# Free Cell Phones for the Poor



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 6, 2009)

There is no way I can express my utter disgust at this.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx


----------



## roadwreck (Mar 6, 2009)

What's wrong with that? It's part of the deceleration of independence right?

Something, something, something, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of free cell phones for low income households.

That's how it goes, no?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 6, 2009)

> The process to qualify for Lifeline Service depends on the State you live in. In general, you may qualify if...
> You already participate in other State or Federal assistance program such as Federal Public Housing Assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid.


"If the government already gives you free shit, then here...take this too!"


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm not even going to comment. This is just the beginning.


----------



## roadwreck (Mar 6, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I'm not even going to comment. This is just the beginning.


huh? I think we are well past "the beginning".


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 6, 2009)

Government is good. There's no way they would do something like this. Government is good, government is good, government is good.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 6, 2009)

The backlash to all this is going to be sudden and enormous...


----------



## Flyer_PE (Mar 6, 2009)

^Sooner or later, "Joe Sixpack" is going to have his attention ripped away from American Idol by the drain on his paycheck. It's going to keep rolling on until that happens.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 6, 2009)

I disagree. I see this as the frog in the pot, Joe being the frog, the imperial federal government being the asshole in charge of the stove. If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump right out. But if you slowly turn up the heat, that little bastard will sit in said pot of water till he cooks to death. That's exactly the way this is going to go. People won't wake up. We're past of the point of having a population intelligent enough to see what is happening, either that, or are so stupid they actually want what is happening to occur.


----------



## Slugger926 (Mar 6, 2009)

Oklahoma hands out free cable television with their Section 8 housing.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 6, 2009)

Slugger926 said:


> Oklahoma hands out free cable television with their Section 8 housing.


Commies!


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 6, 2009)

I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. Cable TV, internet, cell phones, healthcare, housing, those are all rights. Says so right there in the the bill of rights....next to the right to bear arms and freedom of the press.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 6, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. Cable TV, internet, cell phones, healthcare, housing, those are all rights. Says so right there in the the bill of rights....next to the right to bear arms and freedom of the press.


Isn't it part of that 'pursuit of happiness' clause?

/sarcasm


----------



## csb (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm someone who doesn't have a cellphone, because it's not a cost I care to justify. Once again I feel like a slacker with my job and paying my bills and budgeting...


----------



## MGX (Mar 6, 2009)

Slugger926 said:


> Oklahoma hands out free cable television with their Section 8 housing.


Years ago I delivered pizza part time. Part of my delivery area was 100% Section 8 housing and also the lowest income zip code in the state which, ironically, shared a border with the highest income zip code in the state.

Peering into homes of welfare recipients was a bit of a shock. Most, if not all, had HDTV's, the newest xbox or playstation, and a $40K new Lincoln or Cadillac in the driveway of a $20K house. No wonder bars are on all the windows; not so they are certain to die in a fire, but to protect all their toys.

I quickly learned that poor people have screwed up priorities and I'm paying for it.

EDIT: and yes, no orders went out to the 'hood after about the 6th of the month. They had already blown through their monthly dole by then and resorted to writing bad checks for pizza (assuming we hadn't refused checks from them due to collection fees).

I don't know what the point is of this legislation, most welfare people probably already have cell phones and nice ones at that.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 6, 2009)

csb said:


> I'm someone who doesn't have a cellphone, because it's not a cost I care to justify. Once again I feel like a slacker with my job and paying my bills and budgeting...



csb = loser

J/K


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 6, 2009)

Thanks to this thread, my Friday has just been ruined.


----------



## TXengrChickPE (Mar 7, 2009)

MGX said:


> I don't know what the point is of this legislation, most welfare people probably already have cell phones and nice ones at that.


Sure they do... but now they don't have to pay for it anymore!


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 7, 2009)

csb said:


> I'm someone who doesn't have a cellphone, because it's not a cost I care to justify. Once again I feel like a slacker with my job and paying my bills and budgeting...


aren't you important enough to get one from your employer? j/k

At our place everyone gets one so you have no place to hide if they want to find you.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Mar 8, 2009)

We get them as well. Mine's sitting in a drawer at home, still in the original packaging.

I'm not important or in the field enough to get calls. And I have unlimited mobile to mobile with my wife under our plan, and she is the one calling 95% of the time anyway, so I'd lose that carrying the other one around.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 8, 2009)

Sapper,

your letter would be perfect. I like that.

Sadly, I saw a commercial for this very program yesterday.  I think I lost a month off my life, but other than that I took it OK.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 8, 2009)

I can't believe this is real. I;d like to hear the rationale behind this, but I can't imagine any good reason to spend taxpayer's money on cellphones for the poor. I don't even have a freaking cellphone, simply because I have deemed it an unnecessary expense in my current situation. I seem to be doing just fine without one, too.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 9, 2009)

Dleg,

I seriously watched the commercial saying "if you already receive government assistance like welfare, medicaid, blah blah blah then you probably qualify for this government sponsored program"

^ it made me throw up in my mouth a little


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 9, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Thanks to this thread, my Friday has just been ruined.


Then my work here is done!



MA_PE said:


> At our place everyone gets one so you have no place to hide if they want to find you.


I've turned down jobs that require beepers or cell phones. Life outside of work is mine.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 9, 2009)

why not "Free Yachts for the middle class"


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 9, 2009)

Yeah, my boat is really not doing too good. I have had it outside and uncovered all winter. Part of the deck is rotten and needs to be reinforced. I don't even want a yacht, just a new 23' center console, w/ T tops, and twin 150 Hp 4 cycle outboards, GPS, depth finder, and trim tabs. Where is the gubment program where I can sign up for that?


----------



## csb (Mar 9, 2009)

I've got a work cellphone...that tends to get left places when it's crappy battery runs down.

I like Sapper's letter. I'd love to see the response.


----------



## McEngr (Mar 10, 2009)

csb said:


> I've got a work cellphone...that tends to get left places when it's crappy battery runs down.
> I like Sapper's letter. I'd love to see the response.


Wow. Now it's not even if you're conservative or liberal; or republican or democrat. If the money is paying for stupid people to stay in their stupid position in life, then neither should be for it.

Why the government feels the need to be a charity organization is beyond me - especially of this luxury.


----------



## csb (Mar 10, 2009)

You know, I really thought about this this morning. I was thinking, "Why doesn't the government give me a cellphone?" and then I thought about how I could never accept it, because I didn't feel like I had earned it. That's the big huge difference in some of these instances. I don't think I deserve everything I want from the government. I pay taxes for a few services, but there has got to be a point where I step in. I worked at a ranch for awhile where we got room and board, but on days where we were off, we didn't get fed because it was "You don't work, you don't eat." Fair enough. I used to be kinda for higher taxes for the wealthy, but that's just putting me in the same boat as welfare folks who want free phones from my money.

Argh. eb.com has me thinking again...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 10, 2009)

I wouldn't take it either csb, as I wouldn't have earned it.

My sister went on WIC when she had her first kid. Didn't need it, but she qualified and heard, "well, you might as well take advantage of it, you're paying for it" so many times she felt like she had too. Didn't do it for her second kid. She said she just felt wrong taking something she didn't need that others were paying for.

I wish a lot more people felt that way.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 10, 2009)

It's a feeling that you are born with. Even in High School, I hated asking my parents for money. I usually tried to leverage my cash by mowing lawns, shoveling snow, etc.

I had a paper route for a while, and some other odd jobs.

I hated asking for $$ since I was young.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Same with me DV (kind of). My brothers and I are all very independent. My dad told us from the time we could understand that by age 18 we would either be in college making A's and B's (and he would pay) or out of the house and paying rent with no help whatsoever. None of us ever tested him on it. My brothers in law however would still be sucking on the tit if it were acceptable. I've finally gotten my wife to stop accepting crap but my in-laws still pay both of their car payments and one of their house payments. I think they feel guilty that they don't give us shit or something.

And I didn't know your sister was married to a GnR guy?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 10, 2009)

That fire was unreal. I've seen a lot of reports and raw footage on it. Some major changes in the IBC because of it.


----------



## McEngr (Mar 10, 2009)

You guys bring up an excellent point about even accepting the phone. If one feels "entitled" to the free phone, then there's no telling what other things they feel entitled to either. I would even go so far as to say that one could, and probably more often than not, feel entitled to things that don't belong to them. I believe there's something that occurs in the mind and heart that says, "I will take all I can." It's not American.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 10, 2009)

McEngr said:


> You guys bring up an excellent point about even accepting the phone. If one feels "entitled" to the free phone, then there's no telling what other things they feel entitled to either.


I think that's true. You get conditioned to accept something and you start to feel more stuff is owed to you. I'm probably not explaining it too well.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 10, 2009)

csb said:


> and then I thought about how I could never accept it, because I didn't feel like I had earned it.


You'd never make it as a fed subcontractor.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Kind of like stem cell researchers. They get that first government grant and then they get conditioned to expect that they need another.


----------



## csb (Mar 10, 2009)

^ OH NO HE DIDN'T!


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 10, 2009)

csb said:


> ^ OH NO HE DIDN'T!


Oh, yes he did. I thought you were familiar with Chucktown.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Oh, yes he did!


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Oh yes he did!


JINX!


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Sorry. I thought ya'll were familiar with Chucktown.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 10, 2009)

I am. opcorn:


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Right, I just figured everyone assumed I was :screwloose:

I didn't know anyone actually paid attention to what I wrote.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 10, 2009)

The guys in the black helicopters definitely are.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 10, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> Right, I just figured everyone assumed I was :screwloose:
> I didn't know anyone actually paid attention to what I wrote.


I will give you credit for standing firm in your convictions through the serious debates thrown at you from this forum.


----------



## SkyWarp (Mar 10, 2009)

csb said:


> You know, I really thought about this this morning. I was thinking, "Why doesn't the government give me a cellphone?" and then I thought about how I could never accept it, because I didn't feel like I had earned it. That's the big huge difference in some of these instances. I don't think I deserve everything I want from the government. I pay taxes for a few services, but there has got to be a point where I step in. I worked at a ranch for awhile where we got room and board, but on days where we were off, we didn't get fed because it was "You don't work, you don't eat." Fair enough. I used to be kinda for higher taxes for the wealthy, but that's just putting me in the same boat as welfare folks who want free phones from my money.
> Argh. eb.com has me thinking again...


 These free phones aren't paid for with taxes, they're fees the telecom companies pass along to the consumer to pay for the Universal Service Fund. They've been giving free or reduced land line phone service for years, and by my estimation, the free 68 prepaid minutes a month they give on this cell phone is about equal to the cost of a basic service land line.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 12, 2009)

Skywarp,

please explain the difference to me between taxes and fees.

Which one is added to our bill as an extra cost? and which one can we elect not to pay?


----------



## TXengrChickPE (Mar 12, 2009)

SkyWarp said:


> These free phones aren't paid for with taxes, they're fees the telecom companies pass along to the consumer to pay for the Universal Service Fund. They've been giving free or reduced land line phone service for years, and by my estimation, the free 68 prepaid minutes a month they give on this cell phone is about equal to the cost of a basic service land line.


Maybe it does cost the same to provide a cell phone as it would to provide a land line. I don't know. But, from what I've seen, this is not a plan to eliminate the free land line service... this is a free cell phone in addition to the free land line. Also, I assume (hope) that the free land line is limited to one per household... while the free cell phone is probably one per adult.


----------



## SkyWarp (Mar 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Skywarp,
> please explain the difference to me between taxes and fees.
> 
> Which one is added to our bill as an extra cost? and which one can we elect not to pay?


Telecom companies aren't required to tack on a fee to your bill for the USF. They have to pay, some probably pass on more of the cost to you than others. Unless you consider the fees to be built in, you can duck this one and others with a prepaid phone.


----------



## SkyWarp (Mar 12, 2009)

TXengrChickPE said:


> Maybe it does cost the same to provide a cell phone as it would to provide a land line. I don't know. But, from what I've seen, this is not a plan to eliminate the free land line service... this is a free cell phone in addition to the free land line. Also, I assume (hope) that the free land line is limited to one per household... while the free cell phone is probably one per adult.


https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enrollment...ow_to_qlfy.aspx



> The process to qualify for Lifeline Service depends on the State you live in. In general, you may qualify if...*AND*
> 
> No one in your household currently receives Lifeline Service through another phone carrier.


Rules vary by state but in Florida it's definitely one lifeline service line per household: http://www.floridaopc.gov/lifeline.cfm


----------



## IlPadrino (Mar 13, 2009)

SkyWarp: Thanks for the education!



> The Universal Service Fund (USF) is one fund with four programs.
> The four programs are:
> 
> * High Cost - This support ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to and pay rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.
> ...


I couldn't find any newer statistics than these:



> Estimated 2007 Support: $6.95 billionHigh Cost: $4.3 billion
> 
> Low Income: $822 million
> 
> ...


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 13, 2009)

Good info ^^^ but I must add that if they have 6.95 billion, then 6.94 billion of it should be in the Schools &amp; Libraries category.

It'd be money better spent.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 2, 2011)

Hooray for free cell phones!



> Pennsylvanians on public assistance now have a new 'civil right' -- free cell phones. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay higher cell bills as a result.


I have a real problem with free luxury services being classified as a "civil right." Health care, maybe. Housing assistance pisses me off, but at least it keeps people off the street. But cell phones? WTF?



> Recently, a federal government program called the Universal Service Fund came to the Keystone State and some residents are thrilled because it means they can enjoy 250 minutes a month and a handset for free, just because they don't have the money to pay for it. Through Assurance Wireless and SafeLink from Tracfone Wireless these folks get to reach out and touch someone while the cost of their service is paid for by everyone else. You see, the telecommunications companies are funding the Universal Service Fund to the tune of $4 billion a year because the feds said they have to and in order to recoup their money, the companies turn around and hike their fees to paying customers.


That's lovely. Government is using private industry to redistribute our wealth. Kudos, Obama.



> But those of use paying for the free service for the poor, should be happy about this infuriating situation, says Gary Carter, manager of national partnerships for Assurance, because "the program is about peace of mind." Free cell service means "one less bill that someone has to pay, so they can pay their rent or for day care...it is a right to have peace of mind," Cater explained.


Yeah Gary, it makes me sleep a whole lot better at night knowing that my cell service is more expensive so that someone can enjoy a luxury at no cost to them. If people are really making a decision between paying their rent or paying their cell phone bill, they need a forceful realignment of their priorities.


----------



## Exengineer (Aug 3, 2011)

Free cell phones for the poor is still a less expensive option than a free university education for the poor so they can get, for example, an engineering degree and watch their job get shipped out to China or Mexico and end up poor anyway.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 3, 2011)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Hooray for free cell phones!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For once, we agree on something. Mostly. I do think housing assistance needs be expanded.

Free cell service is ridiculous. It's an extravagance; cell phones are *not* required to live in the modern era, period - I don't have one, yet somehow I manage to survive.

More importantly, the phones are likely to be stolen, traded or sold on the street.

Now - if you want to give a phone *card*, or better yet supply a free answering service of some sort, we can talk. In the modern economy, nobody legit - including McDonalds - will hire someone without access to a phone. But that's the only even semi-legitimate concern I can see.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 3, 2011)

Exengineer said:


> Free cell phones for the poor is still a less expensive option than a free university education for the poor so they can get, for example, an engineering degree and watch their job get shipped out to China or Mexico and end up poor anyway.


When your only argument is a hammer, every topic looks like a nail, eh Exengineer?


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 4, 2011)

Cut him some slack. He's Canadian.


----------



## csb (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> For once, we agree on something. Mostly. I do think housing assistance needs be expanded.
> Free cell service is ridiculous. It's an extravagance; cell phones are *not* required to live in the modern era, period - I don't have one, yet somehow I manage to survive.
> 
> More importantly, the phones are likely to be stolen, traded or sold on the street.
> ...


Free phone service has been available since the 1930s. Technology is changing such that the average American household has a cell phone, rather than a landline. The program is simply reflecting that. I don't get where you think they will use a phone card...at those abundant pay phones that are on every corner? If you need a phone number to get hired, it seems a lot cheaper to continue this program than to put someone on welfare. I don't know how much you think a Tracfone will get on the street, but it's not much. Also, if access to health care is so important, how is someone supposed to call for an ambulance in an emergency?

I don't view it as a luxury and I've ALWAYS paid for this one. Always! It's nothing new!


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 4, 2011)

Why does one need a cell phone? What about it is so much more reliable than a landline? The free cell phone deal is an absolute joke.


----------



## csb (Aug 4, 2011)

Just for the sake of argument, how long do you envision everyone still having traditional landlines in their homes? I'm imagining providing a cell phone is cheaper than a landline at this point.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Why does one need a cell phone? What about it is so much more reliable than a landline? The free cell phone deal is an absolute joke.


Some people *gasp* don't have homes.

Those people could use cell phones easier than they use landlines.

As for the comment about abundant streetcorner pay phones.. no, they're not as abundant as they used to be, but I can name 5 locations with them within walking distance of my home and 5 more within walking distance of my office. The phones wouldn't be stolen/sold for cash because they're valuable in and of themselves - they'll be traded to drug dealers, pimps and hookers for an "untraceable" style of phone call.

As with any sort of government support program, the ideal isn't to provide perfect support... it's to provide enough support to do what needs doing, while making it unpleasant enough that you want to get off the system. That's where I disagree with food stamps - don't hand those out, spend a bit of cash developing cheap, alternatives that fit every dietary need (like MREs, except with allergen-free varieties) and hand those out instead. If every meal is identically bad, it encourages people to get jobs (better or otherwise). Of course, I also disagree with straight-up welfare for the unemployed; give them *jobs*, not welfare. Have them wander around the city cleaning up graffiti, or cleaning up the sides of roads, or doing construction, or provide a replacement for the "migrating work force" that handles agricultural work. Anything, so long as it's either hard work or provides training so they can get a better job.

(Sorry for going a bit far afield there)


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 4, 2011)

Forever. Unless you live a booming large city cell phone signal gets crappy out in the country as does the response systems. A 911 call from a cell with no other info can only get emergency personel to the vacinity of the tower from which the call was made. It will not get them the address of the house. land lines will also work without electricity...provided you have a non digital phone somewhere in the house.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 4, 2011)

csb said:


> Just for the sake of argument, how long do you envision everyone still having traditional landlines in their homes? I'm imagining providing a cell phone is cheaper than a landline at this point.


With just a quick and dirty Google search, I found that the cheapest landline plan is $14.95/mo. from AT&amp;T. The cheapest cell phone plan I could find was $35 from Cricket. Not to mention the fact that unsubsidized cell phone handsets are significantly more expensive than land line phones.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

snickerd3 said:


> Forever. Unless you live a booming large city cell phone signal gets crappy out in the country as does the response systems. A 911 call from a cell with no other info can only get emergency personel to the vacinity of the tower from which the call was made. It will not get them the address of the house. land lines will also work without electricity...provided you have a non digital phone somewhere in the house.


Actually my understanding is that the cell call thing is no longer true. All cells are supposed to have GPS trackers in them now, that activate when they are making 911 calls. Though I imagine that this feature will be removed from any cheap-use phone to reduce overhead.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one need a cell phone? What about it is so much more reliable than a landline? The free cell phone deal is an absolute joke.
> ...


Do they live in a f'ing box? Even if they do, are they going to charge their cell phone off the magical outlet on one of the box flaps? Come on, gimme a break.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Master slacker said:
> ...


No, they live in shelters, sometimes staying at a different one each night. I have a friend that is doing this while attending a fairly expensive college - she lost her part-time nursing job because her patient (a relative) went insane and needed better care than she could provide.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Karen S. P.E. said:
> ...


the shelters have phones as well as people (gov't paid employees as well as volunteers) thje "residents" don't need their own phones to call for help.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> No, they live in shelters, sometimes staying at a different one each night. I have a friend that is doing this while attending a fairly expensive college - she lost her part-time nursing job because her patient (a relative) went insane and needed better care than she could provide.


You seem to have an anecdote for every entitlement program. I just have trouble finding any empathy for your protagonists.


----------



## picusld (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Karen S. P.E. said:
> ...


it is never the homeless person's fault for being homeless...

Advice to friend...

Join military which will pay for school and put a roof over her head.

Probably easier to be a victim though...


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Of course, I also disagree with straight-up welfare for the unemployed; give them *jobs*, not welfare. Have them wander around the city cleaning up graffiti, or cleaning up the sides of roads, or doing construction, or provide a replacement for the "migrating work force" that handles agricultural work. Anything, so long as it's either hard work or provides training so they can get a better job.


Ever hear the phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"?


----------



## csb (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> No, they live in shelters, sometimes staying at a different one each night. I have a friend that is doing this while attending a fairly expensive college - she lost her part-time nursing job because her patient (a relative) went insane and needed better care than she could provide.


:blink:

I'm going to take the bait. What is your friend studying? Was it really a part-time nursing job, or was she taking care of an ill relative and living there for free?

EDIT: Hold on, I've seen this one. Is your friend hoping for a walk-on spot at Notre Dame?


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

MA_PE said:


> the shelters have phones as well as people (gov't paid employees as well as volunteers) thje "residents" don't need their own phones to call for help.


Somehow this sounds familiar, as though I'd suggested it (or a variation thereof) earlier.



wilheldp_PE said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > No, they live in shelters, sometimes staying at a different one each night. I have a friend that is doing this while attending a fairly expensive college - she lost her part-time nursing job because her patient (a relative) went insane and needed better care than she could provide.
> ...


Nah, I just know a diverse bunch of people online. Between my hobbies, my friends and their hobbies, there's not a lot of groups I don't have direct or indirect contact with.



picusld said:


> it is never the homeless person's fault for being homeless...
> Advice to friend...
> 
> Join military which will pay for school and put a roof over her head.
> ...


Actually, I think she's an Army brat (or at least has a lot of family in the army) - she tried to join up, but was unable to do so for medical reasons.



csb said:


> :blink:
> I'm going to take the bait. What is your friend studying? Was it really a part-time nursing job, or was she taking care of an ill relative and living there for free?


She's training to become a counselor. And it wasn't nursing, sorry, it was caretaking. She was working through an agency though, both before and after - she lost her apt in the time between jobs, and hasn't been able to replace it since.


----------



## picusld (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> She's training to become a counselor. And it wasn't nursing, sorry, it was caretaking. She was working through an agency though, both before and after - she lost her apt in the time between jobs, and hasn't been able to replace it since.


So going to an expensive school to make 25k a year at graduation?

Really?

I am sure that when she can't pay her school loans, that won't be her fault either...


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

picusld said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > She's training to become a counselor. And it wasn't nursing, sorry, it was caretaking. She was working through an agency though, both before and after - she lost her apt in the time between jobs, and hasn't been able to replace it since.
> ...


No, she's working on a subspecialty of counseling - she'll probably make rather more than that if she wants to (though I don't think she does; she's more of a "help people to help people" kind of person). Though I think she mostly has grants and scholarships, not loans.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 4, 2011)

Good grief. You DO have an anecdote for everything.

Staying at different shelters every night.

You know everybody online and know intimate details of each of their lives.

Army potential, but refused for medical reasons (unknown, evidently...)

Going to expensive school to be a counselor. Not a low-paid one, but a specialist. What type, pray tell?

Probably will make a modest income, but has scholarships and grants, the whiz-bang response for "Need to justify an expensive school choice for modest income potential degree" inquiries.

:huh:


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Good grief. You DO have an anecdote for everything.
> Staying at different shelters every night.
> 
> You know everybody online and know intimate details of each of their lives.
> ...


I know, I'm weird - I actually pay attention to my friend's FB posts. (I have 92 FB friends between two accounts and 519 people in circles on G+ ... with very little overlap)

*I* do not remember what the reason they turned her away for was. She would have been DADT'd out in any case.

She actually isn't staying at different shelters every night. She's only been bounced to 5 or 6 different ones in the past month, and has spent a few nights out of them.

She's going to a private *religious* school... I assume it's expensive. This, incidentally, is why I'm trying to be a bit cagey; she's afraid that if her school (a conservative one) finds out her orientation they will throw her out, and no other school will recognize her religious credits. She's seemed confident that she can make it if she can just survive school. Since she hasn't mentioned loans in her various comments about how her life is going but *has* written about having to file grant/scholarship paperwork, I'm assuming she doesn't have much in the way of loans.


----------



## CbusPaul (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen, I've got to ask if you believe that the government should help pay for the healthcare costs brought on by your sex change.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

CbusPaul said:


> Karen, I've got to ask if you believe that the government should help pay for the healthcare costs brought on by your sex change.


Well, it's rather a bit off topic, but if you want to go there we can.

Depends on what you mean by "the government", and depends on the specific line items. My ideal system is one where a nearly fully-transparent government insurance plan is available, one that the people can oversee to ensure that it is paying the minimum possible for the required treatments, but is required to be available to everyone. Competing with other insurance companies would need to, well, compete. This would prevent the system from being overloaded by those that can't pay, and if it's open enough it will expose the industry's practices as unethical. Currently, I have insurance - and I pay more in direct healthcare costs per year because of the insurance than I would without it (that is, doctors charge me twice what they would charge people without insurance... even though I don't hit the deductible most of the time). If an organization can't compete with the government by offering a superior product... then why are they in business?

Do I think that they should pay for medicines? Yes. The ones I'm on are cheap ($13.33/30 days for one, $10/30 for the other), but many trans people have health issues that require they use injections (which are healthier in general) instead.

Do I think they should pay for therapy? Probably. Again, this is a relatively low-cost item, and quite frankly improves lives and attitudes on a level that others simply cannot understand.

Do I think they should pay for major appearance issues? Maybe - I'm specifically thinking electrolysis or laser hair removal on the face here. Getting rid of that is vital to any MtF trans person; it's the single biggest easily correctable issue that clocks us.

Do I think they should pay for minor appearance issues? Probably not. Here I'm thinking hair removal of the rest of the body (just wear some clothes), breast implants (let them grow, and wear falsies in the meantime), "tracheal shave" (eliminates the adam's apple), and other general appearance issues.

Should they pay for clothing/mannerism training/voice training? No.

Should they pay for SRS (reassignment surgery)? Here, it varies. I think that Orchiectomies (removal of the testicles) should be covered, since it provides a vast reduction in the dangers involved in the medicines (the anti-androgen is the most damaging medicine we take, and Orchi removes the need for it). The remainder of the process is a bit different - the question is, is it reconstructive (like post-mastectomy breast enhancement), therapeutic (like tonsil removal or gastric bypasses for a morbidly obese person), or is it cosmetic (like breast implants). To me, it's a combination of reconstructive and therapeutic - and that, to me, indicates that it's a medical necessity *for me*.

Incidentally, the IRS will allow me to write it off on my taxes, after a court case determined that it was a valid medical expense. Which indicates that this issue has, in a way, already been decided.


----------



## CbusPaul (Aug 4, 2011)

I would take almost the exact opposite view in that none of that should be paid. While I respect your choice, I believe it is just that, a choice and no entity should be required to pay for the treatment and care of that choice.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

CbusPaul said:


> I would take almost the exact opposite view in that none of that should be paid. While I respect your choice, I believe it is just that, a choice and no entity should be required to pay for the treatment and care of that choice.


Whereas I would take the view that it's no more a choice than a cleft palate is. It's a birth defect. It's just a less obvious birth defect. Edit: I'd also argue that it's better to spend the money on things that will actually fix the issue - I could take antidepressants that don't work that the insurance will pay for, or the meds that they won't pay for that actually come close to fixing the issue.


----------



## CbusPaul (Aug 4, 2011)

I can see that point of view as well. I didn't think the question was off-topic as the conversation was related to the role of government and what is a luxury versus what is a necessity.


----------



## csb (Aug 4, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Do I think they should pay for major appearance issues? Maybe - I'm specifically thinking electrolysis or laser hair removal on the face here. Getting rid of that is vital to any MtF trans person; it's the single biggest easily correctable issue that clocks us.


Getting rid of that is also vital to most women, yet I can't see paying for it under healthcare. Common side effect of PCOS is unwanted facial hair, but laser hair removal isn't an insurable option. That, to me, seems like a luxury.


----------



## willsee (Aug 4, 2011)

With all the Latinos immigrating I can see facial hair removal on the rise.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 4, 2011)

csb said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Do I think they should pay for major appearance issues? Maybe - I'm specifically thinking electrolysis or laser hair removal on the face here. Getting rid of that is vital to any MtF trans person; it's the single biggest easily correctable issue that clocks us.
> ...


I know multiple people with PCOS, so I know all about that pain. And yeah, you'll notice I put "maybe". It's an order-of-magnitude as well as a general appearance issue though; a MtF trans person, even after many laser treatments, will frequently still have as much or more hair as a PCOS sufferer. One person I know spent close to two years getting monthly treatments before she stopped shaving twice daily. Still, I agree that for the most part Laser shouldn't be covered. The facial hair is the only exception I might make, and that'd only be if PCOS treatments were covered. Which, by the way, some insurers supposedly do cover.


----------



## Transpo_Girl (Aug 23, 2011)

CbusPaul said:


> Karen, I've got to ask if you believe that the government should help pay for the healthcare costs brought on by your sex change.



gee thanks....


----------



## CbusPaul (Aug 23, 2011)

^^^Not sure I understand what you're getting at.


----------



## Transpo_Girl (Aug 24, 2011)

I think most people probably could have done without reading his/her response


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

Transpo_Girl said:


> I think most people probably could have done without reading his/her response


Fixed.

And yeah, I probably should have put a spoiler tag and forced highlighting or something, for those that don't care to know the specifics. Not sure how to do it on this forum software. Or, hey, people that didn't want to read it could have skipped over the response.

And one wonders why you are choosing to call attention to it at this point. It's been almost 3 weeks since the original post?

Edit: And not to bring back the subject... but even Iran helps pay for operations for SRS. *IRAN*.


----------



## Undertaker (Aug 24, 2011)

I am here for the funny pics thread but this one is f'ing funny too.


----------



## csb (Aug 24, 2011)

Fixed


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

csb said:


> Fixed


I'd assumed someone would go there, but that picture is hilarious.


----------

