give anyone a realistic view of the situation.

To tell the truth, a cell phone and its service - in actual hard costs to the cell phone company - are extremely inexpensive. A cell phone is basically a very cheap piece of junk to produce.

Additionally, cell phone companies benefit financially from participating in these programs - they know how to put this 'charity' to use in their books, and it gives them a chance to dump cheaper and out of date equipment - more cheaply than selling it overseas or depreciating it.

AND they get to charge their other customers for it.

In other words, it's a match made in heaven. They profit from the program in many ways. If I was running a cell phone company I'D be running around beating my chest about how 'cell phones are a civil right' and trying like all GET OUT to get such a program going. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You're darn right I would!!!!

What we customers pay for those services is ridiculous - cell phones are very cheap to make, they're built to hardly last a year or two so they aren't exactly 'over-engineered' to begin with(which would cost more), and the cell phone service is also extremely cheap for these companies to provide. You're paying 40-100 dollars or more for a junky product and a service that per customer, basically costs less than a teaspoon of dirt(well not literally but you get my point).

If the cell phone companies are charging some noticeable amount to their customers to defray the cost of providing basic service and cell phones to people in need, my guess would be that they are grossly overcharging for what it actually costs THEM to provide those phones and service. Why? Because they can, because no one realizes how little a cell phone and service costs them to provide, because no one has noticed yet, because no one is riding them to prevent them from doing it, because, because, because.

 

[country lady]

Stargazingmommy wrote: "Sometimes there are situations you aren't aware of. That tattooed mom with a cell may have just stepped out of an abusive relationship, or just lost a good paying job because of the economy."

We are talking about two groups of welfare recipients: the DESERVING poor and the UNDESERVING poor. I am in no way talking about the "deserving" poor.

Saddina, we all make mistakes but most of us learn from them. Aren't we really talking about continuing BAD decisions? You appear to lump the "undeserving" recipients as victims. The tattooed single MOMS (plural) that I spoke about first had children out of wedlock, then instead of managing what little money they had, they spent it on tattoos. I do not care who/why anyone gets a tattoo, my point is one does not constantly compound bad decisions and then behave like a victim--personal responsibility IS my point. It is unlikely any of the women that I saw had just lost a "good paying job because of the economy." That is just giving them an excuse for bad behavior. Yes, unwed fathers are a problem but it is still up to a woman to say "no."

I'm "done" with this subject.

 

[chickened]

I am not so sure there really are "poor and needy" people in this country anymore. A more accurate description would be "uncomfortable and desiring".

Lets give them an I-phone, you know why stop at a cheap phone, then we can pat ourselves on the back and say what a good boy am I.

 

[welsummerchicks]

when you lose your job or health, you'll be singing a different tune.

 

[teach1rusl]

Quote:
I agree - the standard of "poor" sure has changed through the years here in America at least. I see so many "poor" folks now that have cable television (we don't - because we don't choose to pay that expense), cell phones, internet service, and cars newer than ours (all pre-2000 except my sons) that the whole definition of "poor" has a bad taste. We treat ourselves to a pizza 2x a month - DH was picking it up yesterday after work, and the guy in front of him was picking up two - using the foodstamp EBT card.
Helping folks in need is fine, but helping them to live better than we do bugs me.