If you are a telemarketer or a collections agent, you should probably stop reading. I'm not going to say very nice things about you. That was your disclaimer. If you read on and get offended, it's your own fault! So here's my latest frustration:
I was in the hospital for 7 days way back in September. I am still, to this day, receiving bills for that stay. In case you didn't know, you don't receive one pretty bill if you visit the ER, then get admitted, then get put in ICU. You get a bill from each and every doctor that remotely walked by your bed. I have had to carefully analyze each bill and the explanation of benefits from the insurance because they are notorious for not processing everything correctly. Some things they initially denied, or processed at the wrong percentage, etc, etc. But, as soon as the billing companies get an initial response or payment from the insurance, they go ahead and send me a bill. I, of course, am not going to pay the first bill I get knowing full well that it is not correct and should be much lower. So, I deal with the insurance, get them to reprocess, send out a new payment to the billing companies, and wait for a new bill. It's not a timely process, if you can imagine. The billing companies usually just send out monthly statements, so a lot of time passes before I get a corrected bill. Unlike most people I know, I like paying bills. I usually pay them the same day I get them. I never pay a bill late, or wait until the last minute, or keep a balance on a credit card, etc. So you can understand how annoying it is for me to not be able to pay these bills as soon as I get them. Since I can't follow my usual rule of thumb in these instances, I've just waited until I was absolutely positive the bill was correct, then sent the payment. For smaller bills directly from a doctor, I've sent checks in the mail. For some of the larger bills sent from "medical billing" companies, they offer you the option of paying by credit card. Even though I had the funds to pay the bills immediately from my checking, it would be silly not to use my Discover cashback bonus card and then pay it off. At least then I'm getting some cash back for my larger bills. Of course the billing companies let you pay over the phone, but their hours are ridiculous, like 9:30am-2pm. So I decided to just fill out the payment coupon they provided with the bill, with my credit card information and the amount I authorized, and mail it back to them. I did this for two separate bills (though I think they actually went to the same company). That was three weeks ago and I still haven't seen the amounts show up on my credit card. I thought this was weird, but then again the payments go to a lockbox, get sorted, probably get sent to another area, Thanksgiving happened, etc, etc. I figured it might take a while for them to be processed. And, since there were two of them, sent separately, and both not showing up yet,it made me think even more that they just take a while. Otherwise I should've at least seen one of them already come through.
So I get a call on my cell phone while I'm at work. A fast-talking guy tells me "this is a friendly call from the hospital" concerning my outstanding balance. He asks me if I'd like to pay the balance over the phone. I explain to him that I already sent payment for my balance, through the mail, three weeks prior. He immediately says, "They couldn't read the numbers you filled out so they didn't process it." I asked him if he knew that for sure, or if he was just guessing, and he admitted it was a guess, but "was almost positive that's what happened." I don't appreciate people trying to deceive me with no real knowledge on a subject, so I responded, "Well I have perfect handwriting and I checked and double-checked the numbers before I mailed the form. So I'm almost positive that's NOT what happened." He responds by asking me, "Don't you think it would've been processed by now, since it's been 3 weeks?" Tell me about it! That's exactly what I thought. I asked him what the normal process time was, and he tells me that the payments go to a lockbox, the first mail openers look for checks or money orders and if they don't find that, they forward the mail to another department. Well, I didn't send a check, so mine must've been passed along. Seems to me like it's possible for this to take a while, or things to get lost in the shuffle. I still found it weird that BOTH of my payments would've been lost, so it seemed more logical that they were still at the company somewhere, waiting to be credited. He tells me that I should just go ahead and pay them over the phone. I relay to him my concerns about making payment over the phone and then having my credit card forms show up in the next couple of days and getting charged again. He assures me that they check before they credit a payment, and if somehow they did charge me twice, they would just refund me. Okay, that sounds well and good, but we're talking about $1200 here. I don't feel like getting charged twice for an amount like that and then waiting for a refund. He says, "How about I put your account on hold, until after the holidays, and then you can call back and pay over the phone?" I can tell he's insinuating that I just don't have the money now and I'm making up a story about sending payment already. What an ass. Obviously I was trying to get it resolved three weeks ago and it wasn't my choice to have this drag on. Then he's like, "We need to get it figured out soon before we send you to a collection agency though." What nerve! I already tried to pay the freaking bill and the only reason it's still outstanding this long is because they don't know how to process payments. He constantly cuts me off when I try to talk and has a condescending tone with me. I finally tell him that I will be waiting a few more days and checking my statement before I call back to try the payment over the phone because I just don't trust that the payment form was actually lost. He says, "You know, you really shouldn't send credit card information through the mail. It's not smart." Seriously? SERIOUSLY? I can't believe he had the nerve to just say that to me. I said, "Then why would you give a customer the option to do that, if it wasn't smart? And by the way, paying over the phone is much safer?" Please. By paying through the mail, I was able to make a copy of the form I filled out, showing how much I was authorizing them to charge me. Then at least I have a record of proof in case they charged me a different amount. What written record do I have if I pay over the phone? My word against his? No thanks. I'll settle for something in writing. He says, "I'm just saying." I was furious by this point. If you're trying to get someone to pay you money, do you really think talking down to them and calling them stupid is going to work? I finally said, "Don't talk to me like that" and hung up on him. What an asshole. I think there's a reason he works at that job....because he can't get a REAL one!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Let the drama begin....
I bite my tongue often. In order to avoid conflict, I usually keep my mouth shut when family members or friends say things I find absurd, or don't agree with. It's always easier to let those things slide so that everything remains peaceful. Well, that time is over. I'm tired of it. As the saying goes, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." My grandmother forwarded me an email about an article she read in a Jewish newsletter. It can be found here. Her comments were, (and I quote)
"This is an important message for us and our country. after reading "The Tragedy of George W. Bush," think about our president-elect, Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim (even though he denies it) by birth. The Lord warns us to watch the "signs of the times."
At first I read it and rolled my eyes. I thought about typing a response, but I couldn't figure out exactly what I wanted to say. So I abandoned it. I decided to forward it to Jeremiah because I knew he would get a kick out of it. Then I noticed that there were about ten other people that she had sent that email to. Hmmm. If I didn't respond, would those people think I agreed with her? That possibility really irked me. I DID NOT want that to happen. So, Jeremiah came up with a great response that represented our feelings, and I sent it. I'm sure telling your grandmother you couldn't disagree with her more isn't the politically correct thing to do. And copying all your family members on that same email can't be good. But, it's time that sanity, logic, facts, rational thinking, etc, etc, had their day in the sun. Sell crazy somewhere else!! Here's our response. :)
I read the article you mentioned and your comments about it, and I am troubled by a lot of it. I apologize to anyone who does not wish to receive this email from me, but I believe a response is warranted so that everyone is clear I do not agree with the comments that have been put forth. I don't want there to be any confusion as to where I stand. I forwarded the original email to Jeremiah, and since he is a much more eloquent speaker/writer than I am, I will let him present our thoughts on this issue. Please see below.
I think this is a mischaracterization of George W Bush, the Bible, and Barack Obama. I welcome anyone's differing opinions or further facts, but here are a few clarifications as I see them:
1)Barack's middle name is Hussein. Just because Barack's middle name happens to be Hussein, which happens to be the same last name as Saddam (and countless other people), does that make him a bad person?
No. He is named after his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. A person's name, while sometimes indicative of his geographic, religious, or culture heritage, has no bearing on his choice of geography, religion, culture, or even morals. Even if his father was a murderer (he wasn't, this is a hypothetical example), does having the same name as him indicate that he also must be a murderer? No, and so just because Saddam was a murderer, that doesn't mean anything about Barack. Example: My first name is Jeremiah. My parents named me that after the character in the Christian bible, because they were Christian. That doesn't mean I am a Christian. As a matter of fact, I am not. Assuming that, because my name came from a Christian heritage, I also am Christian, is an incorrect assumption. Making this particular assumption about me wouldn't cause any actual harm or suffering, but taking it further in Obama's case, to insinuate he's a murderer or terrorist, is hateful, dangerous, and harmful.
2)Barack Obama is/was a Muslim. First, is there proof that he is/was a practicing muslim? Second, is being a Muslim a horrible thing that means you are an immoral terrorist or, at the least, unfit to lead a country?
First: No. There is no proof that he is or ever was Muslim (which means someone who practices the religion of Islam). His father was born and raised Muslim, however there is no evidence that he was still a practicing Muslim by the time he married Obama's mother. Actually there is family evidence to the contrary, stating that his father was, by that time, an agnostic. Obama did attend both Muslim and Catholic schools in Jakarta, but this was to attain the best possible education available, not because of religion.
Second: No, being a Muslim is not automatically bad. Did you know that Islam stems from the same roots as Christianity? Both (and Judaism as well) are what are called Abrahamic Religions, meaning they all stem from the same ideas of monotheism recognizing a spiritual tradition including Abraham. Islam is actually not considered a deviation from Christianity, but a continuation. The word Allah simply means 'God' in arabic. The reason I make comparisons directly to Christianity is because it is the most prevalent religion in America, and (as common with most religions) viewed by its followers as the correct or best one, making all others incorrect and inferior. I am simply stating that Islam has a lot more in common with Christianity than you might think, so saying it is wrong to be Muslim is like saying 75% of your religion is wrong as well.
Being Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Greek Mythologist, etc. doesn't necessarily dictate your morals or your ability to lead. There are radical people with vastly different moral opinions in any religion (or lack of religion), who would be considered terrorists. Just professing a certain faith does not mean you are the same as the worst representative of that faith. That is stereotyping, and just as ridiculous as saying: because you are Catholic and Catholic priests have raped children, you too must be looked at as a rapist. While religion can provide certain morals, those morals are often an interpretation of a person's existing morals applied back to the religion. For example, is being Christian and knowing the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' the only thing keeping you from being a murderer? No, having the personal moral against killing is what makes you not a murderer. That fact that you can then identify that personal moral with the commandment is a similarity between you and your religious choice.
3)Because George W. Bush is a 'born-again Christian' and 'had Bibles in his offices' and 'participated in many prayer meetings', does that inherently make him a good person and/or leader? Does it make him a bad leader?
No. All this means is that he practices Christianity. As I stated before, being a certain religion doesn't innately make you a good leader or good person. Would you consider allowing torture, allowing war profiteering, and violating international treaties, as well as suppressing and violating civil liberties, signs of a good leader or a 'good Christian'? Bush's administration has done all of these things (if you would like me to cite my references for these claims let me know and I'll be happy to send them to you). While he has not been directly responsible for all of them, his job as the President is to lead his administration and ensure they are making good decisions.
No, it doesn't make him a bad leader either. His decisions dictate what type of leader he was. He has made decisions that negatively affected the country, and decisions that positively affected the country. However, on a whole, the population seems to think most of his decisions were bad (he has an 18% approval rating).
4)Because the bible says 'I will judge them [the nations] for harming my people, for scattering my inheritance among the nations, and for dividing up my land.' does that necessarily mean separating Muslims and Jews in Isreal is the wrong thing to do and a nation will be forever punished because of it?
No. The bible also says 'For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death!' Leviticus 20:9. And: 'No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.' Deuteronomy 23:1.etc. My point is the bible has many verses that today people, including Christians, discount or ignore or deem wrong. So how can you pick and choose one and consider it to be valid, but not the others? That is mischaracterization and selective hearing. Therefore the verse saying nations shall be judged for splitting Isreal has no credence and is just as likely (if not more so) to be wrong than it is right. The article claims it is 'A Terrible Mistake' because of that bible verse, which is making an assumption on a false premise. It also claims that all the bad things that have happened lately stem directly from that decision. The decision, by the way, was to simply proclaim that 'The United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state." So basically, somehow just saying those words caused all of the bad things in the US today and in the future. Rather than try and refute such faulty logic, let me simply introduce some facts. Palestine existed first. The United States extended official recognition of a separate Israel state within a Palestinian state on January 31, 1949. The United States has also officially supported the newest separation agreements of Isreal/Palestine since September 13, 1993 by supporting the Oslo Accords, which define jurisdiction between the two. The agreement was signed in the United States. So how does a phrase that simply re-states policies that go back to 1949 suddenly cause wrath in 2002 and onward?
5)What is the factual basis for this statement: '[Barack Obama's presidency] will be more of the same - Islamic terrorism, economic crises, natural disasters, a world of wars and rumors of wars - only more so.'?
There is none. It is basing this opinion on the bible verse I discussed previously. Whether Barack Obama's presidency is more of the same, or better, or worse than the previous presidency is something we will soon find out. Making premature decisions on how events will turn out in 2009, based on one line from the bible, (a text that began being written at least 3000 years ago and has lines in it that even the most devout follower will ignore), is very irresponsible and uninformed.
Janet & Jeremiah
"This is an important message for us and our country. after reading "The Tragedy of George W. Bush," think about our president-elect, Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim (even though he denies it) by birth. The Lord warns us to watch the "signs of the times."
At first I read it and rolled my eyes. I thought about typing a response, but I couldn't figure out exactly what I wanted to say. So I abandoned it. I decided to forward it to Jeremiah because I knew he would get a kick out of it. Then I noticed that there were about ten other people that she had sent that email to. Hmmm. If I didn't respond, would those people think I agreed with her? That possibility really irked me. I DID NOT want that to happen. So, Jeremiah came up with a great response that represented our feelings, and I sent it. I'm sure telling your grandmother you couldn't disagree with her more isn't the politically correct thing to do. And copying all your family members on that same email can't be good. But, it's time that sanity, logic, facts, rational thinking, etc, etc, had their day in the sun. Sell crazy somewhere else!! Here's our response. :)
I read the article you mentioned and your comments about it, and I am troubled by a lot of it. I apologize to anyone who does not wish to receive this email from me, but I believe a response is warranted so that everyone is clear I do not agree with the comments that have been put forth. I don't want there to be any confusion as to where I stand. I forwarded the original email to Jeremiah, and since he is a much more eloquent speaker/writer than I am, I will let him present our thoughts on this issue. Please see below.
I think this is a mischaracterization of George W Bush, the Bible, and Barack Obama. I welcome anyone's differing opinions or further facts, but here are a few clarifications as I see them:
1)Barack's middle name is Hussein. Just because Barack's middle name happens to be Hussein, which happens to be the same last name as Saddam (and countless other people), does that make him a bad person?
No. He is named after his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. A person's name, while sometimes indicative of his geographic, religious, or culture heritage, has no bearing on his choice of geography, religion, culture, or even morals. Even if his father was a murderer (he wasn't, this is a hypothetical example), does having the same name as him indicate that he also must be a murderer? No, and so just because Saddam was a murderer, that doesn't mean anything about Barack. Example: My first name is Jeremiah. My parents named me that after the character in the Christian bible, because they were Christian. That doesn't mean I am a Christian. As a matter of fact, I am not. Assuming that, because my name came from a Christian heritage, I also am Christian, is an incorrect assumption. Making this particular assumption about me wouldn't cause any actual harm or suffering, but taking it further in Obama's case, to insinuate he's a murderer or terrorist, is hateful, dangerous, and harmful.
2)Barack Obama is/was a Muslim. First, is there proof that he is/was a practicing muslim? Second, is being a Muslim a horrible thing that means you are an immoral terrorist or, at the least, unfit to lead a country?
First: No. There is no proof that he is or ever was Muslim (which means someone who practices the religion of Islam). His father was born and raised Muslim, however there is no evidence that he was still a practicing Muslim by the time he married Obama's mother. Actually there is family evidence to the contrary, stating that his father was, by that time, an agnostic. Obama did attend both Muslim and Catholic schools in Jakarta, but this was to attain the best possible education available, not because of religion.
Second: No, being a Muslim is not automatically bad. Did you know that Islam stems from the same roots as Christianity? Both (and Judaism as well) are what are called Abrahamic Religions, meaning they all stem from the same ideas of monotheism recognizing a spiritual tradition including Abraham. Islam is actually not considered a deviation from Christianity, but a continuation. The word Allah simply means 'God' in arabic. The reason I make comparisons directly to Christianity is because it is the most prevalent religion in America, and (as common with most religions) viewed by its followers as the correct or best one, making all others incorrect and inferior. I am simply stating that Islam has a lot more in common with Christianity than you might think, so saying it is wrong to be Muslim is like saying 75% of your religion is wrong as well.
Being Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Greek Mythologist, etc. doesn't necessarily dictate your morals or your ability to lead. There are radical people with vastly different moral opinions in any religion (or lack of religion), who would be considered terrorists. Just professing a certain faith does not mean you are the same as the worst representative of that faith. That is stereotyping, and just as ridiculous as saying: because you are Catholic and Catholic priests have raped children, you too must be looked at as a rapist. While religion can provide certain morals, those morals are often an interpretation of a person's existing morals applied back to the religion. For example, is being Christian and knowing the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' the only thing keeping you from being a murderer? No, having the personal moral against killing is what makes you not a murderer. That fact that you can then identify that personal moral with the commandment is a similarity between you and your religious choice.
3)Because George W. Bush is a 'born-again Christian' and 'had Bibles in his offices' and 'participated in many prayer meetings', does that inherently make him a good person and/or leader? Does it make him a bad leader?
No. All this means is that he practices Christianity. As I stated before, being a certain religion doesn't innately make you a good leader or good person. Would you consider allowing torture, allowing war profiteering, and violating international treaties, as well as suppressing and violating civil liberties, signs of a good leader or a 'good Christian'? Bush's administration has done all of these things (if you would like me to cite my references for these claims let me know and I'll be happy to send them to you). While he has not been directly responsible for all of them, his job as the President is to lead his administration and ensure they are making good decisions.
No, it doesn't make him a bad leader either. His decisions dictate what type of leader he was. He has made decisions that negatively affected the country, and decisions that positively affected the country. However, on a whole, the population seems to think most of his decisions were bad (he has an 18% approval rating).
4)Because the bible says 'I will judge them [the nations] for harming my people, for scattering my inheritance among the nations, and for dividing up my land.' does that necessarily mean separating Muslims and Jews in Isreal is the wrong thing to do and a nation will be forever punished because of it?
No. The bible also says 'For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death!' Leviticus 20:9. And: 'No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.' Deuteronomy 23:1.etc. My point is the bible has many verses that today people, including Christians, discount or ignore or deem wrong. So how can you pick and choose one and consider it to be valid, but not the others? That is mischaracterization and selective hearing. Therefore the verse saying nations shall be judged for splitting Isreal has no credence and is just as likely (if not more so) to be wrong than it is right. The article claims it is 'A Terrible Mistake' because of that bible verse, which is making an assumption on a false premise. It also claims that all the bad things that have happened lately stem directly from that decision. The decision, by the way, was to simply proclaim that 'The United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state." So basically, somehow just saying those words caused all of the bad things in the US today and in the future. Rather than try and refute such faulty logic, let me simply introduce some facts. Palestine existed first. The United States extended official recognition of a separate Israel state within a Palestinian state on January 31, 1949. The United States has also officially supported the newest separation agreements of Isreal/Palestine since September 13, 1993 by supporting the Oslo Accords, which define jurisdiction between the two. The agreement was signed in the United States. So how does a phrase that simply re-states policies that go back to 1949 suddenly cause wrath in 2002 and onward?
5)What is the factual basis for this statement: '[Barack Obama's presidency] will be more of the same - Islamic terrorism, economic crises, natural disasters, a world of wars and rumors of wars - only more so.'?
There is none. It is basing this opinion on the bible verse I discussed previously. Whether Barack Obama's presidency is more of the same, or better, or worse than the previous presidency is something we will soon find out. Making premature decisions on how events will turn out in 2009, based on one line from the bible, (a text that began being written at least 3000 years ago and has lines in it that even the most devout follower will ignore), is very irresponsible and uninformed.
Janet & Jeremiah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)