Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A short conversation with a bank

newsletter.danhon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#281

Post by agumonkey »

monktastic1 wrote: post #22

A short conversation with Blue Shield of California last month: BS: Have a question? Ask us via this very useful secure messaging form! Me: Great! Can you explain the difference between these two arcane out-of-pocket limits that you display that are un-Googleable and nowhere in your documentation that I can never find anyway? BS: Sure! We will wait two days and then send you an email suggestively titled "a response t…

My ex job at a courthouse, handwriting documents by pencil was about as performant as using C vs python compared to the computing system. There needs to be a large computing swipe to turn the tool back into a tool and not a straightjacket. Companies incentives are just not there.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#282

Post by agumonkey »

hackerfromthefu wrote: post #176
xiaosun wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I suppose the devil's advocate argument is once you get to this stage (publicly traded company), the company's priority is no longer just "do things to get traction", but also "do things to support share price". You could argue the ex consultant MBA type product manager is better suited to solve a problem that institutional investors run by ex finance MBA types have.

That's exactly the problem - that's why things are so broken as per the article.

can the original root inspiration be sustained ? or will big pocketed capitalism will always swallow anything either through buys or through heavy competition forcing people to distort everything until there's nothing left of the original idea ?

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#283

Post by cute_boi »

Joeri wrote: post #262
breakingcups wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably unintentionally got caught in a review whitewashing scheme, where a well-rated product gets renamed and its specification and pictures updated to an entirely unrelated (or in your case, somewhat related) product so the seller doesn't have to start from 0 reputation.

Isn’t that fraud? Like, literally the legal definition of fraud? Why doesn’t the government step in to put a stop to that?

This is like a petty case for government. They even make it difficult to report such case due to bureaucracy :(

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#284

Post by cute_boi »

bduerst wrote: post #182
cantrevealname wrote: post #62

> with Gmail, where you were so aggressive about mining receipt data from Amazon that when I get a receipt from Amazon now it doesn’t actually include what I bought Wow, he's right. The item name no longer appears on emailed receipts I receive from Amazon as of about late 2019 or early 2020. I can't think of a plausible explanation for this change other than preventing Google from pilfering your detailed purchase his…

Nah, Amazon just figured out they could get you to buy more by getting you to click back into the website. Gmail hasn't mined data for commercial purposes for half a decade now. Someone at Amazon took dark-pattern customer engagement 101.

Google says "Gmail hasn't mined data for commercial purposes for half a decade now." just like how cops says "We have investigated ourselves and found no haven't found any faults"

Specious....

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#285

Post by Beltalowda »

ethbr0 wrote: post #29
chrisdave wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, they maintain them as a backup in case you corner a customer service representative on the phone and they are about to have to do what you asked. That's when they tell you you need to visit a branch.

Branches are equally powerless. See: Bank of America's policy on two-party "and" checks. I walk in, having had a checking account with them for decades: "Hi, I need to deposit a two-party check into my account here. This is the other party with me, and we're happy to show ID." Door greeter / agent: "Sure, I can do that for you." {Proceeds to verify my information and set up deposit on her tablet} "Hmm." {Walks over t…

> which is a policy they can have. But the annoyance to me, is that it's a policy they choose to have, rather than a policy they're required to have.

The problem isn't necessarily with the policy as such; it's perhaps an entirely sensible policy to have – I don't even know what a "two-party and check" is so have no opinion on that as such – but the real problem is that there is no way a human applying basic "common sense" judgement can override the policy.

A lot of things are now like this: "this is the rule", "computer says no", with little recourse. The complexity of reality can't be captured in a rulebook or computer program, so lots of people in different "unusual" (although they're usually not that unusual) situations hit brick walls for a lot of basic stuff.

It's slowly crushing out collective souls and stripping us of our humanity.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#287

Post by protomyth »

p1esk wrote: post #245
monktastic1 wrote: post #22

A short conversation with Blue Shield of California last month: BS: Have a question? Ask us via this very useful secure messaging form! Me: Great! Can you explain the difference between these two arcane out-of-pocket limits that you display that are un-Googleable and nowhere in your documentation that I can never find anyway? BS: Sure! We will wait two days and then send you an email suggestively titled "a response t…

A short conversation with Medicare: Never happened. They never pick up the phone, and they don't have any other way to contact them after you applied for benefits. I tried for weeks to resolve an issue with an application for my father, a dozen of calls, every time being on hold for hours. Sometimes the automated system says "leave your number and someone will call you back tomorrow at a certain time". That's a lie,…

I know this is going to sound odd, but this is the exact thing you call your House Reps office and explain your problem. The https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati... site will give the phone number, but their website often has a local office number. Most effective Congress folks staffs know how to deal with this type of thing.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#288

Post by protomyth »

bscphil wrote: post #277
throwoutway wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is what we have to look forward to when Congress eventually makes a nationwide health insurance, I’m not going to be happy

Wait, so the two examples given are someone who can't figure out what their out-of-pocket costs will be, and someone who hasn't heard back about an application, and your conclusion is that universal health insurance, which wouldn't have any out-of-pocket costs or out-of-network doctors and wouldn't have applications because everyone would already have it ... would be a bad thing? That seems a very strange conclusion…

I assure you the full health care provided by IHS would cause a new revolution if applied to the rest of the US population.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#289

Post by anonymoushn »

professoretc wrote: post #135
monktastic1 wrote: post #22

A short conversation with Blue Shield of California last month: BS: Have a question? Ask us via this very useful secure messaging form! Me: Great! Can you explain the difference between these two arcane out-of-pocket limits that you display that are un-Googleable and nowhere in your documentation that I can never find anyway? BS: Sure! We will wait two days and then send you an email suggestively titled "a response t…

> get treated by the wrong doctor at the right hospital! In California, this shouldn't happen. If you go to an in-network hospital, all care providers you see are required to bill you at the in-network rate.

Last time my wife went to a hospital in California, they delayed care by like half an hour over insurance and then didn't use it, so she got to spend a few days on the phone half a year later when each doctor who managed to visit the room for a few seconds sent us separate bills at the uninsured rate.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#290

Post by _uy6i »

quasarj wrote: post #219
mkr-hn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I miss Simple. I liked it ever since finding it in a sponsored content slot on the new Digg. I cobbled together something like the Goals feature with spreadsheets, but it's not the same. As for BBVA->PNC, I had to get the CFPB involved just to get confirmation that my account was closed. https://old.reddit.com/r/BBVABank/comments/pypk87/good_news_... https://old.reddit.com/r/BBVABank/comments/r53cjt/it_was_ano... The…

Yeah I'm fighting with PNC right now. But apparently my paypal account was still pointed at them and charged $4 so now they want a $36 overdraft fee and also won't close the account until it's finished "pending"... I honestly can't believe banks get away with overdraft fees. Damn I miss Simple.

I did a project in the space, and iirc only like 10-20% of overdrafts (by volume) were inadvertent/mis-management, another smaller group were people that didn’t care (accept that they are going to pay a few hundred dollars a year in overdraft in order to not balance their checkbook). But the vast majority actually made a conscious decision yo pay an overdraft fee, usually because it was a better alternative (sadly) than paying a similar fee to the utility, landlord, car lender,etc. and you don’t lose electricity, a roof over your head, or transportation. Depending on how they’re employed they can also be a better alternative to payday lending. Not advocating for overdraft fees, but just saying that mose users are going in with their eyes open (they just have worse alternatives)
Post reply on HN