By skyforbes 
This morning Amazon announced it would discount its Prime membership option for Medicaid recipients from roughly $10.99 per month to $5.99 per month. In the announcement, and in videos like the one below, Amazon highlighted how this might help recipients who could not get to stores easily in rural areas or for whom going to a store is difficult (people with disabilities or mobility problems). This was an expansion of Amazon’s existing discount program for people receiving government assistance.
As summarized by TechCrunch:
While it seems like online shopping — and especially a Prime membership — should be a luxury for those who can afford the convenience, Amazon and other retailers are increasingly seeing it as something that should be broadly accessible to all.
For low-income customers, online stores can sometimes have the best prices, compared with local retailers, allowing them to save on everyday needs. In addition, driving to and from a store isn’t always easy, either — especially because some low-income shoppers don’t have regular (or any) access to a vehicle.
The announcement raised mixed feelings in me.
The Good
For people with loved ones with serious mobility challenges who are also pinching pennies, this is a nice gesture. It saves a little money and might be enough to convince folks that otherwise see the cost as too high to sign up and partake.
As Amazon moves into groceries and grocery delivery, this could be a way to get better and healthier food to more people, addressing so-called “food desserts”
This includes video, music and other prime services, which could add up to a serious cost savings for people of modest means who are willing to switch to Prime for these activities.
The Bad
Why not just make it free or, say, $1.99 per month? That would drive even better adoption.
Is it a good idea to further discourage people from leaving their homes in an era when social contact has waned and loneliness has become epidemic? This is a broader question than just for Amazon but it is one I’ve come up against in my explorations of some of the darker sides of technology.
This could prove steep competition for local stores in rural areas which may already be struggling and which provide social glue like sponsoring Little League teams or providing quiet donations to needy locals. By depersonalizing commerce and connections further, do we risk further gutting already diminished communities? Then again, maybe Amazon has a plan for this with, say, the placement or Amazon lockers in local stores?
Overall, I understand this mirrors ongoing shifts and developments in society and the way we live. And it’s hard to fault any time a company offers a discount to the needy. That said, it’s important to consider broader implications of these changes as they may have unanticipated secondary and tertiary impacts.