Read the The News Story: "Bank of America ends overdraft fees on debit cards (AP)"
I banked with Bank of America for several years and I remember the first time it my account was overdrawn - I was shocked to learn that they would even let me spend money I don't have - nobody had even mentioned it to me and I spend a good amount of time asking questions before opening an account.
When it first happened, I went into the branch and threw a fit and then they forced me to open a savings account with them so if my checking is overdrawn the money from the savings account will be automatically transferred to cover the negative balance.
Then one day my debit card suddenly stopped working - I was on my way to work trying to buy gas. I checked the balance on the ATM inside the gas station and it was overdrawn by more than $600 - an unauthorized transaction couple of days before had made my account overdrawn. I got charged $35 overdraft fee and $100 were transferred from the savings count to cover the negative. Not knowing about this situation (they don't let you know until several days later), the previous day (one day after the unauthorized transaction) I'd bought a power-tool for about a $100, which was more than what was left in the checking account. In my mind, I had about $300 left and was getting paid in a few days. I got slammed with another $35 overdraft fee.
Those $35 overdraft fees had triggered chain reactions each on it's own - because when the fee was charged the account was overdrawn, they charged me another $30 for making transactions from an overdrawn account. Those $30 also triggered a $35 overdraft fee, which in turn triggered $30 fee for using overdrawn account and so on.
By the time they finally locked up the account, there were about a dozen self-perpetuated $35 and $30 fees.
After spending 2+ hours going back and forth and fighting over each transaction with a CS rep, they gave me back the fees, originated by the unauthorized transaction. The ones, originated by my purchase I had to pay, even though had I known that the account was overdrawn I wouldn't have made it in first place.
They never told me how was it possible an unauthorized transaction to take place. I'm convinced it was a clerical or a computer error but they would not admit anything.
Now I bank with a small local bank - the difference is astonishing - and made me realize the Bank of America had never cared about my interests.
Stay away from BofA! They are the sneakiest, most dishonest business I've dealt with in my life. They set their little tricks and traps, let you walk into them and then when you call and complain talk down to you like you're an idiot, unfit to understand how banking works.
Last time I had the misery of dealing with BofA, I asked why in the world don't they alert people when there is a problem and wait until they are out several hundred dollars for fees, the CS rep snootily informed me that they can't personally email or text message every single client. Mind you - several DAYS after EACH overdraft fee they would send me a PRINTED notification in the mail. How is that easier or cheaper than having the computer system send an email? And yes, they did send me individual emails, but only to pitch me some new product.
Showing posts with label consumer issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer issues. Show all posts
Mar 10, 2010
Aug 13, 2009
Best In The World? Says Who?
Yesterday, as I was driving home I caught a piece of a report on the radio from one of the town hall meetings on health care. One of the sound bites was an "angry citizen" lady, pointing out that we have "the best health care on the world" and also that "people all over the world come here to get treatment".
This is the same as claiming that we have the best diet in the world, based on the fact that some people in America have private chefs and nutritionists. There is no question that if you have money you can get the absolute best of everything. That is true in America, as well as everywhere else in the industrialized world. So the honest version of that "angry citizen" lady's statement would be that we have "the best in the world medical services for able to pay people" and "people all over the world, who can afford it, come here to get special treatment". The wealthy never go through the system, common to everyone else, so the fact that let's say a well-to-do Canadian comes to US to see a highly recommended specialist is not really a compliment for the US health care system. If everyone was rich or at least upper-middle class, we would not need any "system" - health care, retirement, social services, etc. The system (health care or other) is for the lower-middle class and the poor, who are the majority of the population. That's the way it is in every country in the industrialized world - there is a basic accessible service for everyone, and whoever does not care for it does not have to use it.
As far as the "best in the world health care system" claim, it's plain untrue, but that's not really why the "angry citizens'" are angry about, is it...
This is the same as claiming that we have the best diet in the world, based on the fact that some people in America have private chefs and nutritionists. There is no question that if you have money you can get the absolute best of everything. That is true in America, as well as everywhere else in the industrialized world. So the honest version of that "angry citizen" lady's statement would be that we have "the best in the world medical services for able to pay people" and "people all over the world, who can afford it, come here to get special treatment". The wealthy never go through the system, common to everyone else, so the fact that let's say a well-to-do Canadian comes to US to see a highly recommended specialist is not really a compliment for the US health care system. If everyone was rich or at least upper-middle class, we would not need any "system" - health care, retirement, social services, etc. The system (health care or other) is for the lower-middle class and the poor, who are the majority of the population. That's the way it is in every country in the industrialized world - there is a basic accessible service for everyone, and whoever does not care for it does not have to use it.
As far as the "best in the world health care system" claim, it's plain untrue, but that's not really why the "angry citizens'" are angry about, is it...
Aug 4, 2009
The "Cash For Clunkers" Lemon
Let's just get down to business and pick apart this well-intentioned but ill-conceived attempt for stimulus:
One of the stipulations for eligibility is that you have to prove that the clunker you are trading in was CONTINUOUSLY insured going back a full year from the day of the trade.
What brain dead bureaucrat came up with that?!?!?!
This means that unless the clunker is your only car, which you've had for years, you don't qualify. Here is a short incomplete list of people who fit this profile:
pickup truck enthusiasts, roadsters' enthusiasts, boat owners, hobby mechanics, people on welfare, retired people, weekend drivers, people who oppose having a car payment, people with bad credit... All these either are not interested in trading their old car, or can not afford to buy a new car or both. A lot of poor people who would gladly trade their clunker, simply can't afford a new car payment, sales tax, new tags, and full coverage insurance, which is mandatory when financing is used to buy a new car.
People who don't qualify include:
1. Economically pressed people, who got the clunker 11 months ago from their aunt, who had it sitting in the garage uninsured for the past year.
2. Spouses, who had to go back to work because of the economic crash last fall, and had to start driving the clunker to work. Those clunkers were not on the road a year ago. Furthermore, remember how before the economic crash last Fall the clunkers values were driven down by the high gas prices? A lot of people simply sat on the clunkers, because they could not sell them for a fair price and could not afford to drive them, and now are driving them full time once again, since the gas prices are bearable.
3. Folks who got laid off and had to take their car off the road for a couple of months to save the expenses they could not afford. Now, if they have found another job and are driving the clunker once again, they are being punished for trying to make the ends meet.
4. People who missed insurance payment for couple of months, because they were in a hospital, work assignment, or whatever, and now have 30 or 60 day gap in their 15 year continuous insurance.
5. Deployed military personnel.
Way to go, ingenious bureaucrats!
Jul 23, 2009
Why the insurance-based health care system doesn't work
This is not the usual gripe about how difficult it is to get health coverage in this country. This is just analysis why health care is not a good business application for the insurance business model.
Since I've worked at my current job, many of my co-workers got in serious health trouble - one got stroke, another hearth attack, my boss' wife had to have serious hearth surgery, another co-worker ran for the bus and his body got in shock from the sudden vigorous oxygen demand after years of inactivity. Another co-worker - a sweet older lady got a chronic deteriorating condition which caused her to leave work and move in with her sister. Those are just a few examples I came up with without trying to remember everyone at work that needed medical care during my 1 year with this company. The complete list will be at least three times longer and that's a conservative estimate.
Let's look at this 1 year period from the business perspective of the health insurance company. Our employer health plan's premium costs $113 per month. That is the full cost. With about 90 insured (probably way less) this amounts to $122,040 per year. That's the insurance company's income from our company.
Now let's see how much money we needed to pay for health care: A stroke, couple of hearth surgeries, couple of hearth attacks, 2 or 3 ambulance calls and emergency room admittances, a motorcycle accident with surgeries, physical therapy... Let's stop here - I think I made my point - this alone is way over 200,000 conservatively and it does not include smaller things like me going to the doctor the other day with some abdominal pain, which turned out to be nothing, but the services I got have exceeded $400. Furthermore, being a business, the insurance company have to pay taxes, salaries, buy office supplies, etc. etc.
Annual 5 and 6-figure losses on regular basis is not the definition of profitable business, is it? In order to turn profit, the insurance company has to either sell more policies to healthy people, or increase the premium of the currently insured which would make it less competitive. Which means that the best way for a health insurance company to turn profit is to have as many healthy and as little sick people insured as possible. This way the premiums can stay lower, the insured have their health care needs covered, and the company still makes healthy profit. That is exactly what the companies are trying to do and should do, if the primary goal is to sell insurance. Unfortunately, the primary goal is financing health care which is the ultimate loss in the insurance business model.
Beyond my personal observations, if we think in categories, the need for health care is not like the need for property protection. With property, accidents are the only cause of the need for insurance while with humans - our natural construction and the way we function is the primary cause of us getting sick. That's how we are made, and unlike property, our sicknesses are almost never accidental, but either pre-programmed or bound to happen. If cars were insured like people, things like serpentine belts and battery replacement would have been covered by insurance. Instead, as we all know, car insurance only covers damages from accidents, i.e. things you could have not seen coming.
The insurance business model is based on avoiding the risk. With property is relatively easy - younger people and sport cars are a higher risk understandably - teens are inexperienced and impulsive, and nobody buys a roadster to cruise at 55MPH. With human health everyone is a risk and unlike with cars, once someone gets cancer or diabetes they can't just get rid of it to make themselves a better insurance customer.
Health care is just not a feasible venture for the insurance business model, because it is inevitable, not accidental. If we must apply a well-known business model to health care financing, let's use credit unions and mutual funds, although the real question is: Can't we come up with something better?
Since I've worked at my current job, many of my co-workers got in serious health trouble - one got stroke, another hearth attack, my boss' wife had to have serious hearth surgery, another co-worker ran for the bus and his body got in shock from the sudden vigorous oxygen demand after years of inactivity. Another co-worker - a sweet older lady got a chronic deteriorating condition which caused her to leave work and move in with her sister. Those are just a few examples I came up with without trying to remember everyone at work that needed medical care during my 1 year with this company. The complete list will be at least three times longer and that's a conservative estimate.
Let's look at this 1 year period from the business perspective of the health insurance company. Our employer health plan's premium costs $113 per month. That is the full cost. With about 90 insured (probably way less) this amounts to $122,040 per year. That's the insurance company's income from our company.
Now let's see how much money we needed to pay for health care: A stroke, couple of hearth surgeries, couple of hearth attacks, 2 or 3 ambulance calls and emergency room admittances, a motorcycle accident with surgeries, physical therapy... Let's stop here - I think I made my point - this alone is way over 200,000 conservatively and it does not include smaller things like me going to the doctor the other day with some abdominal pain, which turned out to be nothing, but the services I got have exceeded $400. Furthermore, being a business, the insurance company have to pay taxes, salaries, buy office supplies, etc. etc.
Annual 5 and 6-figure losses on regular basis is not the definition of profitable business, is it? In order to turn profit, the insurance company has to either sell more policies to healthy people, or increase the premium of the currently insured which would make it less competitive. Which means that the best way for a health insurance company to turn profit is to have as many healthy and as little sick people insured as possible. This way the premiums can stay lower, the insured have their health care needs covered, and the company still makes healthy profit. That is exactly what the companies are trying to do and should do, if the primary goal is to sell insurance. Unfortunately, the primary goal is financing health care which is the ultimate loss in the insurance business model.
Beyond my personal observations, if we think in categories, the need for health care is not like the need for property protection. With property, accidents are the only cause of the need for insurance while with humans - our natural construction and the way we function is the primary cause of us getting sick. That's how we are made, and unlike property, our sicknesses are almost never accidental, but either pre-programmed or bound to happen. If cars were insured like people, things like serpentine belts and battery replacement would have been covered by insurance. Instead, as we all know, car insurance only covers damages from accidents, i.e. things you could have not seen coming.
The insurance business model is based on avoiding the risk. With property is relatively easy - younger people and sport cars are a higher risk understandably - teens are inexperienced and impulsive, and nobody buys a roadster to cruise at 55MPH. With human health everyone is a risk and unlike with cars, once someone gets cancer or diabetes they can't just get rid of it to make themselves a better insurance customer.
Health care is just not a feasible venture for the insurance business model, because it is inevitable, not accidental. If we must apply a well-known business model to health care financing, let's use credit unions and mutual funds, although the real question is: Can't we come up with something better?
May 8, 2009
Comercial-Free?!?
Using advertisement for advertisement-free online video to adverise. Just like ... s**t-free poop of a crap. It's not waste - it's bi-product, and "bi" means we are getting double the value and that's good, right?
My $0.02: Please, just advertise. Stop trying to trick us - we live in the same world and we know what you are up to. If you are going to annoy us, please have the courtesy not to try to make it sound like it's for our benefit. Just show your banners and promos as usual. Don't try to sneak up on us, trying to catch us off-guard. That only works once. With TV there was not much choice - you see an annoying ad popping up in unusual spot - you flip around the channels and if there is nothing else better than what you were watching you eventually come back to it.
Internet offers a lot more choices. Like for example now - I see this clever turd (see the picture) pushed at me while watching something online, and I leave immediately to blog about what I think of it. While I do that, I carefully make sure to hide all the brands, I personally make point not to watch at the advertised time, and I also tell everyone I know not to do it. Unlike with TV - you can't count on me to come back for lack of better things to do online - there is always something else interesting on the Internet. Always! And with the short attention span, well cultivated by years of watching TV, cluttered with obtrysive adverisement, chances are I won't even think for going back at least for couple of days. Or ever.
Now, what was it you were selling?
May 4, 2009
Extra Delivery Charges
Last night, we ordered a pizza. When the pizza got delivered, the Domino's delivery guy unilaterally decided to increase the price because he "drove 10 miles to get here" and he will be "loosing money" if he does not charge extra for the delivery. This came totally unexpected. Usually we pay whatever the price is and give tip on top of that. Keep in mind that there is an explicit delivery charge over the price of the order, which is charged at the time of ordering and the delivery guy's "charge" came on top of that and before of course his tip...
The fact that it was Domino's is irrelevant in this situation, although they could benefit from not annoying their customers so soon after the bad publicity they got just few days ago.
I understand the delivery guy's desire to make more money but the way he chose to do that I find absolutely inappropriate not to mention that this guy had caused Domino's to loose us as customers. We wanted to give them a break, after the YouTube video with Domino's employees grossly mishandling food came out, but we draw the line above paying phony charges.
So, next time you order a pizza, make sure you ask about any additional charges that might be imposed by the delivery person. It will save you few dollars but most impotantly, the annoying feeling that you are being taken.
The fact that it was Domino's is irrelevant in this situation, although they could benefit from not annoying their customers so soon after the bad publicity they got just few days ago.
I understand the delivery guy's desire to make more money but the way he chose to do that I find absolutely inappropriate not to mention that this guy had caused Domino's to loose us as customers. We wanted to give them a break, after the YouTube video with Domino's employees grossly mishandling food came out, but we draw the line above paying phony charges.
So, next time you order a pizza, make sure you ask about any additional charges that might be imposed by the delivery person. It will save you few dollars but most impotantly, the annoying feeling that you are being taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)