early@tonto.DEC (the higher we climb, the better the view) (01/06/86)
Newsgroups: net.consumers Path: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs Subject: Re: Long Distance >>...add the coming rate increases for my >>basic service and for *forced* charity I begin to wonder if I >>really need a telephone. >The thought, for example, of an elderly or invalid person not being >able to afford a phone and hence access to emergency services should >be disturbing, it is not a consumer issue except perhaps to the hard >of heart. >Sorry, but I find views like this disturbing. I find views like this disturbing, for these reasons: 1) If I understand you correctly, if very old and very poor people are granted free 'basic' telephone service; that means every old and indigent person will be entitled to 'their' personal free phone, regardless of their living arrangements. ( I am extending the logic, because in places like Massachusetts 'free' services tend to become extended,and it's the working class that tends to pay the bills, along with the TAXABLE corporations. I highlight taxable, because BU isn't. 2) Under what conditions do you propose "free" phone service ? 3) I think the issue is to complex to be adequately discussed in a few lines at everyone elses' expense. I think you have a good idea, but I think it should be tied to TOTAL assets, and the phone must be directed to something like a 911 number, and not permit any calls except emergency calls, to prevent systematic abuses. (Maybe this belongs in net.med.pay.pay.pay) >crushing pain in your chest you better have a $10 bill in your hand >when you knock on *my* door to call for help. >-Barry Shein, Boston University This sounds like you are a medical doctor. The latest fad is not to treat patients you haven't previously qualified, unless employed in the ER at a local hospital. I've also been denied treatment (for a very sick child) at my *favorite* clinic because I didn't have the $20.00 to pay in advance. Newsgroups: net.consumers Path: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs Subject: Re: Cheap copies of brand-name perfumes >the govt. that allows them to lie about this. This is true even >of expensive, big name perfumes (I heard from an old-timer that . . >at IFF, that the coffee industry was granted that little lie during >WWII to keep people happy with second-rate coffee and no one has A recent news release comes to mind when I read this aspect about the perfume industry. The release has to do with two drugs, both of which I am more than familiar as a user. The two drugs are: Darvon, and Dimetapp. When the drug companies seemed to have an exclusivity of marketing share, they were only available by prescription, and even with the advent of many generic brands, they were still only available by prescription... for awhile. The news release, is paraphrased as follows: " Dimetapp and Darvon will now be available as over the counter drugs" . Neat ! Sort of kills profits for the generic manufacturers. As I understand it, these "drugs" were only available by prescription (according to FDA). Now that they've been proliferated as a generic drug, it's now safe enough for counter sales everywhere. Does the FDA and certain drug companies make deals ? Makes me wonder. Like, what happened to the 'hot dog ingredients' on their label ? bob early (Dec E-Net) TONTO::EARLY) (UUCP) decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!tonto!early "I laugh, lest I cry " -anon.-
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (01/08/86)
From: early@tonto.DEC (the higher we climb, the better the view) >1) If I understand you correctly, if very old and very poor people are >granted free 'basic' telephone service; that means every old and >indigent person will be entitled to 'their' personal free phone, >regardless of their living arrangements. ( I am extending the logic, >because in places like Massachusetts 'free' services tend to become >extended,and it's the working class that tends to pay the bills, along >with the TAXABLE corporations. I highlight taxable, because BU isn't. You are right, you are confused. This was a consumer issue and was about a charge being tagged onto phone bills to aid the indigent. AT&T is *not* the IRS, so your comment about TAXABLE is irrelevant. Also, remember, BU as a tax-free university as you mention is on the receiving end of that pie and would gladly kick their grandmother down a flight of stairs before losing out on a piece of that pie to pay her phone bill :-) More to the point, we also pay phone bills. More to the point, you are silly if you think my opinions likely have much to do with the tax status of the company I work for, I doubt yours do either (you probably don't even know what the tax status of DEC is, neither do they probably.) If taxes and/or charities are not to come from either those who work or the corporations they work for, then where in the heck *might* they come from? Don't bother, I understand, you weren't to be taken seriously. If you do not think that Universities have traditionally, BU included, provided at least as much benefit to the society as paying their taxes would have that is too bad, but again, an entirely different issue. >2) Under what conditions do you propose "free" phone service ? If the implication is that because we see it is complicated to adjudge the truly needy we should therefore allow them to starve rather than possibly make the error of letting a nickel slip into an undeserving hand I am quite certain you *are* having trouble with such decisions. Leave it to others and just pay your bills. I suspect a reasonably workable solution to this could be worked out and yes, horrors, an efficient system would allow some abusers, otherwise you are probably paying most of the money to bureaucrats triple-checking cases rather than getting anything to the needy at all (we approach this situation in our welfare system.) A common error of people is to confuse moral and economic concerns, guaranteeing no abusers of a charity system is a common example of this, sorry, thems da breaks, it aint a perfect world. No one will ever build a perfect charity disbursement system until the recipients are the source of the honesty and in such a world I doubt charity would be necessary (it would be a utopia.) Until then, we do what we can and hope the balance is in 'our' favor (that is, a high percentage of them that gets are needy.) It is unfortunate how the press has fanned these flames of 'welfare cheats', personally I think we have worse problems in this world than charity abuse. >3) I think the issue is to complex to be adequately discussed in a few >lines at everyone elses' expense. But you couldn't restrain yourself? >I think you have a good idea, but I think it should be tied to TOTAL >assets, and the phone must be directed to something like a 911 number, >and not permit any calls except emergency calls, to prevent systematic >abuses. agreed, but again you are back to how to administer rather than the existence of charity which is what the original note was about. In some desperate attempt to draw this back to the original issue, it was a consumer gripe about attaching a subsidy to phone bills to aid the indigent. I think my point was that of all the consumer abuses going on getting all fired up about the possibility of paying for a phone for some such person didn't seem worth the adrenalin regardless of possible abuses (other than finding out the phone company actually put it all into a good mutual fund, which is probably what will happen, groan.) Oh well, enough. Onwards to poisoned baby's dolls, now there's an abuse! -Barry Shein, Boston University
sasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty Sasaki) (01/08/86)
I believe that New England Telephone (a NYNEX company) provides phone
service for the poor (regardless of age, all you have to do is show
that you can't afford to pay) at a very basic level. You have to pay
for your phone calls (message units), but the telephone, and the line
are free.
I feel that this is reasonable and am happy to be contributing.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138drp@ptsfb.UUCP (Dale Pederson) (01/09/86)
Pacific Bell offers "Universal Lifeline Service". Customers with a total household income of less than $11,500 per year can qualify for the discounted monthly service charge. Rates are adjusted to reflect the Consumer Price Index. In California anyone qualified can get this basic service. It is currently in the neighborhood of $4.50 per month. The service provided is essentially the same as the normal basic residence receives.