SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amazon launches a low-cost version of Prime for Medicaid recipients
Amazon announced this morning it will offer a low-cost version of its Prime membership program to qualifying recipients of Medicaid. The program will bring the cost of Prime down from the usual $10.99 per month to about half that, at $5.99 per month, while still offering the full range of Prime perks, including free, two-day shipping on millions of products, Prime Video, Prime Music, Prime Photos, Prime Reading, Prime Now, Audible Channels, and more.
The new program is an expansion on Amazon's discounted Prime service for customers on government assistance, launched in June 2017. For the same price of $5.99 per month, Amazon offers Prime memberships to any U.S. customer with a valid EBT card – the card that's used to disburse funds for assistance programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program (WIC).
It could be a way to get users with certain health care requirements on board before Amazon launches its own health insurance company.
Also at USA Today.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:58PM (15 children)
Medicaid recipients are required to have less than $2000 in liquid assets, and some ridiculously low income, and Amazon thinks it's a good idea to sponge $71.88 per year from these people so they can get faster free shipping?
What this really is is a program for Medicaid recipients to sign up for Amazon Prime cheaply so that other people can buy things through their account.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:18PM (5 children)
I have a beyond elderly Uncle-in-law on medicaid in assisted living, no particular reason, just old in many ways, anyway, your argument seems to be that its bad that Amazon will accept less money in exchange for one of his prime-less nephews visiting him more often. I mean, you clearly think there's a problem so expand on it?
Taking your side of the argument to see if I understand it, I'll concede the point that being nearly immobile, he's in more of a monopoly situation than a Prime subscriber like myself, because I can drive to Walgreens in about five minutes anytime I want, but for someone with my UiL's mobility going to the store would be like me entering a marathon, so they're probably going to abuse the monopoly position into ridiculous higher prices. Good luck getting me to pay $15 for a hundred advil pills, but my UiL being immobile would have to cough up the cash or do without.
Ironically that argument sounds like an amazon commercial in that the best way, maybe the only way, to make sure my UiL isn't screwed over would be for me to continue to do business with amazon while holding their feet to the fire WRT prices. Go ahead Amazon, make my day, try to charge $15 for a hundred advil, I'll get pissed off enough to drive to walgreens and buy two bottles, one for me and one for my UiL... Hell I'll make walgreens even more profit and buy him two bottles, old people love to hoard, its not a problem.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:59PM
I KNOW you are quite literate. But, man, that first sentence? There's nothing funny about what you're saying, but you appear to be a little worked up. :^)
Alright - on topic. I'm with you. Becoming a Prime member may well make some people captive audiences. Personally, I've resisted the occasional urge to join.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:57PM (3 children)
I've done the "prime trial" twice now, and the things it did for me were:
1) got things to my door a few days faster, sometimes.
2) access to "Prime Pantry" and their movie service
3) enticed me to spend more money at Amazon, which we all know is the real purpose of Prime - regardless of price.
>123 $5.99 per month, from people who already don't have enough money to make ends meet, just so they can access some basically premium services that nobody really needs? That's my point. I would approve if it were free, but this is like the old George Carlin joke about overdraft charges at the bank: "charging you more of what they already know you don't have enough of..."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:18PM (2 children)
Prime used to be just a bit faster for me. Now, Amazon holds everything I order for a week before shipping and then ships it in a day. I'm assuming economies of scale and efficiency are the reasons behind this, but I fucking hate Amazon for it and go out of my way and pay higher prices just to spend my money elsewhere.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday March 09 2018, @03:30PM
I admit I've noticed the std deviation creep up over the years, in the old days, "two day shipping" meant "two days" but now it seems to mean "sometimes free same day if over $25, sometimes next week, but it averages out to two days".
To some extent it doesn't matter, if I need it right now, like we're out of toilet paper, then I can't Amazon, but if I merely need it soon, then a few days here, a few days there, it doesn't matter.
What they have not waffled and redefined yet is it remains true its like an insurance policy that you'll never pay UPS or whomever more than $X per year, ever. I'd drop it like a hot potatoe if they started randomly charging for prime or for shipping based on their dice rolling.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Friday March 09 2018, @03:45PM
Well, that's been my experience as well. I'm pretty sure that their argument is "fuck you, get Prime or wait like back in 1995". Personally, I don't care, if I really need something, I go to a store. And in 99.99% of the cases, I don't need it that bad, that soon. My wife signed up for Prime and loves it but I haven't yet. I still order from my account and she always wonders how I can live without Prime :D. The one advantage for the target population is that they can have stuff without a minimum purchase amount to be eligible for free shipping. If you really want to be nice, just give those people free shipping without Prime, that'll be a real nice move.
I like having the choice of going somewhere else. One day, when all we have left is Amazon, people will be like "WTF, Amazon are a mean company that takes advantage of its monopoly!". But the thing is that if that ever happens, it will be because we will have handed them the keys. Short-term, pure price-driven decisions are not usually a good thing for the long term. This is a moot point for those who cannot afford to pay more, but for those who can, I think it's worth considering.
On the other hand, I don't like getting shafted when I go to a store. So sometimes, I do buy from Amazon because it is literally 50% cheaper. Thankfully, Amazon now behaves more like a regular store: sometimes you'll see that some items are actually a lot more expensive on Amazon than in the store so that helps too :). They just count on the fact that you buy one cheaper you won't mind one for a lot more.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:44PM (8 children)
Isn't it also true that people with less money / assets / income are less likely to own a car? And that people without a car in the USA have real difficulty getting to the big out-of-town shops where the best prices are, and even more difficulty difficulty transporting heavy purchases (such as a week's worth of groceries) home again? And don't Amazon sell groceries nowadays?
If I was a poor person in America, and I didn't own a car, I would be giving serious consideration to this as a way of getting cheap necessities delivered for almost free.
Furthermore, if I were poor but DID own a car, I would be seriously looking at whether this service would allow me to ditch the expense of owning a car altogether. If I could get to work on the bus (or didn't work at all) and lived within walking distance of family & friends, then why not?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:09PM (1 child)
Maybe in limited markets like Seattle... Amazon Prime Pantry is no substitute for a grocery store.
Nice thought, but Amazon (for me) is mostly a way to stay out of the shopping malls - premium luxury optional goods, not a reliable or complete or particularly cost-competitive source of "essentials."
Back in 2002, our local (serving a 300 mile radius) grocery chain trialed an internet shopping direct delivery to the home program - we had a new baby and participated heavily, probably >90% of our groceries came by direct delivery over a 6 month period. I think they charged $10 per order, but frequently ran specials for free or much reduced delivery fees. Their minimum order was $50, but we tried to keep our minimum closer to $200 to cut down on the delivery fee percentage. They drove a refrigerated truck direct from the distribution center (200 miles away) to our neighborhood and brought the groceries into the house. I wish that program were still running, it really could enable some people to get rid of their car. Groceries are the essentials of life - not books, DVDs, electronic gadgets, etc. Amazon Prime Pantry does deliver some groceries to most of the US, but not enough to really live off of. They also have a couple of trial markets for full grocery delivery, but less than 1% of the US population is served by those.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:06PM
Here where I live, Safeway, Sprouts, and I think King Soopers all offer home delivery of food.
Sprouts promises a 1 hour delivery time I believe.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:27PM (5 children)
People in America need cars because they think they need cars, not because they actually do. How do I know this? Because there are many other places in the world where people manage without cars. I once saw an entire dining room set, including the table and all six chairs, being pedaled down the road on a cyclo in Saigon. In Beijing, I've seen cargo bikes resupplying grocery stores. In NYC, all kinds of immigrants get around perfectly well with bikes, even e-bikes, because they can't legally drive. When I was a kid, living in the Rockies, I worked with a bunch of guys who were all part of the local cycling club; they laughed and laughed at all the suffering drivers during one of the oil shocks because none of it affected them (and those guys biked year round up and down mountains, through all weather).
I have a car, and like having a car. But it's not necessary.
At the end of the day, Americans especially could use more exercise, and the way things are going they really ought to ditch their cars and put all the money they'd accordingly save into investments for retirement, because god knows Social Security will have been sucked dry long before the Baby Boomers are done.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:50PM (4 children)
I have seen an entire kitchen's worth of cabinets and other furniture being transported on a gondola down a canal. So, using your logic, we can use gondolas for all our transport needs?
Just because something works in one country, doesn't mean it will work in another.
For many people, the options are: travel by car or ... can't get there. Bikes are not a viable solution for many people*. The real reason for this is that public transport is underfunded in the USA. Would you care to do something about that?
* The USA has developed with the assumption of motorized transport being almost universally available. The US is not like most other countries in this respect.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 08 2018, @10:29PM (3 children)
You're right. My mistake. Bikes totally can't travel on solid ground called roads. Also, other countries have a compound called oxygen in the air that humans can breathe. The United States only has methane, so people totally couldn't breathe outside a car.
JFC, it's not that Americans cannot bike, it's that they won't. The average commute is 23 miles. A person can bike that. Given the traffic in the Tri-State area (and many other places), a person on a bicycle would very often get home faster on a bike than sitting in a car. Also, they'd save time because they wouldn't need to make an extra trip to a gym.
We don't have to speculate or theorize how life would be possible without cars, because those places already exist and function rather well. I myself lived in Japan, no Third World, pre-industrial nation, and never had a need for a car despite travelling all over the prefecture from the cities to the middle of the rice paddies on a daily basis.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 08 2018, @10:41PM (1 child)
Most of Japan has much better public transport than most of the USA. Or are you claiming that you cycled everywhere?
A lot of people in the USA commute on limited-access highways (freeways or tollways) and there isn't a viable route for bikes.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 09 2018, @02:36PM
I did cycle everywhere. I was in Saga Prefecture on Kyushu. It was quite rural. There was no subway. There was a light rail spur that connected Nagasaki to Fukuoka, but didn't fan out into the prefecture. Buses were infrequent.
There is even less room for bikes in Japan than there is in the United States, yet I biked everywhere. Most roads don't even have shoulders you can ride on, much less bike paths. Very often there is an abrupt edge to the road and a 2-3 foot drop into a rice paddy. Riding at night can therefore be quite tricky, with no street lights or nearby homes to light your way, only ambient light on the horizon, starlight, or a bike light.
In short, there's no real excuse for Americans to not bike more. They just don't want to, or they've been brainwashed by generations of Detroit's advertising into thinking cycling is incredibly impossible or dangerous. If you throw in aftermarket e-bike kits that are common now, there's even less excuse.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:48PM
It's not allowed to bike or walk on many highways in the US (yes even on the shoulder). So yeah, I can walk and get some places, but to leave the state or even travel to another town in my county, I absolutely have to have a car or I'm breaking the law, as well as rising life and limb trying to cross 6 70mph lanes. Living without a vehicle means being corralled and having very few options for anything.