Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the actually...599-IS-prime dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday March 09 2018, @03:23PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 09 2018, @03:23PM (#650011)

    Cases 1 and 2 imply property tax funding for medical care. Its a direct relationship.

    Case 1 virtually all non-ER care my elderly ancestors get comes from the closest provider, and only 1/3 of the US people have jobs, so for 2/3 of the population, closest provider will always be closest to home, where you pay prop tax.

    Case 2 if your transportation system is sub-par or your residents are shitty people, the ER is going to get a lot of incoming trauma patients. Suburbs not so much.

    As far as socialism BS arguments, health care boils down to the same argument as everything else in the local prop tax budget, everyone living here gets what they paid for, however high or low. Parks and rec, schools, police, fire, DOT, etc. Essentially we're already implemented this except with numerous well paid middlemen and we refuse to do it directly, so we do stealth prop tax by billing everyone who lives here for the local monopoly hospital provider via W-2 paycheck deductions, which is a stupid way to pay a property tax.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday March 09 2018, @05:41PM

    by HiThere (866) on Friday March 09 2018, @05:41PM (#650109) Journal

    There's some legitimacy to your argument, but you'll need to take it up with the supreme court. They decided that cities and counties could not have a residency requirement for social support services.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.