Customer Asks For Itemized Bill, Verizon Tells Her To Get a Subpoena

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Customer Asks For Itemized Bill, Verizon Tells Her To Get a Subpoena

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday July 16, 2011 @10:18AM from the customer-is-always-right-when-backed-by-a-court-of-law dept.

suraj.sun writes with this quote from an article at Techdirt: "A woman, who called Verizon to try to find out about the $4.19 she was being charged for six local calls, was told by Verizon reps that the only way it would provide her an itemized bill was to get a lawyer and have the lawyer get a subpoena to force Verizon to disclose the information. Instead, the woman went to court (by herself) and a judge told Verizon (.docx) to hand over the itemized bill info. 'It is a basic matter of fair business practice that a consumer should be able to contact a utility about a charge on a bill and learn what the charge is for and learn that the charge was correctly applied. The only verification that Verizon's witness could offer that a charge like [the customer's] $4.19 measured use charge was accurate and billed correctly was her faith in the accuracy of Verizon's computer system. The only way that Verizon would offer any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer to hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information. By no reasonable standard could this be considered reasonable customer service."

306 of 415 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I assume... by msauve · 2011-07-16 10:23 · Score: 3, Informative

that this is Verizon, the RBOC, not Verizon Wireless. With VZW, you can view itemized billing on-line. Doesn't the landline company offer a similar capability?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1. Re:I assume... by jaymz666 · 2011-07-16 10:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They charge a fee to provide a list of itemised calls on my cellphone bill, that alone shows how little regard they have for being transparent about what they are charging.
2. Re:I assume... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The landline bills provide an itemized list of long distance (in-state and intra-state) calls but not local calls. Usually plans have unlimited local calls so nobody cares.
3. Re:I assume... by Vegeta99 · 2011-07-16 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. I'm an 'ol Commonwealth resident, and Verizon is our ILEC/RBOC, formerly known as Bell Atlantic.
4. Re:I assume... by Dryanta · 2011-07-16 10:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Typically the LEC can bill for intra-LATA charges however they see fit due to the kludge of complexity the original anti-trust left recovering charges from another carrier. Because these rules are so convoluted and don't even make sense to the carriers themselves they tend toward official policy being "we say so and get a subpoena if you don't like it." As a telecommunications agent and broker, much of my interactions with carriers is resolving billing disputes and bogus charges. I got $ 14,000 back for a client in one instance where I had to file a California Public Utilities Commission grievance and escalate to the top tier of AT&T consumer affairs department. Most consumers don't even realize they have recourse and that the carriers are terrified of regulating bodies... but knowing how to handle these things is why people like me make money.
5. Re:I assume... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  if your cellphone bill is mailed then I can understand why itemized billing costs money; remember the giant iPhone bills everyone was getting?
6. Re:I assume... by BoogeyOfTheMan · 2011-07-16 11:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Only if you want it in print, you can view it for free on your myverizon.com website.
7. Re:I assume... by index0 · 2011-07-16 13:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If a company wants to use brand name recognition, it works both ways. Good and Bad associations.
8. Re:I assume... by mcohrs · 2011-07-16 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  I had an experience with VZW, where they could not ID the source of a small charge, basically it was "trust me, would we lie to you?"
9. Re:I assume... by pthisis · 2011-07-16 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. I'm an 'ol Commonwealth resident
  Out of curiosity, what does this mean? When I hear someone say they're a Commonwealth resident, I usually assume that means one of the former British Empire countries. But in the context of Bell Atlantic, I start thinking that maybe you mean one of the US states that calls themselves a commonwealth (e.g. Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia); I've lived in a couple of those, though, and never heard that phrasing.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
10. Re:I assume... by lennier1 · 2011-07-16 17:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Strange.
  In other countries they're required by law to provide you with an itemized bill and sometimes they'll even give you a small bonus (e.g., doubling your FTP quota) if you choose their online billing system instead of having them send you a hardcopy.
11. Re:I assume... by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-16 18:28 · Score: 2
  
  The United States doesn't actually have 50 "states". In fact, there are - uhhhh - 46 states, I think, and 4 commonwealths. In practice, there is almost no difference between a state and a commonwealth. But, there are some subtle legal differences. Some of those differences come into play when discussing issues of "states rights".
  I did a couple quick google searches, and I find as much mindless drivel as anything. If you care to learn more, you'll have to devote more than 60 seconds to research, sorry.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
12. Re:I assume... by Solandri · 2011-07-16 20:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The problem is not only with external carriers. Verizon's internal billing system just seems to be a convoluted mess of kludges. About 3-4 years ago, a friend of mine with Verizon Wireless bought a house. Her landline phone service was Verizon RBOC. One day they sent her one of those "Consolidate all your Verizon bills and get a discount!" flyers and she signed up. She started getting bills which showed both her landline and wireless charges, and she dutifully paid them.
  
  3 months later she got a phone call from Verizon Wireless about her account being overdue. She explained that she had consolidated billing with her home phone service and had paid. They insisted they hadn't received any payment. She called Verizon RBOC and they confirmed that she had consolidated billing and had paid her wireless bill. But nothing she or they could do could convince Verizon Wireless that she'd paid. They shut off her cell phone service, messed up her credit score, then eventually closed her account and gave her phone number to someone else before finally getting the whole thing straightened out about 6 months later.
13. Re:I assume... by belmolis · 2011-07-16 20:47 · Score: 2
  
  "states rights", and more generally, the relationship between the states and the federal government, derive entirely from the Constitution. The Constitution makes no distinction between states and commonwealths - as far as it is concerned, they are all states. The fact that a few states call themselves "commonwealths" is therefore of no relevance to states rights or other aspects of federalism.
14. Re:I assume... by gregor-e · 2011-07-17 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  Mental Floss has an interesting blurb on the distinction between commonwealth and a state.
15. Re:I assume... by blane.bramble · 2011-07-17 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough, in the UK at least "the commonwealth" refers to The Commonwealth. As Australia is part of the Commonwealth, I am suprised they don't use this meaning.
16. Re:I assume... by Kalriath · 2011-07-17 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard, only the Australian constitution ever referred to the country as The Commonwealth of Australia (and clarifies that to mean "the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia" - one of these does not belong, I leave it to you to work out which).
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
17. Re:I assume... by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, on an itemized bill, they would only list things they actually bill you for. They don't list all the interactions with you, even the ones they didn't charge for. They don't even have a reason to keep track of those, and even if they do know them, they're not billing you for them, so hardly have a reason to tell you.
  However, in this case, the customer was charged for some local calls, causing the customer to say 'WTF?' and ask for a reason why, which Verizon felt they didn't have to provide.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
18. Re:I assume... by rjejr · 2011-07-17 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  I had Verizon landline and Verizon DSL. I canceled the DSL service but the billing dept. - which was with the phone company part of Verizon - kept billing me. Everybody I spoke to on the phone told me I didn't owe them the money, but 2 different collection agencies contacted me a year apart looking for the money. This is why I stick w/ Cablevision despite the numerous and much cheaper offers I get for Verizon FIOS. Well that and the $69 offer in the mail was $97 when I called. Note to stupid Verizon - just advertise it as $97, maybe more people will sign up, nobody is going to pay 30% more than advertised.
19. Re:I assume... by Rich0 · 2011-07-17 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, for three months after I moved I would mail in payments for the new account (with phone/acct/etc on the check) and it would get credited to my OLD account. Then a month later I'd get a bill for the old account showing a credit, and a month after that a check in the mail refunding my payment. All the while I'm getting overdue notices on my new account.
  In the end I had to let them directly bill my credit card - it was the only way to get the payment applied to the correct account...
20. Re:I assume... by Kittenman · 2011-07-17 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you care to learn more, you'll have to devote more than 60 seconds to research, sorry.
  Oh come on now - this is Slashdot ... no-one spends 60 seconds research. Calvin's law applies (ignorance is instantaneous).
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
21. Re:I assume... by DCFusor · 2011-07-17 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Only two collection agencies in a year? Man, you're having much better luck with Verizons run-on-forever billing robots than anyone I know. I know at least 10 stories like this where I know the person involved (and one is me). They sure are good at billing, eh? What's really funny, revealed through an FOIA requst the fed fought, is that Verizon was at the fed cheap money window even ahead of most of the big banks -- couldn't make payroll, according to them, without emergency aid (nor could McDonalds or Harley). You'd think....
  
  --
  Why guess when you can know? Measure!
22. Re:I assume... by Macgrrl · 2011-07-17 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Queensland? We all know they're a bit different up there.
  Given how many Kiwi's have moved over here, they obviously feel like they are part of the family. :P
  
  --
  Sara
  Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
23. Re:I assume... by Slashdot+Parent · 2011-07-19 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. I'm an 'ol Commonwealth resident
  Out of curiosity, what does this mean? When I hear someone say they're a Commonwealth resident, I usually assume that means one of the former British Empire countries. But in the context of Bell Atlantic, I start thinking that maybe you mean one of the US states that calls themselves a commonwealth (e.g. Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia); I've lived in a couple of those, though, and never heard that phrasing.
  If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that GP intended to write "The Old Dominion" (i.e. The Commonwealth of Virginia), and his brain inadvertently mashed the two monikers together.
  I'm inclined to let it slide because it's about 100 degrees there right now. Nobody's brain should be expected to work under such inhumane conditions.
  
  --
  They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
24. Re:I assume... by sydbarrett74 · 2011-07-19 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  I can corroborate this with my mother's experience with FiOS, which has always advertised one-stop billing as a big selling feature. She got their triple-play deal and despite the fact that they quoted her 'one price' ($99/mo) at the time, it seems that each of the three services had its own different billing and other back-office systems, and a different customer service number to call. So it's only 'consolidated' in the sense that the parent company offers all three services. And she got crazy results some months where a portion of her payment went to one of the other two services (say, TV and internet), so the third service (landline in this example) didn't get some or all of its portion that month, so she was in arrears for some crazy amount. With one of the other two services (say, TV) she might be in credit and so not have to pay the entire amount the next month. And, of course, the various departments didn't have access to the others' billing systems, so she could never get billing straight. In frustration she dropped television (didn't watch it much anyway) and landline (I set her up with Vonage) and she kept the one service (internet) that she really cared about in the first place.
  Although this cluster-fuck occurred back in 2007, recent (within the last year) anecdotes from friends prove that Verizon's billing is still as cocked-up as ever. But then again, so is Comcast's, Cavalier's, and any other oligopolistic telco's billing. The recent cramming scandal further proves that these telcos have no incentive to maintain accurate billing practices.
  
  --
  'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
25. Re:I assume... by pthisis · 2011-07-20 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The United States doesn't actually have 50 "states". In fact, there are - uhhhh - 46 states, I think, and 4 commonwealths. In practice, there is almost no difference between a state and a commonwealth. But, there are some subtle legal differences. Some of those differences come into play when discussing issues of "states rights".
  No, belmolis is right--there are 50 states. Some of them refer to themselves as commonwealths, but that's purely an internal nomenclature. Under the US Constitution they're all states.
  I say this as a former PA resident who's lived in VA for the last decade, so I know that many uneducated residents will often insist that they're not a state.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
26. Re:I assume... by sglines · 2011-07-21 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I had/have a similar problem. I switched my DSL line to FiOS and Verizon continued to bill me for 9 months for the DSL line. No amount of polite conversation could convince the DSL folks that they were in error. They finally sent it to collections where I insisted that they take me to court. They won't and periodically still try to collect from me. meanwhile my FiOS is working just fine. I get the impression that Verizon is really a few dozen companies that don't really talk to each other. I know that Verizon Wireless was really Vodaphone with almost no contact with the rest of Verizon. They appear to be better integrated now than they were even a year ago.
Can we get this judge... by houstonbofh · 2011-07-16 10:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can we get this judge to look into medical billing too? It is the only place worse than cell phone billing, and not by much. Both are worse than used cars sales...
1. Re:Can we get this judge... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 10:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm a physician and I couldn't figure out what the charges meant on my last hospital bill. Turns out the hospital couldn't either. They had to drop the charges. This sort of thing happens all of the time and I'm constantly telling patients to look at their bills and appeal things that don't make sense. Ah, American medicine. The best there is ....
2. Re:Can we get this judge... by 0100010001010011 · 2011-07-16 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've never had a problem getting an itemized bill from the hospital. Have you tried asking?
  Once I was charged for a pair of crutches when I had actually brought my own in.
3. Re:Can we get this judge... by kidsizedcoffin · 2011-07-16 11:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I've found that insurance companies don't always want you to know either. My current explanations of benefits from my insurance company will not tell me what any of the procedures are, and I've found they won't tell me what they are when I call either. It is only by eventually matching it up with the itemized doctors' bills later, that I'm able to have any idea why a visit warranted 4 charges. I would not think this would be a good way to get people to report fraud.
4. Re:Can we get this judge... by TheABomb · 2011-07-16 12:00 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  All medical care is ultimately paid for. The parent is probably in the "rural country" that's about to go belly-up from the trillions of dollars in foreign aid it subsidizes smug a-holes like you to the tune of.
  
  --
  MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
5. Re:Can we get this judge... by toadlife · 2011-07-16 12:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Foreign aid makes up around 1.5% of the U.S. federal budget.
  
  --
  I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
6. Re:Can we get this judge... by jcoy42 · 2011-07-16 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I went in for surgery I got somewhere along the lines of 11 bills after the fact, all with poor descriptions and from various entities. Some from the place where I had the initial review, some from where the surgery was done, some from the anesthesiologist, and some from a lab. It's freaking insane.
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
7. Re:Can we get this judge... by hedwards · 2011-07-16 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Itemizing it isn't necessarily the problem, it's the hours it takes to figure out what the various codes mean and it's frequently cheaper to just pay than to take time off work to go through the list with somebody that knows what all those codes mean.
8. Re:Can we get this judge... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 12:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I was once charged for a doctor from another state (a neurologist) when I had a straight forward no complications thyroidectomy. I turned it over to the insurance company's fraud department. I've also been charged because someone had the same last name as I. Again, turned it over to the fraud department.
  My experience is that if you report the 'error' as an 'error' nothing gets fixed. If you report the 'error' as fraud. It gets fixed.
9. Re:Can we get this judge... by Leibherk · 2011-07-16 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Even if they tell you something is covered when you call them before a Dr. visit, they will still deny the claim later and say its not covered.
  
  --
  "Maggie call Aquaman!!!"
10. Re:Can we get this judge... by hairyfeet · 2011-07-16 12:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well if anyone can provide a website for said judge, or an email address I think we all need to send that judge a thank you note. It is so damned rare in this "the corps are always right" atmosphere to see a judge use good old fashioned common sense and apply simple fairness when it comes to the little guy dealing with supermegacorp he really does deserve to know he is appreciated.
  I just wish we had judges like that in MY area, instead they are bending over backwards here for these natural gas wildcatters who are causing all kinds of tremors and tearing shit up all over the place, and we all know once they've gotten what they desire they'll disappear and leave the state the cleanup bill. But it is nice to know there are still a few good judges using plain old common sense out there, even if they are few and far between. You sir have my heartfelt thanks.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
11. Re:Can we get this judge... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  The Judge is Mary D. Long. Can't see a direct contact or e-mail for her, but here is a phone number (412-565-3550), for the Pittsburgh Administrative Law Judge Office. Or you could always try mary.long@puc.state.pa.us.
12. Re:Can we get this judge... by dgatwood · 2011-07-16 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  This sort of thing happens all of the time and I'm constantly telling patients to look at their bills and appeal things that don't make sense.
  I bet your hospital loves you.... :-D
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
13. Re:Can we get this judge... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  I like how the insurance company says - x charge for a procedure. Then the hospital instead of submitting one charge, submits bills from each physician, doctor separately.
  Room bill
  procedure bill
  anesthesia bill
  surgeon bill
  etc bill
  etc2 bill
  etc3 bill
  etc etc etc bill
  each one with it's own co-pay of coure.
  I called the insurance company up, re-played the call when I got the authorization with one fee.
  I only paid one fee, they had to cover the rest, and they sued the hospital for illegal charge breakup - ie - insurance fraud.
14. Re:Can we get this judge... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2011-07-16 14:26 · Score: 2
  
  A friend of mine had a phone call with a hospital billing department where they insisted that yes, during her hospital stay her mother had had a prostate exam.
15. Re:Can we get this judge... by digitalchinky · 2011-07-16 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the Philippines the situation is similar though in some ways better. When it comes time for billing you wait about 15 minutes for the dot matrix to churn out an exquisitely detailed list of everything and anything even remotely related to the event, right down to the total number and weight of cotton swabs used. If the bill is not an inch or more thick, you didn't really hurt yourself. :-)
  And here I am thinking I'd rather just have a single piece of paper with a vague number on it, the itemized list just pisses you off when you see what they charge for.
16. Re:Can we get this judge... by digitalchinky · 2011-07-16 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  You mean rural countries like Australia? Small tropical jungles like Borneo? Or do you just not know what you are talking about?
17. Re:Can we get this judge... by black+soap · 2011-07-16 14:38 · Score: 2
  
  When my grandmother had a stroke, the insurance company actually sent a rep to the hospital to go through the itemized bill and dispute charges one line at a time. Some of the charges were for administering drugs that can not be given together (neither of which were actually used), others were for equipment that made no sense, or for a hospital room in a different wing. The rep came by every day, and apparently successfully disputed about half the line items on the bill. The insurance company rep was given the itemized version of the bill as common practice by the hospital, and they actually sent the rep in person each day for several weeks. granted, this was more than 20 years ago....
18. Re:Can we get this judge... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 16:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've found that insurance companies don't always want you to know either.
  That's my experience too, and it's the part that baffles me. Does anyone know why? I would have thought they had a vested interest in reducing costs, but maybe they don't? Is it because they just scale premiums with cost? Does their profit increase as costs increase? If they encourage cost increase for that reason, then that is downright evil. Somewhere between Saruman and Sauron-level on the sinister scale.
  I went to my primary care physician (tvc.org) recently to have him spray a little liquid nitrogen on a wart on my foot. It took the family doctor a grand total of 5 minutes, most of which was friendly chit-chat. My insurance (Empire Blue) was billed $550, but that was knocked down to $450 thanks to the in-network contracted rate. That's $90 per *minute*, or $5,400 per hour. Now, I understand that medical school is expensive, but $5,400/hr? Really?
  Even if you assume the doctor spent two times as long doing other stuff related to my visit behind the scenes (15 minutes total), that's still $1,800/hr. Sure, there's lots of overhead with a building, nurses, receptionists, etc. But lawyers and CPA's somehow manage those costs while being paid a "measly" $200/hour.
  I called my insurance company and spoke with the insurance fraud department, but they said that $5,400/hour was normal and expected to spray one wart. (Procedure codes "17110" and "99214 25" for those of you following along at home.) Turns out that they pay the same amount whether the doctor spends 25 minutes or 25 seconds. But even if he had spent a full 25 minutes, that still comes to $1,080/hour (!).
  Here's where it gets even worse. My homeopathic doctor charges $15/hour for the exact same service that my medical doctor charged $5,400/hour for. (Actually, she does it for free, since it only takes her about 2 minutes, but if it did take longer for whatever reason, that's what it would cost.)
  But homeopathic doctors (mine, at least) aren't covered under my insurance, so I have to pay in cash. To add insult to injury, it's not even tax deductible (until the 7.5% IRS rule kicks in).
  Furthermore, with my Cadillac insurance plan, my visit to the medical doctor cost me nothing directly. No copay, no deductible, and no co-insurance. My nearest indirect cost is the $1700/month premium (more than double my mortgage, BTW) that is 100% paid by my employer. (Hey boss, if you're reading this, thanks!) The net result is that it's actually *cheaper* for me to go to the $5,400/hour provider than to the $15/hour provider.
  I used to wonder why "health care" costs were increasing so rapidly. Now I know one of the reasons first hand. No one has any incentive to reduce cost. Not the insurance, not the doctor, and not even the patient. There is no connection between the pain of increased premiums and the action required to actually reduce those premiums.
  Another reason that that affects me is that in the last three years, my employer has paid over $60,000 in health insurance premiums, while our "explanation of benefits" have totalled less than $2,000 in that time. A different plan would be more appropriate for me, but laws and the tax system severely penalizes choice and competition by making employer-provided benefits deductible above the line and forcing them to provide certain coverage for everyone, rather than what's appropriate to each.
  One action costs me $15 (cheap provider), and costs all policy holders nothing. The other action costs me $0, but all policy holders are charged $450 (spread out so that my portion is only a fraction of a cent). Now multiply that by millions of patients and health-related events and think of the effect.
  So what do we do about it? How do you incentivize someone in my position to put the good of the many (lower insurance premiums for everyone from the $15/hour provider) over the good of themselves (higher direct cost due to uncovered services)? How many people even bother to fin
19. Re:Can we get this judge... by swillden · 2011-07-16 16:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Does their profit increase as costs increase?
  No. Their profits decrease as costs increase, and they do care about minimizing costs.
  Not all of them are particularly good at it, though. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
20. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-16 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Their profits decrease as costs increase, and they do care about minimizing costs.
  By what mechanism, exactly? Is it due to competition? For example, if costs increase, the insurance company could retain the same profit margin by just increasing premiums. Subscribers will either pay the higher premium or drop down to a lower-benefit plan. But if a competing health insurance company achieves lower cost (by paying less than $5,400/hour, for example), then subscribers may switch to the competition (which can provide the same benefit at a lower premium). Is that the mechanism?
  You may be right about the application of Hanlon's razor in this case.
  
  --
  Daniel
21. Re:Can we get this judge... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-16 17:04 · Score: 2
  
  I went to my primary care physician (tvc.org) recently to have him spray a little liquid nitrogen on a wart on my foot. It took the family doctor a grand total of 5 minutes, most of which was friendly chit-chat. My insurance (Empire Blue) was billed $550, but that was knocked down to $450 thanks to the in-network contracted rate. That's $90 per *minute*, or $5,400 per hour. Now, I understand that medical school is expensive, but $5,400/hr? Really?
  That's crazy! Though, simple procedures like this are easy to do at home. I'm not saying that you *should* self-administer medical treatments, but things like this are easy to do at home and super-cheap. As far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of everyone's time to get warts burnt off - do you go to the doctor to brush your teeth or shave? Because that's about how complicated it is.
  
  And I'm canadian, and so it isn't even a question of cost, just convenience.
  
  If you want to know why costs for serious procedures are going up in the USA, It's because simple ones are easier to do, and make them the same amount of money, if not more. There is way more demand for wart-removal than there is for cardiac surgery ... and the way the legal system works in the USA, few doctors want to take the chance of getting sued when all they're trying to do is help.
22. Re:Can we get this judge... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-16 17:07 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I like how the insurance company says - x charge for a procedure. Then the hospital instead of submitting one charge, submits bills from each physician, doctor separately.
  Room bill procedure bill anesthesia bill surgeon bill etc bill etc2 bill etc3 bill etc etc etc bill
  each one with it's own co-pay of coure.
  I called the insurance company up, re-played the call when I got the authorization with one fee. I only paid one fee, they had to cover the rest, and they sued the hospital for illegal charge breakup - ie - insurance fraud.
  Typical american. Not only are you against having government participate in a positive manner in your life, but you'd like to increase the number of lawyers, drive up the cost of doing business, and encourage the insurance companies to continue to profiteer in your name.
  
  Look at other countries with successful, non-failing economies. Canada is a good example. They're even on the same continent. The big difference? The metric system... and the government.
23. Re:Can we get this judge... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-16 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  All medical care is ultimately paid for.
  Ah, but not all medical care is OVER-paid for, and only in a few countries in the world does a private insurance company get to drive up prices and pocket the profits instead of the government.
24. Re:Can we get this judge... by EastCoastSurfer · 2011-07-16 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  I had something similar happen. I had mallet finger and it took 2 5 minute visits to the doctor to fix it. First visit was to imobilize the finger, second visit 8 weeks later to to check that it worked. The doctors office was in a hospital and hospital billing decided to charge my insurance company for a surgery. I noticed it and called the billing department in the hospital and all I got was "oh yeah, sorry about trying to charge you thousands of more dollars, it's fixed now."
  What it should be is a clear fraud case.
25. Re:Can we get this judge... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  When my daughter was born I spent some time going over the long list of charges when the bill came in. Not working in the medical field, I didn't know quite a few items on the bill. I was however rather positive that the charge for the circumcision was bogus. It really made me wonder how many other items were wrong.
26. Re:Can we get this judge... by arth1 · 2011-07-16 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a physician and I couldn't figure out what the charges meant on my last hospital bill. Turns out the hospital couldn't either. They had to drop the charges. This sort of thing happens all of the time and I'm constantly telling patients to look at their bills and appeal things that don't make sense. Ah, American medicine. The best there is ....
  I tried that. I was charged for two counts of seeing a named physician, when in reality I had a single five minutes with a physician's assistant. My insurance company gladly paid it, and seemed annoyed when I brought it to their attention. They said they couldn't reimburse me, because all I paid was the co-pay. I said that I didn't call to get money, I called because the billing was incorrect, and if anything, it would save them money. My insurance company's customer advocate then said that this was none of my concern, and that I could be assured that she was a trained professional, and that if they accepted a bill it was because that's the treatment I was given. I tried to explain that I was there, and she wasn't, at which point she started getting rude.
  I gave up.
27. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-16 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  In short, $450 for a quick realistic medical procedure, while wildly overpriced, is still not nearly as overpriced as $40 "water with memory" treatment
  Huh? She used the exact same liquid nitrogen and technique as the medical doctor. The only difference is several orders of magnitude in the price. Oh, and also that I didn't have to call ahead and wait several weeks for an appointment, nor did I have to sit for an hour in the waiting room and another 20 minutes in the examination room.
  
  --
  Daniel
28. Re:Can we get this judge... by GerryHattrick · 2011-07-16 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  But if doctors are salaried, and hospitals are on fixed budgets, the 'marginal costs' of an extra treatment really can be very low. Then, watch out for rationing, waiting lists, and pharmacos wanting the surplus. Choose your poison.
29. Re:Can we get this judge... by KDR_11k · 2011-07-16 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like the homeopath used liquid nitrogen too.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
30. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-16 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's just fucking crazy, god i'm happy that i live in a sane country. Over here we pay something like 40$ for "healthcare tax" monthly from your salary
  I wonder. What percent of the *actual* cost does $40/month cover? What pays for the rest of it? And what would a 5-minute wart spray cost in your country?
  
  --
  Daniel
31. Re:Can we get this judge... by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-16 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because that's exactly how social health care works in the rest of the world.
32. Re:Can we get this judge... by j_sp_r · 2011-07-16 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  After living in the US I'm not sure that's sarcasm anymore ... People really believe that shit
33. Re:Can we get this judge... by jimicus · 2011-07-16 21:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I wonder. What percent of the *actual* cost does $40/month cover? What pays for the rest of it? And what would a 5-minute wart spray cost in your country?
  I can't speak for the GP, but here in the UK the NHS doesn't have a great many funding sources. Obviously they are paid for with taxes (the actual amount that goes to healthcare isn't specifically itemised in our tax), but the NHS also carries out some private procedures for medical insurance companies and charges them - I don't know how much profit they make from this.
  Pros:
  - If I'm sick, I don't have to worry about paying for healthcare.
  - I have no idea how much of my money goes to healthcare but there is no earthly way it's anywhere near the $1400/month someone earlier on said their employer was paying. The NHS is almost certainly considerably cheaper per patient than the US system.
  - I'm not banned from taking out private medical insurance (I don't know where Americans get this idea that socialised healthcare immediately means a ban on private healthcare) - lots of people do. There's not a great deal of benefit for really serious illness - you'll generally be seen quite quickly for that under the NHS.
  - Prescriptions are a fixed cost per-item (about £8, IIRC). If the item costs £1, the NHS is making a stonking profit; if it costs £50 it's making a stonking loss.
  Cons:
  - If I have a condition which is uncomfortable but not so serious that my health is really threatened unless it's seen to FAST and it cannot be dealt with by my GP, it can take a long time to get sorted. I'd have to visit my GP who would refer me to a specialist (maybe several weeks wait), I'd spend about 5 minutes with a specialist who would order more tests (another 6 weeks), once I'd had those tests I'd get another visit to the specialist who would discuss what, if anything, they showed (another 6 weeks wait). If necessary, the specialist will book me in for a procedure of some sort (another 6 weeks). It could easily be 4-6 months, and that assumes the specialist finds something they can do after the first round of tests. They may not, in which case I may have more tests and returns to the specialist to look forward to. This is the sort of thing people pay private health insurance to avoid.
34. Re:Can we get this judge... by cvtan · 2011-07-16 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but there was only one molecule of liquid nitrogen in 10 trillion gaseous molecules just to make it more effective.
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
35. Re:Can we get this judge... by zippthorne · 2011-07-17 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your homeopathic doctor uses undiluted liquid nitrogen on warts? Scandal.
  Also, you should probably tip her if she does. LN2 isn't exactly expensive (less per liter than milk, last I checked) but it doesn't store very long unless you get a lot of it. (square law/cube law stuff)
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
36. Re:Can we get this judge... by dcollins117 · 2011-07-17 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  ... it's frequently cheaper to just pay than to take time off work to go through the list with somebody that knows what all those codes mean.
  Actually, it's cheaper not to pay and dispute the charges. Then it's up to the provider to prove that the charges are legitimate. Which they won't do, because it's cheaper for them not to.
37. Re:Can we get this judge... by eharvill · 2011-07-17 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Look at other countries with successful, non-failing economies. Canada is a good example. They're even on the same continent. The big difference? The metric system... and the government.
  And more money taken out of every paycheck....
  
  --
  At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
38. Re:Can we get this judge... by Kalriath · 2011-07-17 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not quite sure I'd call "spraying oneself with liquid nitrogen" easy, or even safe without training. One wrong move and you could crack a large portion of your skin (and muscle, and bone) off.
  For what it's worth, my understanding of the US system is that the ridiculous cost is (aside from being due to the astronomical expense of "malpractice insurance") mostly down the the institution having to somehow recover the costs for treatments they aren't paid for that they can't avoid doing (e.g. someone showing up unconscious in an ambulance, which they're apparently legally required to treat - just like in a real first world country!), and something to do with Medicare, whatever that is.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
39. Re:Can we get this judge... by Kalriath · 2011-07-17 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Prescriptions are a fixed cost per-item (about £8, IIRC). If the item costs £1, the NHS is making a stonking profit; if it costs £50 it's making a stonking loss.
  If you've got a system anything like ours in New Zealand, the government buys the drugs in mega-bulk and gets it for pennies on the dollar. Of course, the US pharmaceutical companies hate the practice because they can't overcharge us, and the US government is busy writing us some new laws to ban the practice while enshrining in law their own right to do it (yes, that's right Americans - your government is spending all your tax dollars writing legislation for every other country - and you wonder why no one likes your country. Write your senator. Tell them to shove their TPPA where the sun don't shine).
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
40. Re:Can we get this judge... by Kalriath · 2011-07-17 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  You know, we'd love it if your rural country about to go belly up would stop sending foreign aid to subsidize our legislative process. We rather liked our laws before the US government started writing and funding them.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
41. Re:Can we get this judge... by jimicus · 2011-07-17 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  If you've got a system anything like ours in New Zealand, the government buys the drugs in mega-bulk and gets it for pennies on the dollar.
  I don't know - you take the prescription to a chemist who's got nothing to do with the NHS except they fill prescriptions. Certainly the British National Formulary lists the price of all prescription drugs, though I have no idea if there's some sort of discount versus the "normal" wholesale price.
42. Re:Can we get this judge... by Sloppy · 2011-07-17 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  So what do we do about it? How do you incentivize someone in my position..
  I don't know the details, but it's going to involve a situation where there isn't an INSURANCE CLAIM for wart removal. Unless this life-threatening catastrophic wart-from-the-blue suddenly crept up on you and was going to require you to sell your house for treatment, that's not an insurance scenario. It's not a type of risk that needs to be spread. (Imagine a world where people filed auto insurance claims for the cost of their oil changes.)
  Make that sort of procedure self-pay so that it is always out of the customer's pocket, and then you can have market forces. We want a situation to develop such that when a doc gives a $550 estimate for that type of job, people say, "I think I'll go to Wal-Doc supercenter instead."
  Then there's the whole homeopathic tax-deductible thing. I have no confidence in homeopathy but that's totally my personal opinion and it is intolerable that government has a position on it and discriminates one way or the other (i.e. subsidizes one of the industries and not the other). Expenses should either always or never be tax deductible, regardless of who you do business with.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
43. Re:Can we get this judge... by Doc+Ri · 2011-07-17 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's stored in bottles under pressure. As long as you like.
  
  --
  617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
44. Re:Can we get this judge... by cdrguru · 2011-07-17 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Today the rule is cost shifting. If you have insurance you are being billed for other people that do not have insurance. Most of the time this is buried in the paperwork and is simply increased item cost. Of course, they are going to scramble around some stuff as well so you have charges from other people appearing on your bill.
  Also, because the Medicaid and Medicare rates are absurdly low, like 15 cents to the dollar, the charges for all of those people are bundled in with anyone with insurance.
  This is why the idea of someone not going to a hospital because they do not have insurance is silly. They think they will run up horrible bills and be beholden to the hospital forever because of these huge bills. Or, they go and declare bankruptcy because they are so afraid of the bills and the collections that might come someday.
  Yes, it is like someone buying a house and looking at what they are going to pay over 30 years saying "I can't afford that" when in truth these days it is highly unlikely they will even be in the same city in 10 years.
  The truth is the hospital needs money but if you don't have it they will just get it from someone that does.
45. Re:Can we get this judge... by kenh · 2011-07-17 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  What to do about it? Sign up more people for private health insurance!
  
  --
  Ken
46. Re:Can we get this judge... by Smallpond · 2011-07-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Does their profit increase as costs increase?
  No. Their profits decrease as costs increase, and they do care about minimizing costs.
  Not all of them are particularly good at it, though. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
  If insurance companies made money by selling medical coverage and competing with each other to provide the best care at the lowest price, this would be true.
  However, insurance company economics is actually that they borrow money from patients and their employers (up front premium payments) invest it, delay payments as long as possible, and profit based on the investments. This means it is to their advantage for costs to be as high as possible (increasing the investment size), and for the paperwork to be as complex as possible (leading to longer delays in payment).
47. Re:Can we get this judge... by ottothecow · 2011-07-17 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I've had it done a couple of times...
  Sometimes, they use a LN sprayer....but the volume it outputs is so low that it would be hard to seriously damage anything larger than a wart. The only problem would be finding a mini LN gun.
  Other times though...the doctor walks in with a styrofoam coffee cup with a bit of LN and a cotton swab...dips the q-tip in the cup and presses it into the wart (and if you are a child, they will then throw the cup on the floor so you can see it magically disappear). This could be done without any medical training or special equipment without hurting yourself. I have a few warts on my hand that I have not dealt with (I've yet to get any regular doctors in this city) and if I happened to be in the presence of some LN, I would burn one off without hesitation.
  
  --
  Bottles.
48. Re:Can we get this judge... by Rich0 · 2011-07-17 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  The only problem with that line of argument is that insurance companies do compete, since employers are the ones paying for them. The employer usually ends up bearing most of the cost of insurance, so they have incentive to pay as little as they can. If an insurance company comes along and offers the same effective coverage for less, chances are employers will switch.
  I tend to agree with the GP - insurance companies struggle more with execution than intent. They do tend to save money, however. Typically they end up paying maybe 20-30% of what the hospitals bill them, and then I end up paying 10% of that. From what I've heard it is almost impossible to negotiate rates this low as an individual.
49. Re:Can we get this judge... by Rich0 · 2011-07-17 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  The $450 includes a number of items that might not be immediately obvious:
  1. A fair bit of profit for the doctor.
  2. Money to pay the army of clerks processing the bills.
  3. Money to pay for malpractice insurance.
  4. Money to pay for the 1/500 cases where something goes wrong and requires 3 visits to fix, which the insurance probably won't allow them to charge for.
  What I've found in medicine is that the average procedure costs $50 for 95% of the population, $5000 for 4%, and $50,000 for 1%. As a result, everybody ends up paying something like $400 since that is how the system works. Then, throw in all the guys who get the procedure done but don't pay their bills for whatever reason...
50. Re:Can we get this judge... by sessamoid · 2011-07-17 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's stored in bottles under pressure. As long as you like.
  Not in your average primary care physician's office, it isn't.
  
  --
  "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
51. Re:Can we get this judge... by Pathwalker · 2011-07-17 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nope ; the critical point for Nitrogen is 126.19 K at 3.3978 MPa.
  No matter what pressure it is, you have to keep it below -146.96 C ( -232.52800 F, 227.14200 Ra ) if you want to keep it from evaporating.
52. Re:Can we get this judge... by dryeo · 2011-07-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly due to not borrowing so much. We had a balanced budget up till recently when the right wingers got power with their philosophy of cut taxes and increase spending.
  How much would your taxes be if your government taxed enough to balance their budget?
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
53. Re:Can we get this judge... by fremsley471 · 2011-07-17 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Apologies, offtopic too. Wholeheartedly agree- with one caveat. I love the NHS and have had almost uniformly excellent treatment, thankfully have never experienced much like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010mrzt which was a real eye-opener. This is when our fear of the right-wing free-market (usually fully justified) allows astonishingly poor practices to arise. The purveyors of ideological fear-mongering are part of the reason this is allowed to fly under the radar.
54. Re:Can we get this judge... by pionzypher · 2011-07-17 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Off topic here and I'm hesitant to say this; but IME, dousing is real. I shit you not, I watched my grandmother douse up at her cabin in the mountains. She not only flagged the x,y coords, but was within five or ten feet on the depth when they drilled the well(somewhere around 80' iirc). I consider myself a logical person who requires evidence to accept something.... but the well is still in use fifteen years later. Anecdotal, I know.
  
  The cabin is in southern Colorado in one of the drier areas towards the top of a valley. Doesn't rule out chance, but the odds at that location certainly would be lower.
  
  --
  I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
55. Re:Can we get this judge... by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-17 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, with my Cadillac insurance plan, my visit to the medical doctor cost me nothing directly. No copay, no deductible, and no co-insurance.
  As I understand, medical providers in the US charge ludicrously high fees for simple procedures and inexpensive materials when the patient has a "Cadillac insurance plan", as a way of financing medical procedures for the many more patients who have little or no health insurance.
56. Re:Can we get this judge... by SydShamino · 2011-07-17 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  There's one person who has an incentive to reduce costs: your employer. They could reduce their costs by asking you to share in the expense of your health care. Were they to do so, even a little, you could make different choices (like using your homeopathic doctor) that could save the company a lot of money. This is especially true if your company is self insured, because then they directly save each time an employee chooses a less expensive health care option.
  The fact that your employer pays $1700 a month for a Cadillac health care plan for you completely baffles me. Why would they spend that much money per employee on straight health care? My plan runs under $500 a month (with about 13% paid by me) for my wife and I, and has good copays, prescription rates, etc. And since we're self insured, they are working to reduce cost by improving our health: subsidizing healthy choices in the cafeteria, sponsoring sports leagues, improving the on-campus gym and recreation facilities, even installing an on-site clinic to encourage engineers to see someone quickly and easily when they don't feel well before it becomes something worse and causes them to miss work or have larger health expenses.
  Maybe if you add up all the other costs for these other programs, they might come to another $500 per employee, but they also make the company a better place to work in a variety of ways, making it easier for the company to attract top talent. So those programs can help pay for themselves in other ways.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
57. Re:Can we get this judge... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-07-17 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  By what mechanism, exactly? Is it due to competition? For example, if costs increase, the insurance company could retain the same profit margin by just increasing premiums. Subscribers will either pay the higher premium or drop down to a lower-benefit plan. But if a competing health insurance company achieves lower cost (by paying less than $5,400/hour, for example), then subscribers may switch to the competition (which can provide the same benefit at a lower premium). Is that the mechanism?
  Insurance rates, in general, are regulated at the State level. It's not always trivial to get the State Insurance Board (or whatever you call it in whatever State you live in) to approve a rate increase (though, in the end, they usually do).
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
58. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-17 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that your employer pays $1700 a month for a Cadillac health care plan for you completely baffles me. Why would they spend that much money per employee on straight health care?
  I don't really know, but as I hinted in the original post, my guess is that it's due to our braindamaged tax laws:
  * Employer plans are tax deductible, while individual plans are not. In my tax bracket, that means I can get a $1700/mo plan for the same effective cost as a $1100 plan if I were to buy it using increased income and an individual plan. If individual premiums were deductible above the line, I'd rather take the $1700/mo in salary and buy whatever plan I actually needed.
  * Avoiding the painfully retarded double taxation (dividend tax) by compensating owners through insurance.
  * IRS Employee "equality" rules forbidding owners from having nicer insurance than employees.
  * Avoiding non-deductible health care costs. For example, paying an extra $500/mo in deductible premiums instead of $500/month in premiums, copays, co-insurance (which still wouldn't be enough to reach the 7.5% rule).
  
  --
  Daniel
59. Re:Can we get this judge... by Pete+Venkman · 2011-07-17 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even need liquid nitrogen. Get a bottle of canned air (for keyboards) and hold it upside down. Spray that on your wart and it will freeze the sucker just as good. It also does wonders for ingrown toenails.
60. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-17 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Based on your description this was billed wrong.
  Thanks. I wonder why the Empire Blue fraud department said those were the correct codes for a 5-minute wart spray visit with the PCP. But maybe they were just giving me the quick brush off because they didn't want to bother with the hassle over a measly $450.
  
  --
  Daniel
61. Re:Can we get this judge... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-17 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then there's the whole homeopathic tax-deductible thing. I have no confidence in homeopathy but that's totally my personal opinion and it is intolerable that government has a position on it and discriminates one way or the other (i.e. subsidizes one of the industries and not the other). Expenses should either always or never be tax deductible, regardless of who you do business with.
  You've got to be kidding. If someone wants to give $10,000 to some quack who claims that some bottle of snake oil is going to cure his cancer, why should that be deductible? The deduction is for medical treatment, as I understand it. Something isn't "medical" just because some nutcase somewhere claims it to be. Should you be able to deduct food expenses too? After all, you could claim those are "medical expenses" and "medical treatments". After all, if you don't eat, you'll die. In fact, claiming simple food as medical treatment makes more sense than much of the other quackery that people are paying billions of dollars a year for in this country.
62. Re:Can we get this judge... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-17 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't exactly right, as you're placing all the blame on the "right wingers".
  We had a balanced budget during the Clinton years, which was an interesting and unique time where 1) there was a giant economic boom going on due to the Internet, 2) there were Republicans (not the same as today's Republicans) running Congress, and 3) a rather conservative Democrat from Arkansas in the White House.
  Basically, what I think happened is that the combination of the Republicans at the time, and Clinton, managed to not screw things up too much while they were in power, though they actually ended up directly causing the Mortgage Meltdown of 2008 through their incompetence: they overturned the Glass-Stegal Act with a law signed by Clinton in 1999 or 2000, just before Bush took over, and that law is probably singularly responsible for the economic disaster we're still recovering from. Thanks Clinton! (and Republicans!)
  Of course, after that, Bush II took over, and between the Dot-Bomb implosion and 9/11 wrecking the economy, and him invading Afghanistan and Iraq, plus lots of other crap, we saw deficits far worse than even during Reagan's tenure, which were record-breaking at the time. But then, because people were mad, they elected Democrats to control Congress in 2006, and between them and Bush, it got even worse as they "bailed out" a bunch of giant, failing corporations with blank checks and no oversight. Then, people were even more mad, so they elected a Democrat to the White House, and we got (surprise, surprise), MORE bail-outs for failing giant corporations, and even higher deficits! Meanwhile, our #1 spending black hole--the military--keeps getting bigger, while no one in either party (except Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, who are black sheep in each of their respective parties) will say one word about it.
  We're just like the Roman Empire in its last days, spending all its money on military conquests.
  It's not the "right wingers" who are at fault here, it's both "parties" (who are really part of the same, single Party that controls this country), and the voters who keep stupidly voting for them.
63. Re:Can we get this judge... by Grishnakh · 2011-07-17 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's your own stupid fault if the US government is writing your laws. You're the citizens of your own country, and your government is YOUR responsibility, no one else's. If you can't control your own government, and keep it from being corrupted by outsiders, that's your own failure.
  Stop whining about the US and start working to fix your own government.
64. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-17 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  ... the strongest concoction you get from her is fucking water you moron.
  Thanks for that, friend, but I haven't gotten anything from her except liquid nitrogen and a variety of prescriptions written on paper. Do homeopaths have a special deal with pharmacies and billion-dollar pharmaceutical corporations where my prescriptions for Zyrtec, Nasonex, Proventil, etc. get secretly switched with water if they are written by a homeopath? Because they sure seemed identical to the drugs I got with the MD's prescription in the previous year.
  
  --
  Daniel
65. Re:Can we get this judge... by dryeo · 2011-07-17 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about Canada where the centre-left Liberal Party balanced the budget for about 10 years and were paying off the debt. The right wing Conservative Party (who were brought back to life by merging with the ultra right Reform Party) ran on a platform that the Liberals weren't lowering taxes enough and weren't spending enough and since they were conservative they were better at managing money. There were also Liberal scandals as they had been in power too long and the press really blew the scandals up. The Conservatives have since had their share of scandal but the press minimalizes them.
  Now that the Conservative Party has a majority they want to increase spending and cut taxes, especially for the rich while promising in 5 years they'll balance the budget.
  I'm old and liked the fact that Canada was one of the few western countries to not be running a deficit and I don't like the idea of increasing spending while lowering revenue. I also don't like the negative campaigning the Conservative Party did in the last election.
  Also in Canada when a party has a majority in Parliament they can do just about anything they want. The executive branch has close to zero power and the Party is all powerful and always votes along party lines.
  Anyways it's hard to compare Canada's taxes against American taxes without considering borrowing.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
66. Re:Can we get this judge... by kimvette · 2011-07-17 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not quite sure I'd call "spraying oneself with liquid nitrogen" easy, or even safe without training. One wrong move and you could crack a large portion of your skin (and muscle, and bone) off.
  . . . and yet, you can buy over-the-counter kits from pharmacies to freeze warts now. Or, you can use dry ice.
  I used to get warts all the time back when I worked at UPS (handling lots of packages every day, you're bound to pick up something nasty!) - I went to the doctor to have them frozen off for a while, but then I started doing it myself when one proved difficult for the doctor to treat - I dug it out with a sterile knife (boiled it for a while) and then used a duster can upside down. Three visits to the doctor to have it frozen, and I ended up solving the problem myself for good doing it myself and don't even have any scarring to show for it. :) If the kits had been readily available at the time I'd have used one of those instead of a duster can since it would have been safer and non-toxic.
  Oh and BTW that wart did not come back, and I have never had any since.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
67. Re:Can we get this judge... by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious, what are "good" co-pays and prescription rates? Because my employer pays for a decent plan and the prescriptions are $3/$10/$25 (generic, brand-name, brand-name with generic available) and my co-pay is $15, with no deductible. From what I hear, that is not common.
68. Re:Can we get this judge... by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  I got some plastic surgery -- only done because of where a wound was and the fear that it would scar. It cost $1850, even though the guy only worked a couple of mins. We paid the first 1/3rd and bitched to the doctor. He said "I'm sorry, I didn't realize it would be a hardship" and dropped the rest. Zany.
69. Re:Can we get this judge... by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's only mooks who don't understand that Canada's system is better, really. Specifically, mooks who are fooled by interested parties in the US who stand to gain from status quo.
70. Re:Can we get this judge... by pnutjam · 2011-07-18 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is true. I feel bad calling my pediatrician for simple advice, because I know she is not getting compensated. There are alot of things that can be taken care of by email or phone, but our system is not designed to function this way.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
71. Re:Can we get this judge... by Sloppy · 2011-07-18 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  If someone wants to give $10,000 to some quack who claims that some bottle of snake oil is going to cure his cancer, why should that be deductible?
  Two answers:
  The GP poster was pretty clear that the quack was offering a mainstream technical procedure which had nothing to do with the usually homeopathic goofiness. I think it's best to think of homeopaths as witch doctors rather than snake oil salesmen: they are wrong about a lot of stuff but they really believe that shit (it's not maliciously fraudulent) and they are also incapable of preventing themselves from learning things too. And sometimes a knife is just a knife (or a targeted-freezing-thingie is just a targeted-freezing-thingie), and you're just paying someone to not be squeamish and to keep things hygienic.
  Secondly, if we ask why quackery should be deductible, we should ask really why a wart removal procedure by a real doctor should be deductible. I think whatever answer you come up with, is going to apply to non-doctors too. That is, unless, your answer is "I'm a doctor and I want the government to encourage people to do business with me, but as few of my competitors as possible."
  That's especially true with elective procedures. I don't know the details of this case but I don't think this wart was going to kill someone. The IRS just has no fucking business here and shouldn't be interfering with the market. It's not their job to teach people the difference between science and witchcraft.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
72. Re:Can we get this judge... by danpbrowning · 2011-07-18 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's amazing how you think you can extrapolate a doctor's salary from 5 minutes.
  It doesn't matter whether the $450 for a 5-minute procedure goes to the doctor's salary or to clinic's investors. That's not the point.
  
  Also, you underestimate the damage of losing the first four earning years out of college and instead accruing a house's worth of loans. Not to mention at least another 3-4 years after that where you're making a resident's salary.
  Are you saying that $450 is justified because of that?
  
  --
  Daniel
73. Re:Can we get this judge... by Thuktun · 2011-07-18 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  My homeopathic doctor charges $15/hour for the exact same service that my medical doctor charged $5,400/hour for.
  The sheer number of jokes that could be made here made my head explode.
74. Re:Can we get this judge... by Malenx · 2011-07-18 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Doctors charge what insurance companies pay.
75. Re:Can we get this judge... by mldi · 2011-07-18 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, to that I'll say that homeopathy "doctors" are not medical doctors. They're not regulated, and that's why insurance doesn't cover that. In the case of the wart, you're probably fine, but you may as well ask a clown with a steady hand to do the same thing as they're just as qualified.
  
  The bills you get from the doctor aren't as much about covering the cost of freezing the wart off, but more about covering the costs of covering every other sap that comes in and gets free coverage because they can't pay. The hospital has to cover it's own costs somehow. The doctors, believe it or not, are the cheapest part of almost any visit if there's any equipment involved at all.
  
  --
  If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
76. Re:Can we get this judge... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-18 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't exactly right, as you're placing all the blame on the "right wingers".
  Congratulations on assuming that everyone is talking about the USA.
  
  It's not the "right wingers" who are at fault here, it's both "parties" (who are really part of the same, single Party that controls this country), and the voters who keep stupidly voting for them.
  Congratulations again! (or was it still) on assuming that everyone is talking about the USA. Just a tip. For next time? Read the comment that you're responding to. It gives context to your response and while it doesn't ensure the following comment will be intelligent, it does help keep it on topic.
77. Re:Can we get this judge... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-18 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about Canada where the centre-left Liberal Party balanced the budget for about 10 years and were paying off the debt.
  Not to mention the liberals were increasing the money supply! The role of the government is to keep the country running smoothly. And if that means spending money on social programs that encourage the recipients of those social programs to spend ... and get taxed ... and those who sell their services are taxed in return ... and the government keeps putting money out into the hands of the people, they're going to actually get *more* back in taxes.
  
  I still can't believe the cons won the last election ... and broke their promises about balancing the budget 10 days later, and it got almost NO press coverage.
78. Re:Can we get this judge... by Slashdot+Parent · 2011-07-19 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not quite sure I'd call "spraying oneself with liquid nitrogen" easy, or even safe without training. One wrong move and you could crack a large portion of your skin (and muscle, and bone) off.
  Well, nobody is spraying anybody with liquid nitrogen. I've had warts frozen off, and it generally involves a quick tap with a cotton swab that was dipped in liquid nitrogen.
  There are inexpensive kits to do this at home (they don't use liquid nitrogen, though). I used one once, and it was effective and seemed pretty safe.
  
  --
  They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
79. Re:Can we get this judge... by dryeo · 2011-07-19 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  I still can't believe the cons won the last election ... and broke their promises about balancing the budget 10 days later, and it got almost NO press coverage.
  This is one of the biggest problems in todays western democracies. The press is pretty well owned by one or two individuals/companies (here there are 2 papers both owned by the same company and TV and radio aren't much better) which gives them way too much power. They can give lots of negative press coverage to the party they don't like and only a positive spin on the party they do like.
  What's happening in the UK really hi-lights this.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
80. Re:Can we get this judge... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-20 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  What I've found in medicine is that the average procedure costs $50 for 95% of the population, $5000 for 4%, and $50,000 for 1%. As a result, everybody ends up paying something like $400 since that is how the system works. Then, throw in all the guys who get the procedure done but don't pay their bills for whatever reason...
  Sorry, is that an american I hear advocating for across-the-board medicare?
81. Re:Can we get this judge... by Rich0 · 2011-07-20 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't actually say that. I'm certainly for trying to make pricing more transparent and equitable. Charge $5000 for a procedure if you must, but don't charge a guy without insurance $10k and an insurance company $2k. And so on... More transparency can help reduce costs, but it isn't a complete solution.
  Long term I don't believe that voluntary medical insurance is viable. Sooner or later genetics will get to the point where we can predict somebody's medical costs from birth (for the most part). At that point if insurance is voluntary than either insurers will try to deny care to those who will be expensive, or people who are cheap will avoid buying insurance. The second bit is impossible to solve without making coverage universal, and will destroy the insurance industry (as a private industry) very quickly. People only talk about the first bit, which is more easily regulated but in the end unimportant.
  So, I think that eventually everybody will have universal coverage only because no other system works in a system where everybody actually has strong knowledge of risk. Either that or we just write off "the weak."
Nothing will change. by koreaman · 2011-07-16 10:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nothing will change; the utilities will keep fucking us over every chance they get. I'm not sure why this still surprises anyone.
Our political system is so locked down by corporations that there is less of a chance of meaningful change here than in China or even North Korea. I'm not saying we're as bad as those places, but we're certainly headed that direction and there is literally no way to change that within the current system.
Nothing will change in the United States without a revolution, which would first require a huge sea change in the culture to even be remotely effective.
Again, chances are slim. May as well move to Europe or Canada as soon as possible.

--
Le français vous intéresse?
1. Re:Nothing will change. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 10:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Have you been to Canada recently? Our government is more in the pockets of corporations, as least in regard to utilities and wireless service, that the U.S. could ever dream of.
  Except for healthcare. We have that part covered.
2. Re:Nothing will change. by koreaman · 2011-07-16 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  Well, that sucks... I had hoped Canada was at least better off. Europe certainly is, although like most places it's moving in the wrong direction.
  
  --
  Le français vous intéresse?
3. Re:Nothing will change. by mariasama16 · 2011-07-16 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Not like moving to either place is any better. There's a reason that Great Britain is also called the Nanny State.
4. Re:Nothing will change. by countertrolling · 2011-07-16 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if this "huge sea change in the culture" were ever to occur, you would hardly need a revolution, not of the violent kind anyway.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
5. Re:Nothing will change. by MachDelta · 2011-07-16 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  I don't entirely agree with GP. There are some area's that definitely need work (CRTC, i'm looking at you...), but on the whole I don't think Canada is near the plutarchy that the US has become. YMMV.
6. Re:Nothing will change. by newcastlejon · 2011-07-16 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  There's a reason that Great Britain is also called the Nanny State.
  I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
7. Re:Nothing will change. by hedwards · 2011-07-16 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  ASBOs are the ones I read about and shake my head. Well, that and the continued war against knife crime. I can only assume that England isn't as dangerous as portrayed by the BBC, but the whole notion that nobody goes around with a knife that isn't up to no good is just bizarre.
8. Re:Nothing will change. by grahamd0 · 2011-07-16 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
  I was under the impression that Great Britain employed prohibition to much the same extent the government does here in the US.
  Or have you adopted sensible decriminalization policies like Portugal?
9. Re:Nothing will change. by iserlohn · 2011-07-16 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the "Nanny State" is more than that. It has to do with the idea of positive freedom, and where the line is drawn - ie. should we allow people to choose an alternative option if that option harms society, etc, etc.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
10. Re:Nothing will change. by newcastlejon · 2011-07-16 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  I think I agree with your point re positive vs. negative freedom, but not the example you give: there are many things that are bad for society that are rightly criminal but for me the nanny state is exemplified by laws that restrict things that harm the individual only, if anyone at all.
  Take seatbelts - the oft-given example - if I don't buckle up I might die in a crash but it doesn't harm anyone else. I suppose it might weigh on the conscience on someone that causes a now lethal accident but if that person can't accept that it was my own dumb fault then it's their problem, no?
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
11. Re:Nothing will change. by epine · 2011-07-16 13:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nothing will change; the utilities will keep fucking us over every chance they get. I'm not sure why this still surprises anyone.
  You're part of the problem, but this doesn't surprise me at all. Greater society is to blame. I've been reading and thinking intensively in the area of economics and the foundation of wealth. Why are some societies better off than others? Ideological purity? I think not.
  The people thinking above the scale of the last quarterly profit report are widely in agreement that wealthy societies have superior social institutions. This shows up most of all in discussions about the rule of law. If you think rule of law makes a society impervious to corruption, you're smoking the drapes. But on a larger scale, there's a lot to it. There are certain kinds of financial and legal shenanigans that we implicitly don't accept, where someone in Africa would be posting "I'm not sure why this surprises anyone" about intermittent refrigeration.
  America is the most effective venture capital market in human history for good reason: pragmatic presumptions about rule of law are right more often than wrong. You think the Russians drink for no reason?
  This is a bit like people thinking there's a health care crisis in America, completely blind to the retirement savings crisis. These are not compatible crises, to the discerning mind. Yes, the health care system is mired in lamentable suckitude. Rule of law is the nucleus of the fruit, not the whole thing. The flesh of the fruit is the venal nature of business and politics as usual. Yes, we've noticed.
  The reason that people act as if this kind of behaviour from Verizon is shockingly unexpected is because we cling to the march of human history as mediated by communal opprobrium. The rule of law is still in there and dictates shared attitudes more than you think.
  Not in a thousand years will you catch me playing the learned helplessness card on the rule of law. Yes, you might look more hip by stating what's superficially obvious. You're also throwing out the baby with the bath water.
  Recently I listened to Dan Carlin interview Gwynne Dyer. He echos what Stephen Pinker has also put forward: human violence is on a significant downward trend over the past 3000 years. It spiked wildly upward when we first started to confine ourselves to permanent settlements. Since then, we've been coming to terms, with millennial stubbornness.
  Concerning nuclear weapons in the 20'th century Dyer remarked "we passed the midterm", i.e. we haven't yet blown civilization sky high. Dyer is a specialist in the history of warfare. I didn't much care for his lectures on global warming, nor his comment in the Carlin interview that replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources is just a "diddle" costing 1% of GDP, or some insanely small figure. Shockingly, one idiocy doesn't make him wrong about everything else. He views a looming evacuation of Bangladesh as portent to the end of civilization. Clearly he sees the progressive detente of the past 3000 years as strictly territorial, as if the moment you displace a human from his emotional patch of soil, we're right back to baboons. He could be right. Israel has only taught us so far how things could get an awful lot worse. I got sucked into a long conversation with a Turkish political refugee (now Canadian) about the Israeli question the other day. My god, the learned helplessness card had never looked fatter or more attractive. But still I resist.
  
  Nothing will change in the United States without a revolution, which would first require a huge sea change in the culture to even be remotely effective.
  It was a huge insight for me when I read that disgust was a primary emotion, and that purity was a universal cultural response (emphasized to different degrees in different societies).
  We'll just suspend rule of law while we fix the purity problem by draining the creme of the social and
12. Re:Nothing will change. by base3 · 2011-07-16 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  By your own argument, I assume you support government regulation on food intake and exercise, since those could also cause early deaths leaving widows and children for the poor insurance companies/the state to support? And no, I don't live with my parents, thank you very much.
  
  --
  One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
13. Re:Nothing will change. by zippyspringboard · 2011-07-16 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sure you would be crazy to not wear a seat-belt. But the question is, should the government make it illegal to not wear one? It is the Governments job to enforce good common sense? Is saving lives or strengthening the economy justification enough for our Government to dictate our actions?
14. Re:Nothing will change. by cduffy · 2011-07-16 15:07 · Score: 2
  
  I had to chuckle recently, just a little, at the irony of that biker in the U.S. taking part in a ride protesting over helmet laws. He was thrown over the handlebars and smashed his head on the road. If he'd been wearing a helmet, he would probably have lived.
  On the individual, "$PERSON hits their head, how bad are they injured?" level, the statistics back you up on this.
  On the larger scale -- "$COUNTRY implements a mandatory helmet law, do head injuries among cyclists go up or down?" -- bicycle helmets either have no measurable effect or do more harm than good.
  Why? Damned good question. There's been speculation that wearing a helmet makes cyclists more careless, and a study finding that cars actually pass closer to a cyclist wearing a helmet than one without. The other likely explanation is that mandatory helmet laws (or even widespread helmet use) make cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is, leading fewer people to bike, reducing the safety-in-numbers effect (when other vehicles aren't accustomed to sharing the road they aren't looking for bicycles). (By the way -- compare the injury rate to that of the Netherlands, where nobody wears a helmet unless they're taking part in a race, and try that on for size).
  On a related note -- did you know that mandatory seatbelt laws increase death rates among pedestrians? Drivers drive more recklessly because they feel safer -- and they are, but not the poor sods they happen to be sharing the road with.
  So -- nanny state laws have unintended consequences. Even ones that seem like "common sense".
15. Re:Nothing will change. by Culture20 · 2011-07-16 15:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Take seatbelts - the oft-given example - if I don't buckle up I might die in a crash but it doesn't harm anyone else.
  Incorrect. You are now a 180Lbs loose object in the car. Where your children were safely buckled, your dead body bounced to the back seat and injured them. Or you're a 450Lbs object wedged behind the steering wheel... This is slashdot after all.
16. Re:Nothing will change. by tragedy · 2011-07-16 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if you're in the back seat, you stand a really good chance of killing the person in the front seat in a serious accident. You could also be thrown out of the car and become a dangerous projectile, but chances of that are much slimmer than the scenario where you kill the person in front of you.
17. Re:Nothing will change. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Europe is worse in some areas and the US is worse in other areas. Take for instance data logging. In much of Europe companies are required to retain data for a certain period of time. The US I don't believe has any such laws which mandate this. Unfortunately many have been bullied into it. In any case. Then look at censorship. The Europeans generally have it. Then you look at Canada. It is present although the ISPs have been bullied into it. Then you have the USA. Nodda. We're still pretty free flowing in the USA. The exception in the USA is with private companies and take down notices. At least it is after the fact though and there are no pre-censored lists like in Canada and much of Europe. Of course most of Europe the health care is considered essential service guaranteed to all and more of a right than a privilege as it is in the USA.
  What needs to be done is revolutionise the system by putting together a new bill of rights that prohibits forced, coerced, or encourages censorship pre or post by private, government, or other entities. We need a new system of health care where health care research is funded through taxation. A system which prohibits road tolls and essentially nationalises all major public roads (road tolls make no sense- they just increase costs- we want efficient government). Nationalises funding of the educational system (that does not mean every student needs to be within the same system- one student may utilise one system and another another system). Provides welfare to those who are incapable of fending for themselves. Provides programs for the impoverished and criminals (no person should be incarcerated in a prison as designed today- criminals should be able to work, live, and socialise regardless of the crime or disgust for we have for a particular offence within a restricted area).
  Then all this should be funded by those getting the most benefit from the system. Those assets (income) which were created by selling to United States citizens living in the United States should be taxed. A foreigners income selling to a US citizen should be taxed. Where you live should not matter.
18. Re:Nothing will change. by profplump · 2011-07-16 16:16 · Score: 2
  
  So shouldn't the driver/front-seat-passenger be able to make the call about whether or not they're willing to ride with an unrestrained passenger in the back? I still don't see what interest the state has in this situation.
  I'm just going to pretend you aren't asking us to believe that there's any reasonable risk of an unrestrained driver/passenger being in an accident and their body, after penetrating the windshield, causing significant harm to someone outside the vehicle -- it's so unlikely you'd be better off banning coconut trees in terms of lives saved/year.
19. Re:Nothing will change. by AlamedaStone · 2011-07-16 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take paying more for having choice and expediant services.
  Bully for you that you can afford to "pay more". Many of the rest of us just have to grin and bear it. I'd rather wait for medical care than go without.
  
  --
  "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
20. Re:Nothing will change. by Astronomerguy · 2011-07-16 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they may be beaten to an inch of their lives like us, but at least we get a stale crust of bread and a glass of urine in the evening. Are you out of your fucking mind? Being screwed is being screwed, nevermind HOW they are being screwed in the USA. Idiot.
21. Re:Nothing will change. by swillden · 2011-07-16 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that this is news because it's unusual. All of the phone companies I've ever dealt with offer itemized bills by default.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
22. Re:Nothing will change. by scubamage · 2011-07-16 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  The state has a vested interest in you being alive. If you die, you can't pay them taxes. Each person out there is good for at least a couple grand a year, and over the course of a lifetime, that adds up. And if they keep you alive, you may spawn more little wallets for them to exploit.
23. Re:Nothing will change. by billcopc · 2011-07-16 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'd much rather see Shaw, Telus, Rogers and Bell broken up into infrastructure and services companies.
  Personally, I'd rather see the infrastructure turned into a national, public asset controlled by the government, leaving the media companies to focus on providing the actual services - the exact opposite of what our corrupt and idiotic leaders have done over the past 35 years. I think it would be a much different telecom landscape if the bullies were forced to compete nationally with every other service provider, big and small.
  We've reached the point where the only wire 99.9% of all homes and offices need is internet, thanks to VoIP and IPTV. I think that's a huge enough majority to justify nationalized internet service. To hell with this triple-play nonsense, I can do all three and a bunch more over one wire. Rogers can still sell me TV content, just send it over the internet. Give me a set-top box with an ethernet port and off we go. Then all this debate over channel bandwidth can be laid to rest. Same idea with the phone, there are already countless VoIP providers that ship you a preconfigured SIP gateway - if Joe Blow's Ghetto Telco can do it, surely the big greasy Robbers can do it too!
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
24. Re:Nothing will change. by korean.ian · 2011-07-16 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  OBEY
25. Re:Nothing will change. by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-16 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Have you been to Canada recently? Our government is more in the pockets of corporations, as least in regard to utilities and wireless service, that the U.S. could ever dream of.
  Except for healthcare. We have that part covered.
  Mmm. +4 informative AC. Except ... it's not informative, or even factual. I imagine the people modding up the AC are american and desperate to justify their failing system by downplaying the success of others.
26. Re:Nothing will change. by korean.ian · 2011-07-16 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  hmmm my html must be rusty but it was supposed to link to this:
  http://www.thewingnuterer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/obey.png
27. Re:Nothing will change. by mr_walrus · 2011-07-16 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  actually NOT wearing a seatbelt could harm someone else.
  the theory is the harness keeps you more in front of the wheel providing
  more opportunity for you to retain/wrestle some sort of control over
  the vehicle and reduce collateral damages.
28. Re:Nothing will change. by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · 2011-07-16 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  The problem in Canada, is that just 4 companies outside quebec own 99% of the telecom infrastructure. Depending which side of the country you are on, you have no choice at all. Out West (which is arguably more competitive because they have to compete with the east telecoms at some level) you have only the choice of:
  You are *so* misinformed. Because of the way the infrastructure was built in Canada, there are 4 companies that have taken over management of the lines. They are legally required to lease out the lines, at rates that have been set to repay the real cost of investment. We're not living in Japan here. We're the 2nd largest country in the world, with a population 1/10th the size of the USA. So yeah. We pay more per person to have quality access to the internet, cable and the telephone system. But it's not anti-competitive - if the government didn't heavily subsidize the infrastructure and maintain some sort of control over the protocols, you'd either have 1 giant megacorp that owned it all, or several tiny companies that only serviced a small area and couldn't inter-operate. It's close minded thinking like yours that puts politicians in power who destroy the nature of what makes our country such a great place to live. The fundamental role of government is to make sure that everyone is on equal footing, that no one can unfairly take advantage of another. Our country does it much better than our neighbours to the south... why would you want to change?
  
  In other news ... the rest of the country wishes that alberta would hurry up and secede, we've got enough close minded, uninformed intolerate people living south of the border. We don't need them living *in* our country as well. Add in the fact that they're full of mormons and polygamists (not the same thing, mind you...), and can't even grow decent marijuana ... really. What do we need them for? The tar-sands? Well, we need the tar sands just as much as we need the hydroelectric plants all through northern quebec ... and that didn't stop us from ALMOST getting rid of them.
29. Re:Nothing will change. by mark_elf · 2011-07-16 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Is saving lives or strengthening the economy justification enough for our Government to dictate our actions?
  Yes, when you put it that way. In fact, if I was going to make a case that a national government should sometimes dictate the actions of its citizens, "saving lives" and "strengthening the economy" are two examples that I might use.
30. Re:Nothing will change. by korean.ian · 2011-07-16 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ah this canard. It is true that we have slightly lengthier waiting lists for elective surgeries, however this does not result in hordes of Canadians traveling to the US for medical procedures. Nor does it indicate that the majority of Canadians are unhappy with medical services.
  http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:roy0ew8NlLoJ:www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/WaitingTimes_primer.sflb.ashx+canada+wait+times+surgery+vs+US&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh3hRB_jZERWlxlUy6HXPhxfYOhhHZxiu1XLAizzVUQXsBVW-s1rLWx-vlsn7HoeHZi5H48PJNQYSyqNb7v3w-HJ9KPtsFP4eHRwA4VFx281LqqLr1pBujIp0mujkJ7j4U9yzNi&sig=AHIEtbRjy36S9t0DAq2GseOev5bs5uznSw
31. Re:Nothing will change. by currently_awake · 2011-07-16 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Our banks didn't fail, didn't need trillion dollar bailouts. Our debt/deficits are manageable. We're heading in the wrong direction but we're not where USA is (yet).
32. Re:Nothing will change. by Paul1969 · 2011-07-16 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ironic that you should mention "sea change."
  Recent data is making the most pessimistic climate change scenarios look more and more likely. Just a few years ago, the consensus "best guesstimate" of sea level rise was a few inches by the end of the century. The latest data and modeling has changed that to ONE METER.
  It is becoming more and more likely that our technological civilization will face a severe threat to its continued existence within our children's lifetimes, if not within ours.
33. Re:Nothing will change. by Fjandr · 2011-07-16 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is probably one of the most insightful comments attached to this story.
34. Re:Nothing will change. by Fjandr · 2011-07-16 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is bizarre. I've carried a knife for years, and use it nearly every day for a myriad of things. I know many other people who carry knives, and not a single one of them does so in order to commit crimes.
35. Re:Nothing will change. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-16 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think a distinction is needed between "save your life" and "save other lives". The latter, government does have a reason to enforce and regulate - thus e.g. driver licensing is perfectly reasonable. But seat belts, not so much.
36. Re:Nothing will change. by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-16 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  Damn straight, and wireless should be turned into a national, public asset too. Crown-corp for the towers, cell phones get to access the full range of frequencies from the towers to achieve the best connection/speed, and companies like Rogers and Bell or whatever can throw a box connecting to the tower to provide me access to their voicemail network, etc.
  The best part would be that the for-profit companies would only be able to really gouge idiots, while the non-profit (merely sustainable + some for expansion) crown corp could provide bandwidth at approximately the same cost as you pay to transfer data between two machines you own. IE - next to nothing once the infrastructure is in place.
  And most of all, it should be rolled out with IPv6 across the board.
37. Re:Nothing will change. by pittance · 2011-07-16 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Take seatbelts - the oft-given example - if I don't buckle up I might die in a crash but it doesn't harm anyone else.
  Incorrect. You are now a 180Lbs loose object in the car. Where your children were safely buckled, your dead body bounced to the back seat and injured them. Or you're a 450Lbs object wedged behind the steering wheel... This is slashdot after all.
  Seeing as we were talking about the UK we can also talk about the fact that increased injuries of loose drivers/passengers if they don't manage to die will affect others by the increased cost and use of resources in the NHS.
38. Re:Nothing will change. by jimicus · 2011-07-16 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  On the larger scale -- "$COUNTRY implements a mandatory helmet law, do head injuries among cyclists go up or down?" -- bicycle helmets either have no measurable effect or do more harm than good.
  I've heard this one once or twice, but I haven't yet seen a citation. Do you have one?
39. Re:Nothing will change. by roman_mir · 2011-07-16 21:29 · Score: 2
  
  Our political system is so locked down by corporations
  
  - you have to understand that the corporations that are locking your political system down are in the position to do so because the government got into their business in the first place.
  At some point government of USA even declared AT&T to be a national monopoly specifically, so that nobody could challenge them, they were a 'national resource'. Government by regulations, taxes and subsidies creates the corporate monsters, who then take over the government.
  
  Nothing will change in the United States without a revolution, which would first require a huge sea change in the culture to even be remotely effective.
  - yes, a revolution against the government, which created all of these problems, but that would mean a revolution against thyself, as government uses voters to do what it wants and without total voter complicity this wouldn't have been possible.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
40. Re:Nothing will change. by roman_mir · 2011-07-16 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Except for healthcare. We have that part covered.
  - oh really? I knew too many DEAD people who died because they couldn't have TIMELY access to the doctors they really needed.
  Names, I can name too many dead names.
  --
  As to utilities and wireless, etc. It's true, what you are saying. I worked for AT&T and Bell Canada and Hydro One, they are terrible.
  However here is one of the projects that I built:
  Invoice on-line for Bell Mobility back around 1997. I specifically built the itemization part, all of it. It was for different types of invoices, be it business or personal, it was data itemization per call to a second resolution at that time (don't know what they have now though.)
  So at least there wasn't a problem with this, even though my brother and I contracted for a company, that specialized in figuring out any wrong charges and helped the customers to fight them and got 10 or 15% of what was retrieved from the phone companies, which was still extremely profitable, as some of the customers were huge call centers, whose bills were literally in tens of millions per year with wrong charges being in hundreds of thousands to millions.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
41. Re:Nothing will change. by Tom · 2011-07-16 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing will change in the United States without a revolution,
  Change often starts small, not large. Revolutions are the exception, not the norm for major changes. And many times, the revolution that's written into the history books was only the tip of the iceberg.
  I've become an enemy of corporate culture myself, both from experiences within and without, as a customer and a former employee. I'm not fanatical about it, but I do make it a point to shop in smaller, owner-run shops when it's not too much trouble. I drink juices instead of Coke not only because it's healthier but also because I dislike the Coca-Cola companies ways. I moved both my landline and my mobile to smaller carriers. None of that is revolutionary, and it won't make much of a difference. But if enough people do it, it will. My shopping at the small store down the street may contribute to helping it stay there instead of being crowded out by yet another superstore. The few bucks it costs me because the small store can't match the superstore prices are nothing compared to what a revolution would potentially cost.
  Not being able to change the big picture is not an excuse for not making the changes in the small matters that are entirely possible.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
42. Re:Nothing will change. by drinkypoo · 2011-07-16 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter where you are, it costs you more if they don't die because of the ongoing lawsuits. If you're dead there's a flurry of lawsuits and then it's over.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
43. Re:Nothing will change. by drinkypoo · 2011-07-16 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you're belted into your car then you're not going to be ejected from the vehicle where both your wrecked car AND you are now hazards to navigation. Therefore seatbelts are totally reasonable.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
44. Re:Nothing will change. by ais523 · 2011-07-17 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  The law's against carrying a knife in a way that it could easily be used to stab someone. A knife with a very short blade (such as a Swiss Army Knife) is, as far as I know, OK; as is a knife in packaging that makes it difficult or impossible to quickly draw it and stab someone. There's quite a difference between knife-for-practical-purpose and knife-for-stabbing-people.
  
  --
  (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
45. Re:Nothing will change. by cduffy · 2011-07-17 01:31 · Score: 2
  On the larger scale -- "$COUNTRY implements a mandatory helmet law, do head injuries among cyclists go up or down?" -- bicycle helmets either have no measurable effect or do more harm than good.
  I've heard this one once or twice, but I haven't yet seen a citation. Do you have one?
  See:
  
  A list of published evidence skeptical of helmets
  A list of published evidence supportive of helmets
  A country-by-country (or province-by-province, where appropriate) analysis of helmet laws and their effects
  A New York Times article (quoted in full -- didn't feel like registering to find the original link) describing a 51% increase in the rate of head injuries among American cyclists since helmet use started to become pervasive in 1991 (and a drop in number of cyclists in that same period)
46. Re:Nothing will change. by waerloga01 · 2011-07-17 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Except where instead of paying taxes you are on the dole.
47. Re:Nothing will change. by koreaman · 2011-07-17 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in France for about a year, speak, read, and write French fluently, and keep up with French (and Western European in general) current affairs pretty closely. So I'm not an expert, but I hope I'm not presumptuous in claiming to know more about it than you do by reading Slashdot :)
  Again, I maintain that Europe is moving in the wrong direction -- and rather quickly, at that -- but that it's still better off than the United States
  
  --
  Le français vous intéresse?
48. Re:Nothing will change. by The_Wilschon · 2011-07-17 01:57 · Score: 2
  
  This.
  This is why I don't want socialized medicine in the US. Because then one can make the (admittedly valid in that context) legal argument that if I do anything that even might hurt myself, I am creating a cost to society and should be prevented. Then laws spring up that try to nerf the world and stop anyone from doing anything remotely dangerous.
  I'd far rather allow people to take risks in the full knowledge that they are responsible for their own insurance (or lack thereof).
  
  --
  SIGSEGV caught, terminating
  
  wait... not that kind of sig.
49. Re:Nothing will change. by The_Wilschon · 2011-07-17 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Considering your post as a short essay, I have one general comment: Keep it together. You started out quite coherent and interesting, but as the post continued, you got more grandiose, less coherent, less cohesive, and less comprehensible.
  
  --
  SIGSEGV caught, terminating
  
  wait... not that kind of sig.
50. Re:Nothing will change. by Bardwick · 2011-07-17 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I think the revolution will come after the government collapses itself. No armed rebel attacks ala Libya.. Hyper inflation, and power outage, that's the ballgame.
51. Re:Nothing will change. by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with England is idiotic hooliganism(1). It would make much more sense, instead of banning knifes, to ban fricking soccer.
  I think if England said 'Fans of team X were violent, thus we are dismantling team X for a year', it would, perhaps, be a good slap upside the head. That's it. A single instance of violence, take away the damn team. Zero tolerance. Of course, England will never do that.
  In the US, you might get stabbed, or even shot, but it's for money. It's for an actual logical reason, like a mugging, not a bunch of hooligans going around looking for trouble as part of watching a soccer game.
  That said, I don't pay enough attention to English stuff to know if hooliganism is the justification for the current idiotic knife crackdown. I'm pretty certain it's been the justification in the past, though.
  1) American who don't know this take note: In England, a hooligan is not some little kid who throws popcorn during a movie. He's part of a group that roams the countryside before and after soccer matches, breaking crap and beating up people he doesn't like.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
52. Re:Nothing will change. by r1_97 · 2011-07-17 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Say What?
53. Re:Nothing will change. by Fjandr · 2011-07-17 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  I was not referring to Swiss Army knives. While useful, they are impractical for many things.
  There are many state laws against the carrying of knives with blades longer than X (or a subjective and ambiguous length not actually listed in the law). However, they are rarely enforced and many people ignore them as the irrelevancies they are. There are notable exceptions, but those tend to be the police states (anyone paying attention can list all or most without me stating them explicitly).
54. Re:Nothing will change. by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's how laws in the US are, banning things like springblades, switchblades and flip knifes. Basically, they try to ban any knife you can open one-handed. Those sort of don't really have any added purpose over a normal pocketknife beside 'quick draw', and usually have less features than pocketknives, so are fairly useless to carry around unless you plan to use them in combat. That law at least makes some sense.
  In England, however, it's a lot crazier. People can't legally carry things like butcher knifes (I think common steak knifes have an exemption.), or any knife with a blade over three inches. Or any pocket knife which 'locks' open, you know, like you'd use in any situation which you don't want it to close on your fingers. (Which obviously includes combat, but includes a lot of other situations also. Like just cutting stuff with a lot of force!)
  Basically, the same idiotic rules that schools in the US follow applies to the English public at large. (And I think Scotland and Wales also.)
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
55. Re:Nothing will change. by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  As the other poster pointed out, but didn't explain well:
  Drivers not wearing seatbelts have a much higher risk of being bounced around enough to lose control of their car in minor collisions, causing much worse accidents.
  In an accident, drivers usually keep their hands on the wheel...and that's a good thing if they're still in their seat. If they fall out of their seat, either forward or leftward, then it's a really bad thing, probably worse than just letting go and letting the car drive wherever it wants. (And most people drive with one hand on the side, which means sliding forward spins the wheel one way or the other.)
  If you get sideswiped while driving down the road, or sideswipe something yourself, or have some other minor harm to the car that jolted it, you have a much much greater chance of recovering and continuing to drive forwardish (instead of spinning out across traffic) if you have on a seatbelt.
  Same with feet. What exactly do you think happens when someone has their foot on the gas and slides forward in their seat? That's right, they just literally floored the gas. And having slid forward, it's not like they easily correct that by taking their foot off the gas. Sometimes they're even wedged in down there! And if they avoid that, after being thrown around, do you think their feet can find the brakes easily?
  A driver not wearing a seltbelt is dangerous to other people, because their body is not secured in the driver's seat, which they need stay in, correctly positioned, at all times, to drive the damn car. Not wearing a seatbelt means they fall out of their seat, or at least flop around in it, so at best they're no longer able to operate the car, and at worst their hands and feet managed to mis-operated the controls on the way out of the seat and now the car is doing something entirely random!
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
56. Re:Nothing will change. by bjorniac · 2011-07-17 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of a question about helmets in the first world war:
  http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~lori/mathed/problems/sloanA307.html
  Perhaps the solution is similar...
57. Re:Nothing will change. by dryeo · 2011-07-17 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yet I often hear about how the American hospitals jack up their prices for the paying customers to cover the people who do something dangerous, get injured, and treated for free.
  Seems as long as you live in society, what you do affects society.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
58. Re:Nothing will change. by dryeo · 2011-07-17 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  The corporations learned a long time ago that by buying government they could make more profit for less work.
  AT&T grew into a monopoly with only patent law as government help (they owned patents on the telegraph, then phone, then vacuum tubes) at which point they could pay the government to declare them a 'national resource'.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
59. Re:Nothing will change. by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  Show me any intelligent, well-informed person that actually "knows" that.
60. Re:Nothing will change. by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  I believe there is some data to suggest that people head off to Canada for their health care as well, or at least to buy prescriptions!
61. Re:Nothing will change. by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably there is some expense associated with people not wearing seatbelts in an accident that a medical team might have to absorb, depending on the circumstances.
62. Re:Nothing will change. by roman_mir · 2011-07-17 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Government should not be in business, what I mean is that governments must be expressly forbidden from regulating businesses and taxing income and subsidizing businesses/people. Only this way, buy taking away the power of governing enterprise away from government, there can be free market and real competition.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
63. Re:Nothing will change. by cduffy · 2011-07-18 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of a question about helmets in the first world war:
  http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~lori/mathed/problems/sloanA307.html
  Perhaps the solution is similar...
  Would that solution be that more incidents which would have resulted in death instead resulted in injury after the change? It's a fairly obvious explanation -- but could be tested by looking for a change in number of deaths. As such, the statistics don't back it up.
  What does have strong statistical backing is the "safety in numbers" effect -- every time the population of cyclist doubles, the accident rate for each individual goes down by about 1/3. Make cycling seem unsafe, so fewer people do it? It becomes less safe.
  To do nothing to reduce the rate of accidents and only focus on their severity is foolish. The discussion needs to be about safety as a whole; it can't begin and end with helmets.
64. Re:Nothing will change. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, stop using so many clichés ("baby with the bathwater, etc...) it made me want to scratch my eyes out .
65. Re:Nothing will change. by Builder · 2011-07-18 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Leatherman Supertool can get you sent to jail here. They don't tell you that when you buy it at Blacks. There is no pamphlet telling you that you need to have a good reason to carry it that a policeman will believe. But you can still go to jail for having it with you.
  Yet a swiss army knife, that is arguably more dangerous to the user is legal.
  Fucking bullshit.
66. Re:Nothing will change. by Builder · 2011-07-18 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  See my rant above about the Leatherman Supertool. I've always carried one of these in preference over swiss army knives because all of the blades lock open.
  I got sick and tired of screwdrivers closing on my fingers when using them on the swiss army knife, so I moved to the supertool. But because that has two blades that lock open, it's illegal.
  It's safer than the swiss army knife. It's more robust for most purposes when camping or hunting. But it's illegal unless you can show a good reason for having it with you.
67. Re:Nothing will change. by Fjandr · 2011-07-18 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Much about the law is bullshit. Politicians are usually more concerned with appearance than reality though.
68. Re:Nothing will change. by koreaman · 2011-07-18 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't talking about economic policies. I was talking specifically about telecommunications companies having the state in their pockets, which is a totally separate issue.
  I'm certainly not a bright enough economist to pronounce myself one way or another on the content of your post.
  
  --
  Le français vous intéresse?
69. Re:Nothing will change. by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2011-07-18 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  The grandparent is exaggerating imho. The word "utilities" covers a lot of ground. In my province electricity is a utility that is owned by the government (a so-called "Crown Corporation") so they are hardly in the utility's pocket. There are 16 major electric utilities in Canada and 8 are owned by various provinces, representing 80%+ of the country's generating capacity, while another 2 are owned by municipalities.
  And while I don't know what the state of affairs is in all the provinces the Province of Saskatchewan owns the telephone utility as well as the power utilities - again hardly in the pockets of private corporations.
  It's not a utility but auto insurance is owned by the government in more than one Province and while I'm no fan of it in some ways it does generally provides better coverage at less cost than you would get in the private sector.
  I generally think people who say Canadian governments (federal or provincial) are in the pockets of the corporations just have no concept of what lobbying is like in the US.
  Although not a utility the government does however seem to be in the pocket of the copyright industry.... or perhaps they are just acquiescing to pressure from the US government which in turn is in the pocket of the copyright industry.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
70. Re:Nothing will change. by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2011-07-18 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming from some of your comments that you are in the US. If not then my comments may not make sense.
  
  no person should be incarcerated in a prison as designed today- criminals should be able to work, live, and socialise regardless of the crime or disgust for we have for a particular offence within a restricted area).
  
  Check out women's prisons in Canada. Seems like a pretty nice ifestyle.
  
  We need a new system of health care where health care research is funded through taxation
  Ummmm, universities? Doesn't the US/state government fund medical research at universities?
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
71. Re:Nothing will change. by Culture20 · 2011-07-19 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  And I pay more at retail stores due to shoplifters, but I'd rather nit have a tax to cover the cost of a policeman in every store.
72. Re:Nothing will change. by bjorniac · 2011-07-20 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  The WWI solution was indeed that deaths were reduced - I just thought the parallel interesting. Your solution about safety in numbers though, does indeed seem plausible.
73. Re:Nothing will change. by tragedy · 2011-07-21 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  I was only responding to someone who was stating that not wearing a seatbelt only endangers the person not wearing the seatbelt. Arguments over whether or not it's reasonable to make it illegal not to wear them are perfectly valid, of course. It all depends on where you want to draw the line. Personally, I wear mine, but I'm conflicted on laws forcing them to be worn.
  Incidentally, have you ever tried to demand that someone who really doesn't want to wear their seatbelt in a car with you put their belt on? They don't actually have to be behind you. As others have pointed out, their dead weight can end up thrown around the car like a pool ball even if they're in the front. Anyway, in my experience, even if it's the law and if you point out that they're endangering your life as well, they'll still refuse to wear their belt. In most situations where you're sharing a ride with people somewhere, there's really only limited place for negotiations and you usually need to settle on doing what they want.
  You don't have to pretend that I'm not asking you to believe that there's a reasonable risk of someone being flung out of the car and killing or seriously injuring someone outside the car. I'm not asking anyone to believe that. It happens, but it's obviously pretty rare, I should have been more clear when I merely said that the odds were "much slimmer". Incidentally, after a quick google search related to this, I would like to urge anyone considering suicide not to do it by throwing themselves off tall buildings. Apparently, they land on people quite a lot. Also, don't throw yourselves in front of trains, it really stresses out the engineers.
74. Re:Nothing will change. by The_Wilschon · 2011-07-22 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. That's a totally reasonable approach for them to take. It's much better than outlawing dangerous activities.
  
  --
  SIGSEGV caught, terminating
  
  wait... not that kind of sig.
Court of the Bleeding Obvious? by mevets · 2011-07-16 10:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

To determine that by no reasonable standard could Verizon's customer service be considered reasonable?
Nice that they were stupid enough to pursue it to court - now their competitors can use the decision in their ads....
nice fine ! by Dolphinzilla · 2011-07-16 10:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

to top it all off the judge assessed a civil penalty of $1000 dollars against Verizon, as a deterrent for treating customers badly in the future !
1. Re:nice fine ! by frosty_tsm · 2011-07-16 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  A $1,000 fine for not explaining a $4 charge is a pretty heavy fine-to-damage ratio. It might not be sufficient to change all business practices, but the hope is to send a message that not disclosing billing details to customers could be costly.
2. Re:nice fine ! by thatskinnyguy · 2011-07-16 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  The $1000 charge probably covers what the woman lost/spent pursuing this $4.19. My hats off to her for looking out for her own interests as well as ours.
  
  --
  The game.
3. Re:nice fine ! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Did Verizon ask to see that fine itemized?
4. Re:nice fine ! by tompaulco · 2011-07-16 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  You mean between the seat cushions in his Mercedes.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
5. Re:nice fine ! by tompaulco · 2011-07-16 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  $1000 would cover a development project to put a flag on her account to tell customer service to giver her that information when she calls.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
6. Re:nice fine ! by magarity · 2011-07-16 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  The judge should have taken into account verizon's size when he set the fine. It should have been MUCH higher, on the order of one million dollars or so. That might provide actual deterrence for verizon to engage in such activity. One grand isn't going to do shit to change verizon's behavior.
  Well the woman did go to court herself over a $4 charge, so it might be small claims court. If that's the case I don't think a small claims court judge can hand out million dollar fines; $1,000 might be the limit in that jurisdiction.
7. Re:nice fine ! by yuhong · 2011-07-16 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Suggested, not assessed.
8. Re:nice fine ! by yuhong · 2011-07-16 12:07 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, it is assessed. From:
  
  That within 30 days of the date of entry of the Commission’s Order in this case, Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. will remit a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000, payable by money order or certified check to:
9. Re:nice fine ! by Teancum · 2011-07-16 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  One of the things the judge mentioned in the ruling is that this complaint appeared to be unique. In other words, nobody else bothered to complain about the same issue.
  That should speak volumes about people who try to stand up for principles, as usually if there is a complaint like this there are hundreds of others who have experienced a similar problem. If it had been a recurring problem with Verizon, the judge stated that the penalty would have been much higher.
  That is something which I would like to encourage others to do, to simply let folks know when you are being wronged. Sometimes it is futile and falls on deaf ears, but not always. Had somebody, anybody else bothered to lodge a similar kind of complaint it could have been millions of dollars or at least a couple thousand. But nobody bothered, so the judge had to apply the principles of the law in this particular situation.
  All this said, if somebody else complains about this same issue, the judge might not be so "nice" the next time. The fine could have been up to $4000 and stayed within the scope of potential penalties under the discretion of this judge. Multiply that by a couple hundred or a thousand complaints like this one, and it certainly could have been a million dollars. Verizon also knows that any future complaints could use this ruling as precedence too, so there is a huge incentive on the part of this company to clean up its act to avoid such a huge penalty in the future.
  The sad part was the ruling by the judge that the $40 "setup fee" for the itemized billing was reasonable. The citizens of PA should try to push to get that tariff rule revoked, but that takes somebody who is paying attention to the games happening with regulated utility commissions.
10. Re:nice fine ! by Teancum · 2011-07-16 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  They did, and it was. Read the ruling for the details.
11. Re:nice fine ! by icebike · 2011-07-16 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  In addition the judge ordered them to cease and desist in violating section 1501 of the Public Utility Code which required them to provide information about charges. So they can't do this again.
  BUT if they do, everybody gets to go to court all over again, at great time and expense.
  The $1000 fine was merely an embarrassment to the green behind the ears lawyer they assigned to this case, management probably is entirely unaware of this issue, and they will probably continue to demand a subpoena because updating their procures and retraining their CS reps will cost more than 1000 bucks.
  (The attorney Verizon sent, William E. Lehman, Esquire, does not appear to even be a corporate employee, instead he runs a firm of 1 to 4 lawyers which grosses 500,000, so strictly small time hired gun. That's how much Verizon though of this case).
  A fine of two orders of magnitude greater might catch management's attention. This will be expensed as a cost of doing business, and taken as a tax write off.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
12. Re:nice fine ! by Stormthirst · 2011-07-16 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! Enough to be punitive, but not so much that they can cry that the damages were excessive. I suspect Verizon would make that much in about a minute, and their lawyers cost them more than that to go to court. Serves them right for being so dumb in the first place. Heh - it would probably cost them more than that to appeal.
  It'll probably also cover this lady's phone bill for the next 5 years!
13. Re:nice fine ! by icebike · 2011-07-16 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Read the story.
  It was heard before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Which means it was heard by an Administrative Law Judge.
  That judge would have the authority to hand down a huge fine but instead of a bitch slap, she waved her hand in the general direction of Verizon's wrist, and I'm sure there were chuckles all around over cheese and wine that very evening.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
14. Re:nice fine ! by icebike · 2011-07-16 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Development?
  All CRS systems worth running have a comments section.
  I'm sure there are some choice notations in there already.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
15. Re:nice fine ! by icebike · 2011-07-16 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't even bother sending their own lawyer.
  Verizon was represented by one Mr William E. Lehman, Esquire, which google will reveal is a small potatoes lawyer who grosses (not Nets, grosses) less than 500k per year.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
16. Re:nice fine ! by mysidia · 2011-07-16 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  to top it all off the judge assessed a civil penalty of $1000 dollars against Verizon, as a deterrent for treating customers badly in the future !
  Chump change for Verizon... they should have fined them at least a couple million, with a warning that they were being lenient on this time, because it was a first offense.
17. Re:nice fine ! by mysidia · 2011-07-16 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Did Verizon ask to see that fine itemized?
  Fine for refusing to itemize bill: -$1000
  Tax writeoff/deduction for administrative 'expenses' settling the matter: CR +$500
  Federal tax credit for resolving issue and providing better customer service: CR +$1000
  Customer monthly bill increase (carefully hidden in 'regulatory fees section': CR +$10
  Amount Due: -$510.
18. Re:nice fine ! by v1 · 2011-07-16 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing like a fine which is probably about .001% of what better customer service would cost them to implement. Hooray for justice.
  Read the judgement before commenting further - there were a total of 10 different factors used by the judge to weigh and adjust the civil penalty. Her situation being unique (rather than chronic), and the amount being small led to the judge approving an identical penalty to another similar case with a different defendant. This may seem like a pittance to fine them, but it puts them on the books, and the next penalty will likely be higher as a result.
  Just because the defendant is wealthy does not by itself justify a higher penalty. This unfortunately may result in more abuses before the penalties reach a sufficient level to adjust their attitude, but they're a bigger entity and as such it's natural to require more to motivate them to change.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
19. Re:nice fine ! by fuzznutz · 2011-07-16 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  That is something which I would like to encourage others to do, to simply let folks know when you are being wronged. Sometimes it is futile and falls on deaf ears, but not always.
  
  Back in the days before long distance was so cheap, I used to buy it from Ameritech in 15 minute increments, with a two hour minimum. When I did not exceed my two hour allotment for many months, I decided to see if it would be cheaper to pay by the minute instead. I called customer service and asked how many total minutes of long distance I used on my current bill. They told me they had no way of discovering that information. I immediately reminded them that if I went over my two hours by 1 second, I am billed for an additional 15 minutes, so in fact they had to have the information. Maybe she couldn't get it, but someone there could. After a half hour argument she claimed that no employee within the company had the ability to retrieve that information for me.
  
  I immediately contacted MCI and switched my long distance provider. When Ameritech called asking me why I had switched, I made sure they knew it was because they had lied to me regarding billing. I wish it had occurred to me to contact the Public Utilities Commission.
20. Re:nice fine ! by isleshocky77 · 2011-07-16 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm really surprised this wasn't in the summary as I found this as the most interesting part of the story. It wasn't actually that they were made to give her the list, but they were punished as well. It's also reading briefs such as these that gives me hope in our judicial system. This seemed extremely fair. They said it was up to $1000 per violation. He felt that it would fair to drop it to $250 per month of refusal which is where he came up with $1000 to deter future disobedience of the law of which this was a first known offense.. Now my only question. Where are the fair judgements when it's the corporations suing the people.
21. Re:nice fine ! by icebike · 2011-07-16 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  She doesn't get the money.
  And yes corporations can write off all lawyer fees, and the fine was probably paid out of petty cash.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
22. Re:nice fine ! by drinkypoo · 2011-07-16 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  It speaks volumes that it's so fucking difficult to take someone to court for something like this that anyone can't just do it. You have to do a bunch of research to appeal to the court to beg to stop someone you paid to provide a service from boning you.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:nice fine ! by danbeck · 2011-07-17 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that "writing off" doesn't mean for free, right? At most, corporations in the US pay about a 15-35% tax rate. So, they saved at most 35% of the fine, the witness fee and other administrative costs.
  I know it's en vogue to say that evil corporations can write things off like some magical free money printer, but educate yourself a little...
24. Re:nice fine ! by DaveGod · 2011-07-17 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Numerous comments seem to suggest many have taken this as sarcasm.
  To be clear, the judge/Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission set a precedent. In future, in every case with similar circumstances the default position is Verizon pays $1,000.
  Ouch.
Like Pulling Teeth from Sprint by Doc+Ruby · 2011-07-16 10:41 · Score: 2

I tried to get Sprint to itemize a "sales tax" item on my company's bill (many mobile phones + 4G/WiFi hotspots) that added to about 17% (NY sales tax is about 8.5%). It took 2 months and several dozen emails through my dedicated account rep, two different divisions of Sprint, to finally get me the raw data in pieces that I put together and explained to them. It was legit, but they do charge a tax on a tax, which they're probably withholding from the government in a neverending lawsuit against "taxing taxes" while they collect interest.
The telco cartel runs the US. Except where some other cartel has staked its flag deeper.

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:Like Pulling Teeth from Sprint by Doc+Ruby · 2011-07-17 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but they're the not-as-expensivest of the expensivest.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
2. Re:Like Pulling Teeth from Sprint by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2011-07-18 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  The telco cartel runs the US. Except where some other cartel has staked its flag deeper.
  If you haven't seen it, and you can still find it, you should watch "The President's Analyst."
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
3. Re:Like Pulling Teeth from Sprint by Doc+Ruby · 2011-07-18 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen that one. I'm a James Coburn fan. Thanks for joining me :).
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Try doing this... by brim4brim · 2011-07-16 10:52 · Score: 1

in the EU. Watch what happens next.
I can't believe they even tried it. Surely America has quite a low, cheap court to get accept such a case and they would have to send their own team of lawyers to for $4?
This is essentially corporate bullying, she should have tried to get them on that.
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by Frosty+Piss · 2011-07-16 10:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

The company just keeps track of the minutes, and one never got a list of local calls. this was true at least in the 1970s when I had measured service in CA. With unlimited local they don't report either.
Yes and no.
No, the company does *in fact* keep tack of every number you call.
And yes, normally you don't get a bill which itemizes local calls.
But none of this is the point.
This lady had a "customer service issue" where in she was disputing a charge. Verizon should be obligated to detail to any customer, on request, the nature of a charge. It's just that simple.
Now, Verizon has an "Itemized Bill Service" for which they charge, and it probably does cost them marginally more in computing and paper, but it's all there in their computers...
If I want ITEMIZED LOCAL CALLS on every bill, I might reasonable expect to pay a small fee.
But if I have a BILLING ISSUE, I expect them to pony up the data as a matter of doing business with me.
Fuck Verizon.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2011-07-16 10:56 · Score: 1

You are wrong Coward. I get an itemized list from T-Mobile online anytime I want it at no charge. It lists every incoming and outgoing call with date, time and the other number.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by flimflammer · 2011-07-16 11:01 · Score: 1

Uh, what? I routinely get a list of all calls on all lines I have through T-Mobile. I can verify every charge if I so see fit.
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by ArcherB · 2011-07-16 11:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would agree that this was just bad customer service training, but since this actually made it to court, AND WAS CHALLENGED BY VERIZON, this tells me that it is a matter of corporate policy. Verizon wanted so bad to NOT give her an itemized bill, they paid lawyers to go to court to try to defend their behavior and lost.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by Threni · 2011-07-16 11:12 · Score: 1

> Instead of clogging our courts with a stupid case like this, couldn't the customer just hang up and call
> back to get a different rep?
Why should the customer have to do this? The company got punished and presumably won't do it again; the customer got some cash out of it. I'm not sure what taxpayers have to do with this.
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by Aranykai · 2011-07-16 11:16 · Score: 1

This is about verizon land-line service, not verizon mobile or t-mobile. They are different entities within the company.

--
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by flimflammer · 2011-07-16 11:16 · Score: 1

If this were simply a case of bad training, why did the rep that Verizon sent also claim that the only way they would give any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information?
Bad training for their witness too?
Landlines by DaMattster · 2011-07-16 11:27 · Score: 1

Landlines are going by the wayside as they are just cost prohibitive in the current atmosphere. Verizon wants to encourage people to go with VoIP or wireless service. I believe Verizon's wireline division just went through massive cutbacks in personnel not too long ago. Personally, I don't see a need for a landline anymore and I haven't had one since 2001.
1. Re:Landlines by aztracker1 · 2011-07-16 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  So, your internet connection at home is wireless? The only time I've had wireless internet, it sucked, huge lags are the main issue, not even the throughput speed. Beyond the fact a wired connection is much faster.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
2. Re:Landlines by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  I learned that NYC has very high land-line rates when telling someone that the cheapest in my area is like $7. Still cheaper than mobile, but not so cheap that you'd just automatically have a land-line because why not. I think they start at $25-30 base.
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by Sinthet · 2011-07-16 11:36 · Score: 1

Exactly. Otherwise, its like Best-Buy demanding you pay for a TV without giving you a TV.
Here it is by elashish14 · 2011-07-16 11:41 · Score: 4, Funny
- Being a dick: $1000
--
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
1. Re:Here it is by shentino · 2011-07-16 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Legal fees: $25,000
  Fine: $1,000
  Loss of business: $130,000
  Getting free publicity on slashdot: Priceless.
2. Re:Here it is by Kalriath · 2011-07-17 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  To that I can only respond with an actual image of a Telecom New Zealand bill:
  http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020218/login/bill.jpg
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Sounds like a.. by ickleberry · 2011-07-16 11:41 · Score: 3, Funny

4.19 scam
1. Re:Sounds like a.. by Nimey · 2011-07-16 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  /sunglasses
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by dwreid · 2011-07-16 11:44 · Score: 1

Your basing your argument on the assumptions that she did none of the things you suggest. Verizon also had the option, once they received a summons, to solve the problem out of court. I see that they didn't do that either.
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by Xtifr · 2011-07-16 11:52 · Score: 1

If it was handled in Small Claims Court, they may not have sent a lawyer. In many jurisdictions, you're not allowed to be represented by a lawyer in Small Claims Court. Also, it's possible that Verizon simply ignored the whole thing, in which case the lady may have won a default judgment.
I could probably find the answers to some of these questions by Reading The Fine Article, but I can't help feel that that's cheating. :)
Verizon is known for shitty billing problems by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2011-07-16 11:59 · Score: 1

I have month after month of problems with Verizon Fios Billing.
It was finally sorted out after a good time, but they were charging me all kinds of things when I was told my bill would be a certain amount of month, and each month it was ridiculously different and incorrect and as they tried to fix it each month it get screwed up further.
In the end, I was credited for paying too much due to their stupid billing department... and the bill finally was what I was "SOLD" when I subscribed.
FIOS is a great service, I've had it for a long time now, but Verizon is well known for absolutely terrible billing errors AND very poor customer service when it comes to correcting those problems and fixing them.
Luckily FIOS is worth putting up with those problems, but you have to be vigilant with Verizon.
1. Re:Verizon is known for shitty billing problems by PoopMonkey · 2011-07-16 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Did you order FIOS without phone service? I've heard that causes shit to really hit the fan. I have the package deal for phone, internet, and TV, and my bill has always been what I would expect it to be with no surprises.
2. Re:Verizon is known for shitty billing problems by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  It was finally sorted out after a good time
  I see what you did. You banged someone from the billing department. High Five!
  Sexual favors for the win.
3. Re:Verizon is known for shitty billing problems by jmauro · 2011-07-16 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  The issue with not getting phone service through FiOS is that the FiOS account is referenced by the phone provided by the FiOS service. You cannot put your regular phone number in it's place. So when you have an issue it takes either billing or tech support something on the order of an hour to find your account. And you need to redo it on every single contact with them.
  I don't know why they designed the system this way, and more importantly why they just don't give everyone phone service for free so they don't have these issues. So yes it's broken.
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by sjames · 2011-07-16 12:02 · Score: 1

If they actually had decent customer service, that decision would have seemed so out of place that nearly any CSR would have questioned it and found out otherwise. The fact that it seemed consistent enough with other policies to not be questioned on Verizon's side says a LOT.
The fact that they actually went to the mat trying to maintain their no itemized bill decision shows that it was a lot more than just one CSR that believed it to be their policy (including their legal department). I'm guessing that if when they got their summons they offered the lady the itemized billing (or, as a way to apologize for the error, just credited her the $4) she would have happily dropped the whole thing.
They said she'd need a subpoena to get the itemized billing and she took them at their word. As a representative of the people, please feel free to send Verizon a bill for the costs to the public for their idiocy, but be sure to itemize it.
same call center that can't do basic math by Joe_Dragon · 2011-07-16 12:04 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdKwRdWocco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp6ccIiZp1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=
http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by Internal+Modem · 2011-07-16 12:05 · Score: 1

I'm glad they sued so the rest of us don't have to go through all that...

just hang up and call back to get a different rep? Or how about this simple line, "May I please speak to your supervisor?" Or how about calling Verizon's executive offices or main number and ask for a customer ombudsman? .
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by Teancum · 2011-07-16 12:25 · Score: 1

Keep in mind what she did here wasn't to "clog the courts with a stupid case like this", she went to the public utility commission and filed a formal complaint. What happened was that after the complaint was filed, Verizon dismissed the complaint and moved the issue up the food chain, which was an administrative law judge who hears complaints being made through the utility commission.
She did exactly as you claimed that somebody ought to do here, and since Verizon objected to the complaint, it went to court. What else was supposed to happen? I suppose it could be like the FTC which receives a complaint that is filed away in "/dev/null" for all of the good it does. Ditto for the FCC, at least from my personal experience.
Goes well beyond call centers. by aussersterne · 2011-07-16 12:34 · Score: 4, Informative

I left Verizon Wireless in the late '90s precisely because they were billing me for things that I couldn't identify and that they wouldn't itemize.
Let me tell you how "leaving them" worked out for me. After lots of attempts to get them to itemize, I just paid everything and said cancel (my initial agreement period was over and I was on monthly). Then, I got a bill from them the next month—for the same monthly service, including things they wouldn't itemize, as before. I called them up.
Me: WTF? I quit last month and paid off.
Them: Yes, but you re-opened your account.
Me: WTF? How did I do that? I haven't talked to you since then.
Them: We don't know. But there is this charge that you incurred that means you continued to use the service.
Me: How did I incur the charge? That sounds like the same amount I was asking about before?
Them: Must have been local calls or sth. We can't tell you. But it's there. So your bill / account is back also. You owe for the month.
Me: But I threw away the VZW phones, like, three weeks ago!
Them: Sorry. Pay up.
Me: Get your supervisor.
Song and dance, yadda yadda, I ended up giving in, paying off the month again, and cancelling again.
Next month, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, another VZW bill lands in my mailbox for monthly service AS USUAL.
I called again, same song and dance, only this time I also wrote a letter to corporate describing the sequence of events and suggesting that I was ready to take legal action. Then the retention department or someone behaving like a retention department called me and asked if I didn't really want to stay. I was so livid my head nearly exploded. Then, finally, this last person agreed to cancel me and I stayed cancelled...
Until I got a COLLECTIONS LETTER for another VZW monthly amount. At first I refused to pay in case it was going to go this way every month again, but when two or three months had passed and just that one charge seemed to be left, I paid the collections bill and that was the end of it.
But you'll never get me to go back to VZW unless every other telecom has been carpet-bombed. Even then, I might prefer tin cans and strings to VZW.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
1. Re:Goes well beyond call centers. by GrahamCox · 2011-07-16 13:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They are all like it. In the UK, I had a very similar experience with British Telecom, trying to cancel my phone + internet account because I'd emigrated. Yet they still kept on charging for me long after I'd left the country! (The procedure to actually notify them that I'd cancelled both accounts was Kafka-esque in its byzantine intricacy and ineffectiveness). In my case I simply refused to pay and eventually when it got to the legal proceedings stage, I could simply prove my case that I'd moved abroad and it was immediately dropped. Bloody stupid that it had to get that far though.
2. Re:Goes well beyond call centers. by pete6677 · 2011-07-17 13:57 · Score: 2
  
  Nice job paying a collections bill that you didn't even owe. Your credit got destroyed, you gave the company exactly what they wanted, and after that was over I bet they sent you yet another bill. If they haven't yet, they will now that they know you're an easy mark.
#monopoly by Dharkfiber · 2011-07-16 13:05 · Score: 1

Basic methodology of running a governmental entity or monopoly, keep information away from the riff raff.
douchebag verizon by sl4shd0rk · 2011-07-16 13:13 · Score: 1

get iphone,act like at&t

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by mysidia · 2011-07-16 13:21 · Score: 1

If I want ITEMIZED LOCAL CALLS on every bill, I might reasonable expect to pay a small fee. But if I have a BILLING ISSUE, I expect them to pony up the data as a matter of doing business with me.
What happens if you decide you might have a billing "issue" with every bill?
Sometimes, certain customers can be just as unreasonable as the company's customer service
i must know by Gravis+Zero · 2011-07-16 13:29 · Score: 1

what was the $4.19 charge for?!

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:i must know by Legion303 · 2011-07-16 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  "Convenience fee"
  (no, I just made that up).
2. Re:i must know by Ritchie70 · 2011-07-16 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't Verizon Wireless, this is Verizon the local phone company.
  It was for local phone calls. The customer in question had a plan where very local calls were included, but everything else was billed by the minute. They call this "included" area "band 1" and there were "band 2" through "band 5" that were per minute.
  She usually used her cell phone for anything outside "band 1" so she wanted to know what call was costing her, presumably so she could 1) make sure she'd called it, and 2) cut it out.
  
  --
  The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by berashith · 2011-07-16 14:01 · Score: 1

yes, you have to deal with a few annoying customers as a cost of doing business, in every line of business. If your entire customer base is acting this way, then it is safe to assume that your competitor's customer base is pulling the same scam on you, and everyone raises rates together. The itemization becomes a basic service with no option to opt out of, the companies make this as efficient as they can over time, and the original profit margin pulled in by this service is not many multiples greater than original. Not a big deal.
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by powerlord · 2011-07-16 14:13 · Score: 1

In many jurisdictions, you're not allowed to be represented by a lawyer in Small Claims Court.
I would imagine that a Corporate Entity would be allowed to be represented by a member of their Legal Department, since they ARE the representative of Verizon (when it comes to appearing in court), or do they expect the CEO to come out for a Small Claims issue? (or that Verizon should be unrepresented?)
As it was though (according to another poster), the court case was the Penn Utility Commission where the woman filed her complaint.

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Ultra-capitalist's customer service looks Soviet by leftie · 2011-07-16 14:46 · Score: 1

Verizon and Comcast customer service looks suspiciously similar to Soviet Union customer service.
Go try turning in your cable box yourself at a Comcast customer service center. I dare you. (Don't plan on doing anything else that day)
Nothing has changed. by psithurism · 2011-07-16 15:21 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with the fact that our political system is locked in the hands of corporations, but I do disagree with the idea that it is getting worse. Look back over the history of the country and you'll see that that has always been a problem. Labor rights and consumer protection have definitely improved over the last century and I expect that they will continue to improve as incidences like this spark internet outrage, while 20 years ago they would go completely unnoticed.
A revolution? In a democracy? Who are we going to vote for when that's over? I'm serious. I just don't understand the concept; all of our leaders are up for reelection in the next couple years, how is that different than removing them from office at gun point (besides being much more pleasant for the politicians)?
1. Re:Nothing has changed. by Fjandr · 2011-07-16 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  A revolution? In a democracy? Who are we going to vote for when that's over?
  Any likely revolution will end in a situation where the country is no longer a democracy (in anything but name, at least). There's simply too much concentration of military power. Only a tiny fraction of the military will cease taking orders if those orders are to subdue their own countrymen. It's the second revolution that will, if anything.
Glad I bailed by jvnn · 2011-07-16 15:28 · Score: 1

Went to one of the cheap prepaid wireless providers and never looked back. Instead of paying verizon $35 a month I'm paying these guys $6 or $7 a month. Caveat, I don't use a lot of minutes, but my wife does and her prepaid cost is $30 a month. Yeah the customer service sucks, but if you just need a phone and not all the whiz bang stuff, you don't need to get raped by vzw.
My Experience by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 15:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm 31 and, being a long-time grad student then unemployed, haven't had anything except a catastrophic medical policy since being kicked off my parents policy the day I turned 22. Now, whenever I had a really bad cold or something, I'd still go or old family doc. He worked almost entirely on a cash-basis; pay at your visit, or arrange payments, etc. (We are in an area with a lot of Amish, who pay cash for everything, so it was a good win-win practice.) A typical visit cost $75-100 plus whatever prescription you might get.
Well, he passed away a few years ago. Winter before last, I had a terrible cold and lingering cough that I finally decided needed checking out. No longer having a doctor, I went to a walk-in clinic in our area run by a large well-known hospital system. When I arrived, nobody else was waiting. After filling out my paperwork and noting that I had no insurance, I had: 5 minutes with the nurse, who read my vitals; 5 minutes to take a chest x-ray; and 5 minutes with the doc who listened to my chest, looked at the x-ray, and sent me out with an antibiotic. The whole visit lasted less than 20 minutes.
When I walked back to the front desk and asked how much I owed, the receptionist stared at me blankly.
"I'd like to settle up now you see," I said. She seemed very surprised. "Oh, I have no idea what it will be. We will send you a bill."
That made me a bit uneasy to say the least, but I figured, "Hey, my old doc was $100 for a similar visit, at worst I may be looking at $250, right?"
Well, over the next 7 months I received a grand total of almost $1,750 in charges spread across 5 different bills. (Doctor's bill, x-ray technician's bill, clinic bill, a bill from the parent organization, etc.) The most egregious was a $460 "facility use fee," which, after much calling and bitching, was finally dropped. Apparently it was incurred simply by walking in the door.
By the way, the friend recommend the clinic -- who was sick with the same ailment I had and who held some insurance through his job -- paid a grand total of $35 after his policy co-pay.
The moral is twofold here.
One, medical billing is akin to brutal rape in a pitch black room.
Two, the fact that the MedicalMafia asks for, and then insurance companies pay, those unconscionable fees is the whole damn reason that our system is so farking broken.
1. Re:My Experience by bledri · 2011-07-16 17:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Two, the fact that the MedicalMafia asks for, and then insurance companies pay, those unconscionable fees is the whole damn reason that our system is so farking broken.
  Ah, but here is the kicker. The insurance companies don't pay those fees. No doubt they pay "too much", but every insurance company that is accepted at that clinic has negotiated a deal with the clinic and they pay a small fraction of what the uninsured pay. The insurance companies (the largest ones in the area) have a great deal of leverage over the clinics because they have the "consumers" the clinic needs to stay in business. Individuals are screwed, you're sick, you need medical attention and no body represents your interests. Add to that that the hospitals are trying to make up losses on the people who default to pay with those that will pay and it is in the hospitals best interest to take you for every penny possible.
  
  --
  Some privacy policy Slashdot.
2. Re:My Experience by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's when I get pissed when I hear about 'negotiating power with hospitals'. I hear idiots running around on the news yammering about that, how the US government can use 'negotiating power with hospitals' to make things cheaper.
  Fuck you assholes. Seriously, fuck you. For every dollar you negotiate cheaper, I pay more, because they won't sell me insurance, so I have to cover the damn costs that you won't.
  I refuse to be part of this goddamn plan from the other side, too. 'negotiating power with hospitals' is illegal extortion to make them charge group X less, which results in them charging group Y more. That it is the premise of it.
  I have no idea why its not a fucking antitrust violation. Insurance companies are usually oligopolys, and running around threatening to send patients to other hospitals unless the hospital charges them (and only them) less money really sounds like an antitrust violation to me.
  The outrageous bills that hospitals produce that patients see are not the fault of hospitals. They are the fault of insurance companies, who have managed to set up a system where they pay a microscopic fraction of those costs, and everyone who doesn't use an insurance companies pays the rest.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
3. Re:My Experience by cellocgw · 2011-07-17 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  That's when I get pissed when I hear about 'negotiating power with hospitals'. I hear idiots running around on the news yammering about that, how the US government can use 'negotiating power with hospitals' to make things cheaper.
  Fuck you assholes. Seriously, fuck you. For every dollar you negotiate cheaper, I pay more, because they won't sell me insurance, so I have to cover the damn costs that you won't.
  Can you say "Single-payer system," boys and girls? Do you dimwits even remember that Obama wanted to implement a system that covered everyone, but certain political parties killed it?
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
4. Re:My Experience by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Do you remember where Obama pre-negotiated right past the single payer and never even proposed it?
  Probably not. Let's all pretend that Obama got forced to do what he did by the Republicans, instead of the actual facts, where he didn't even pretend to propose single-payer, and he publicly proposed a public option that he secretly worked with the insurance industry to kill.
  The Demoncrats didn't even bother to hold a vote on the public option when the bill was forced through reconcilliation and was unfillibusterable.
  But I'm sure it's all those mean Republicans fault that we don't have single payer.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
5. Re:My Experience by cdrguru · 2011-07-17 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, over the next 7 months I received a grand total of almost $1,750 in charges spread across 5 different bills. (Doctor's bill, x-ray technician's bill, clinic bill, a bill from the parent organization, etc.) The most egregious was a $460 "facility use fee," which, after much calling and bitching, was finally dropped. Apparently it was incurred simply by walking in the door.
  You didn't pay it I hope. You see, the hospital inflates the charges for every little thing to pass along to someone that can pay the bills for all the people that aren't paying. Medicaid pays maybe 15% of the bill. Medicare is about the same. If you have insurance they pay maybe 50% of the billed rate.
  If you tell the hospital that you aren't paying, they turn you over to a collection agency and woe be upon you.
  However, if you tell the hospital you would really like to pay but you are having trouble with it they will (a) cut the bill down and (b) offer you a payment plan. You end up paying maybe 50% of the original bill over five or ten years. And if you stop paying they pretty much just write it off.
  The people that do not understand how this works and feel they are being forced to pay are indeed paying for the rest of us that aren't paying.
6. Re:My Experience by Grishnakh · 2011-07-17 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly right. These stupid Democrat voters keep praising Obama like he's some kind of Messiah, while ignoring the obvious fact that he's playing them for fools, and working for a corporatist agenda, just like the Republicans. There is absolutely no difference between the two parties; they just pander to different groups, and then pass laws that benefit their corporate benefactors while blaming the other side.
7. Re:My Experience by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no.
  There are plenty of reasonable Democrats, and the other Democrats have to at least pretend they care about working people.
  Or, to put it another way, the Democrats have a sane base, so only about half their elected officials are actually evil, and they're hiding it so they kept getting elected. The Republicans, meanwhile, do not have a sane base, so are openly evil. (And also openly insane.)
  Pressure can be put on the Democrats to fix health reform, by sane people who threaten not to vote for them. Pressure can't really be put on the Republicans as long as they have their bugnuts base who are convinced the communists are coming.
  Acting like there's no difference between the parties is playing right into everyone's hand. Vote for Democrats. If they turn out to be evil, vote for different Democrats.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
8. Re:My Experience by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't vote Democrat anymore (voting instead for a more progressive crowd). There's frequently not a Democrat worth voting for in major elections (like the one where Obama was elected).
9. Re:My Experience by DavidTC · 2011-07-18 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, fair enough. I was just taking issue with the 'both parties are the same' nonsense, which is exactly the prescription to never have anything change.
  The only way to change things is to hold politicians accountable, and the only way to do that is to vote for them them when they aren't very evil. So you can withhold that when they are. Giving up and not voting, or voting for third parties, as a general principle is forfeiting the ability to change anything.
  Like it or not, Obama's done a much better job than McCain would have. It's not even debatable.
  Meanwhile, we get a few Republicans in the house and they run around threatening to blow up the government because it's what their bugnuts stupid base wants.
  I probably won't vote for Obama this time around. (It doesn't matter, my state won't vote for him anyway.) I hope he gets elected, but I also hope that he, and other people, see how much enthusiasm for him died down due to his complete inability to actually operate in progressive manner.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
This is the final nail in the coffin by AllenNg · 2011-07-16 15:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

We were talking in the office one day and someone was complaining about some difficulty they'd had with customer service for a company from which they'd bought something. I mentioned that the "salt in the wound" is that there isn't even a person that you can get mad at (threaten, intimidate, assault) anymore. It's not like there is a PERSON somewhere who can say, "Ah, yes. I took such and such action on the Smith account because..."

The order was created in the computer either by the checkout scanner or by the automated form on the website. The order was filled and shipped by an automated warehouse (In our warehouse, even the pallet trucks are tied into the system and automated. It's a little unnerving to see these unmanned trucks just whipping big pallets of raw materials and finished goods to and fro in the factory.). The invoice was automatically kicked out in a billing batch run and mailed. No human ever laid eyes on it or had any knowledge that your order ever existed.

Think about that.

It's not like you can call them up and complain to the person that made a certain determination. They hire people off the street to sit in the call center and read what's on the screen. If you owe $50, it's not because someone looked and evaluated the situation. It's because that's what the computer says you owe. If the computer had said $55 instead--THAT WOULD BE THE REALITY.

All that remains is for the computer to become the final arbiter. Not being able or allowed to question or even review the automated data is precisely how that will come about.
1. Re:This is the final nail in the coffin by vm146j2 · 2011-07-16 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon, like all public corporations, is required by law to list it's corporate officers in their yearly reports. That is a minimum, and most companies have a lot more personnel info available via the tubez. Pick one to start with that has "sales" or "customer" in their title, and write a clear, short and personal letter. It is truly astonishing what you will accomplish, and on the very rare occasion that you get no (or a negative) response, a physical letter to the CEO including your dissatisfaction is the equivalent to a loud screechy alarm clock to these types.
  
  --
  "Lost time is not found again."
2. Re:This is the final nail in the coffin by Tom · 2011-07-16 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  there isn't even a person that you can get mad at
  There hasn't been for decades. Until recently what you had was the illusion of someone making the decision. However, in most cases, they didn't actually have much of a choice. Company regulations, guidelines, processes and other external factors have been guiding much of the "decisions" at large companies for a long time now. The reason you can't get decisions overturned or things done in a non-standard way in most cases isn't that it would require your contact to change his mind, it is that it requires your contact to go to major efforts, because everything is streamlined to the standard case.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
3. Re:This is the final nail in the coffin by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-07-17 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  All that remains is for the computer to become the final arbiter.
  Actually, computers aren't particularly different from the call-centre automatons with no power to help you. In the end, you still need to speak to who programmed them, or take the company to court.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
4. Re:This is the final nail in the coffin by george14215 · 2011-07-17 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  All that remains is for the computer to become the final arbiter. Not being able or allowed to question or even review the automated data is precisely how that will come about.
  It's already happened. Here in Seattle, there's no way to dispute a red light camera infraction.
5. Re:This is the final nail in the coffin by Rich0 · 2011-07-17 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at work the computers submit bills, and then the accounts payable department punches the info into one of our own computers, which decides whether to pay the other computer. If the first computer said $55, and the PO was for $50, then two computers would no doubt start sending each other hate mail for a few months before it got escalated to humans on one side or the other...
6. Re:This is the final nail in the coffin by Quirkz · 2011-07-18 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you owe $50, it's not because someone looked and evaluated the situation. It's because that's what the computer says you owe. If the computer had said $55 instead--THAT WOULD BE THE REALITY.
  No kidding. I remember a day when the startup I was working for had all of our web sites turned off. We called up the hosting provider, and they said we were two months overdue on payments. While on the phone my co-worker pulled up the company's bank account and confirmed the autopayments had been going through consistently, but the agent on the phone just got more and more belligerent, until they were reduced to shouting, "The computer doesn't lie, sir! The computer doesn't lie!" at my co-worker while demanding payment, and also refusing to let us talk to a manager or anyone else who might be willing to talk to us instead of yell at us. Conversation finally ended when the company rep hung up on us. When we called right back and got a different agent, they basically said "Yeah, we can see you paid, and we don't even have any record of your accounts being locked, so we don't even know what you're talking about" and by that point our web sites were working again. We never could get them to admit they'd even turned off our service, or get an explanation for the crazy rep who yelled at us.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
It's actually law in some countries.. by cheros · 2011-07-16 16:14 · Score: 2

I must admit I'm a bit surprised. I know of several countries where it is mandatory for bills to contain enough information to check that they are accurate, so obfuscation and adding charges together under one header (for example "expenses"). can be challenged in court.
A company asking to take to court before they detail their bills is hiding something - this needs a MUCH deeper look.

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
Re:Ultra-capitalist's customer service looks Sovie by Ritchie70 · 2011-07-16 16:21 · Score: 1

I've exchanged and returned equipment at the local Comcast office multiple times. There's usually a short line (2 - 6 people ahead of me) but it's always been painless.
Of course, I've always phoned or IM'd with a Comcast CSR at that point, so the computer knows I'm coming.
There was some confusion about a modem - one part of Comcast believed they owned it, and were demanding its return, while another part believed we owned it and refused to accept its return.
Ultimately I got a CSR to put a note in the file that it was in fact our modem, cursed out one or two more people who called asking me to return the modem, and it was all OK.

--
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Did she write the company president or CEO? by RevWaldo · 2011-07-16 16:25 · Score: 1

Seriously, I've found a civil and detailed letter to the president or CEO of a company will usually elicit a response.

In Verizon's case, there appeared to be no way to find out when DSL was coming to my neighborhood, from Verizon's web site, through customer service, nothing. So I wrote the company president and asked. Less than a week later, calls came in from both a customer service rep and an engineer with the answer: late 2012. Not what I wanted to hear, but at least it was an answer.

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Walmart too by mdsolar · 2011-07-16 17:23 · Score: 1

Bought a water filter system at walmart and they over charged me by about a $1.60. They had undercut Walgreen's price by about $0.50 but ended up charging more. So, I called them up and they said just bring the receipt by anytime to get a refund. When I did do that, they refused to refund. They figure they can blow you off over a small amount but it is just on those small amounts that they compete with other stores so it is hugely dishonest. The alternative might be shopping on line, but amazon has taken more than six days now to ship an in stock order that I placed with them rather than buying at walmart. Customer service is dead.
1. Re:Walmart too by Anonymus · 2011-07-16 21:08 · Score: 2
  
  Or you could just go to Walgreen's.
  I can't comprehend why people shop at Walmart to save a few pennies, then complain that the experience was bad. You're not paying for a good experience, you're paying the bare minimum by supporting extremely abusive and borderline illegal corporate practices.
2. Re:Walmart too by eharvill · 2011-07-17 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Then how was Walmart $.50 cheaper than Walgreen's if they don't carry that item?!?
  
  --
  At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
3. Re:Walmart too by Kalriath · 2011-07-17 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  So Walmart undercut Walgreens on a product they don't sell? That's some serious wizardry there...
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
4. Re:Walmart too by pete6677 · 2011-07-17 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because mdsolar is full of shit and he didn't expect you to call him on it.
5. Re:Walmart too by Grishnakh · 2011-07-17 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Doesn't anyone remember the good-fast-cheap triangle? Pick any two.
  Wal-mart is all about being cheap (or at least, that's the illusion; many times their prices are mediocre at best). Same goes for Amazon: it's supposed to be cheap, not fast. If you want fast delivery, you need to pay more. Don't like it? Fine, go shop somewhere else; there's other web stores out there where you can buy the same stuff and get it much quicker, but you'll pay more for the privilege.
  It's weird how many people expect top quality, excellent customer service, ultra-fast shipping (for free no less), and rock-bottom prices. You can't have it all.
6. Re:Walmart too by mdsolar · 2011-07-17 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  That was on a purchase I planned to make at walmart, but when they refused to refund on the filter system, I shopped elsewhere. Walgreens does not carry the other items. It does carry the filter system.
7. Re:Walmart too by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Don't shop at Walmart, jackass. It hurts everyone.
8. Re:Walmart too by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, with VERY few exceptions (overseas stuff, etc.), I've accepted the slowest possible shipping option on Amazon and received my items within a couple of days (often well before the beginning of the date range where I should expect delivery). There was an article about this a couple of years ago, and I'd heard that there was some thought of intentionally delaying slower shipments... but it does not appear to have happened as my last shipment from a week ago was also early.
9. Re:Walmart too by mdsolar · 2011-07-17 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, I quit using verizon years ago when they would not explain a bill. What have you done except act like a sheep?
10. Re:Walmart too by Grishnakh · 2011-07-18 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Did you look to see where they had been shipped from?
  I haven't ordered that much stuff from Amazon, but I've ordered a fair number, and I always take the slowest/cheapest delivery option. The delivery time seems to be completely random, even for stuff fulfilled by Amazon rather than their partners. Sometimes they take several days just to get the order out, other times they ship quickly. Also, some depends on where their warehouse is in relation to you, and which warehouse that product is coming from.
  Maybe it ships slower at some times because they're backed up, and your stuff goes to the back of the line since you didn't pay for "rush processing", and other times they have nothing better to do so it goes out quickly.
  Anyway, my point is that it seems like if you use the cheap shipping, you might get lucky, or you might not. So for people who just have to have it NOW, they better pay extra for the fast shipping because it's much more likely they won't be delayed. For the rest of us who aren't going to have a heart attack if their widget doesn't arrive in two days, and don't mind waiting a week but might get lucky, the slow shipping is fine, just not consistent.
11. Re:Walmart too by ryanov · 2011-07-18 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yah, it hasn't seemed to much matter (though I often end up with stuff from this area).
12. Re:Walmart too by ryanov · 2011-07-18 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  I refused to pay a bill that contained unexplained charges, and they're still trying to collect the money. What does that have to do with you making shitty shopping choices and shopping at a company that thrives on tax scams, sending its impoverished employees to get government assistance, and thrives on child-labor produced products, among other things?
13. Re:Walmart too by mdsolar · 2011-07-18 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  But, you are still doing business with them. When you complain about walmart though, you are complaining about US trade and labor policy, not the company's honesty when it comes to how it interacts with customers. I never voted for the people who set the US policy that allows walmart labor practices. I voted for people who opposed them. I suggest that you do the same.
14. Re:Walmart too by ryanov · 2011-07-20 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously; shut up. You are shopping at Walmart and trying to tell me that /I'm/ doing business with a bad company. Walmart does everything in the most evil fashion it can manage.
15. Re:Walmart too by mdsolar · 2011-07-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Your boycott accomplishes nothing. You have to vote to make changes or work on zoning walmart out. That is why you are a sheep. You simply follow without thinking.
16. Re:Walmart too by ryanov · 2011-07-20 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  You bankroll them.
Mandatory by toriver · 2011-07-16 18:30 · Score: 1

- This is unreasonable!
- THIS! IS! VERIZON!
Will this cause a DDoS? by dutchwhizzman · 2011-07-16 18:57 · Score: 1

So who is going to ask for an itemized Verizon bill just because they now can?

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Re:No one routinely gets a list of local calls by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-16 19:38 · Score: 2

What happens if you decide you might have a billing "issue" with every bill?
The company then ceases to do business with you?
Re:What they do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 20:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

They throw a few dollars extra charge onto several million bills every month, knowing that only a small fraction of people will dispute a 4 dollar charge. $4 a month times 12 months times 10 million customers is $480 million dollars extra a year.
I'm getting tired of hearing this kind of Conspiracy bullshit. Nobody is sitting around rubbing their hands together and muttering "Ok, how can I slide more charges on their bills to make fast cash". That would violate a dozen different federal statues including RICO laws.
I used to work in Billing for a phone company. You know why that charge showed up on your bill last month? No, it wasn't any kind of global billing conspiracy. It was this bitch named Melissa who is in charge of building macros on the billing platform and won't pay attention when I say things like "No, you can't do it that way, or else it'll end up running on the wrong people's accounts!" Yeah, well 2,500 jacked up accounts later and she finally admits I was right (of course she still won't admit she was wrong). Out of that 2,500 people, 150 called in before Melissa could fix her fuck-up, and most of them are now thoroughly convinced that we're actively plotting ways we can slip charges into their phone bills.
Yup folks, you caught us. We actually have a "cramming" committe, composed of 12 team members for eachcustomer. We spend 40 hours a week cackling and rubbing our hands together, and trying to find ways to slip a penny or two onto this one specific person's phone bill. (rolls eyes)
If you want to know where your phone company is robbing you, it's not in the line-item charges. It's the service cost itself.
Wow by Snaller · 2011-07-17 00:20 · Score: 1

Living in Europe we don't have Verizon, but I hear nothing but bad things about them online. Don't you guys have alternatives?!

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
1. Re:Wow by wvmarle · 2011-07-17 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  This is talking about the US so there are two answers possible. It's not the first time I see a question like yours pop up.
  1) No, there is no alternative (and that's for many people there apparently the reality, unbelievable as it sounds), or:
  The alternatives are as bad/even worse.
  Welcome to the free market, right?
Reminds me... by xenobyte · 2011-07-17 00:36 · Score: 1

... of a story from about 10-15 years ago here in Denmark. It was so absurd it made the news as a major story, and needless to say the company (KTAS) ended up accepting the customers position and disregard the bill in question...
The customer, an elderly couple with just one old phone with a rotary dial and everything, one day received a quarterly bill for an amount around DKK 200.000 (about $37.000) and this was some years ago, remember? - They contacted the phone company (KTAS A/S, now a part of TDC A/S) asking if it was an error. No, it was a bill for calls they've made so they just had to pay up. But what was on the bill? - Well, they weren't subscribed to an itemized bill so no, they couldn't be told that. But the phone company offered to get a retroactive itemized bill. It would be more expensive but if they paid in advance (after all they did owe the company a lot of money) they could get one. "Okay, how much?" they asked. A quite large number was quoted. "Why?" they asked. "Well, the retroactive itemized bill cost double the prepaid one, and you have to pay for expenses relating it, like paper, printing ink, handling and so on. "But how can that add up to that much?". "Well, there's 450.000 calls on the bill, and we can fit 80 calls on a single page of paper... That's about 5.500 pages of paper, and then we have to mail that to you..."
The couple went to the media that eagerly picked up the story. The bill was sent free of charge. Turns out the bill was 99.9999% calls to special internal service numbers, each call always between 2 and 5 seconds, made around the clock 24/7, and what's more, they were overlapping which is quite impossible with a single line. They complained to the phone company citing the overlapping calls. "No. We see no errors on your line" was the response. But we can - at a charge - send a technician to test it. The technician found no errors with the phone, the phone jack or the line to the junction. "We have checked everything. You made those calls. Just pay up." was the result.
The couple went to the media again. The media hit the CEO (a former politician) hard with the case, and he was forced to make internal inquiries. The very next day the couple got a letter saying that due to the computer malfunction their bill was 'incorrect' and that they would receive a new bill soon. The bill arrived and there was only the normal charge on it. But they never got an apology in any form.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Verizon Math by Catracho04 · 2011-07-17 01:39 · Score: 1

I can't ever trust Verizon with handling a bill. Does anyone remember the Verizon math episode a couple of years ago? If not you should check it out at http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ . In short, there was a customer who was going on an international trip. He asked what the cost of data would be. They quoted him at .002 cents / kb, but later charged him .002 dollars / kb. It took him over 2 months talking with and emailing many customer service reps before someone understood the difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents. He recorded the phone calls and it is quite entertaining to listen to how dumb people are.
Re:What they do by DavidTC · 2011-07-17 04:08 · Score: 1

Um, perhaps you should read the grandparent post again. Absolutely no one was asserting that anyone targeted any specific people.
In fact, you and he said exactly the same thing, except he said it was on purpose, and you said it was by carelessness.
And, well, once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action.
The expression is strangely silent on what two million, five hundred and fourteen thousand, three hundred and sixty seven times is, which is the number of screwups the phone companies have managed to make with their billing so far.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Close, but not Soviet Enough by haulbag · 2011-07-17 04:16 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, Comcast cable box turns you in.
(Then, don't plan on doing anything else.)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Just another reason to not use a cell phone by edfardos · 2011-07-17 13:02 · Score: 1

My friends give me a hard time about not owning a cell phone, and yes, it's hard to justify, at least until these gems of corporate malfeasance and fraud present themselves. They wont get a dime of my money. Why subject yourself to fraud? Verizon is quickly completing it's corporate arc and circling the toilet bowl. --edfardos
Re:What they do by Hognoxious · 2011-07-17 17:37 · Score: 1

Funny how the "mistakes" tend to make the bill bigger and not smaller.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Bad Training - Stupid Use of Courts by ryanov · 2011-07-17 18:51 · Score: 1

I tried to get a supervisor 5 times at Verizon. They said none was available and someone would call me. 5 times, no calls. I ultimately said "eh, forget it" and eventually saw them credit me the whole charge and figured I was done. Nope, collections. It would have been nice if they'd told me I could subpoena them for an itemized bill -- I might have done it!