This statement irritates me though.  If they can't pay then they shouldn't do anything other than work, come home and wait to go back to work. No phone, no cable, fuck it man a car is a goddamn luxury.

It's not a right to have a car, a cell phone, cable god damn t.v. People are soft anymore, and seem more and more that they are entitled to the good life. Or even the so-so life. You're not. Get off your ass and go to work, or if it's legitimate, get the disability you damn well better deserve. I cannot believe there's a government program out there to give everyone under a certain income a cell phone. How can that be an inalienable right when no one had them 40 years ago? Some of you need to pick up a dictionary, or talk to your elders about what life used to be like, and realize just how good you have it now.

************

No one that I know that is poor thinks they are "entitled" to the "good life". They do however think they should be able to AFFORD health insurance. There's a huge difference to feeling entitled and wanting to be able to even afford basic coverage.

Nor did I say it was a right to have a car, cellphone, or cable tv. But when one or two people on here have made the point that people without insurance are running around with cable tv, cellphones and internet, then my point still stands. All of those together cost less in a month than a weeks worth of insurance coverage. There may be cheaper plans out there, but they offer so little coverage and such high copays, you may as well just say the hell with it and hope you don't get sick.

But just like I expect from someone like you, you act like everyone who doesn't have a ton of money must not work hard enough. Guess what, not all garbage men make $50,000 a year. In fact, most of them don't. I know a great many people just scraping by who work their fingers to the bone. Lack of money does not equal lack of hard work. To even insinuate that is stupid.

And this is what I found about the government program to provide cell phones:

Now those people are getting help from the federal government. Lifeline Across America was a federally funded program passed by Congress in 1996 to make sure every U.S. household has telephone service. Recently, the government expanded the plan to include cell phones.

Every family at poverty level or below, already receiving food stamps or other federal assistance programs can qualify for one phone per family.

The government provides a free cell phone, 68 minutes a month and unlimited 911 calls.

The reasoning behind the program was so that these people, who typically could not afford phone service, would be able to have a phone for emergency services. On a regular land line, they give you $30 for installation and a discount of $13.50 per month. It's only good for your primary phone.

Here's a link that explains what it is and how it's subsidized. I'm not 100% sure I agree with all of it, but it wasn't done just to give them phones. It had a clear purpose.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS181753+05-Feb-2009+BW2009 0205

Also here is a link with more information. And as you can clearly see, it's not quite as free as you make it out to be.

http://www.lifeline.gov/lifeline_Consumers.html

The program was originally started in 1984, by the FCC during the Reagan administration.

Rich,

It's not just 30 million new customers -- most of whom are young and in good health and statistically will pay more into the system than services they will receive. You've likely got another 30 million plus who were under-insured (not by choice but due to economic circumstances, we are told) and will now be able to buy a superior insurance product on the government's dime.

Meanwhile, nothing has been done to reduce the cost of health services, save the aforementioned decreases in Medicare reimbursements to doctors and a reduction in Medicare payments to hospitals.

Now, of course, the fix may be in with a handshake deal between the Obama administration and the insurance companies that in return for all these new customers and expensive premiums, the insurance companies will restrict medical reimbursements as well, thus artificially reducing the cost of healthcare, the rise in premium prices and the cost to government. Under that scenario, you will have fewer doctors spending time with their patients and more adopting a medi-center / doc in a box / walk-in clinic approach of three minute visits and a volume-based business model. Admittedly, this is all conjecture on my part, but the reasoning is sound if the dynamic plays out.

It's not just 30 million new customers -- most of whom are young and in good health and statistically will pay more into the system than services they will receive.

-------------------------

And that's precisely what insurance companies need!  They're a business, not a charity.

And that's precisely what insurance companies need!  They're a business, not a charity.

Which, coincidentially, is precisely the inverse of the relationship which the Federal Government has to flood insurance (i.e. low premiums, limited customer base, high payouts). In that case, they are not a business BUT a charity.