A short conversation with a bank • Hacker News Board

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#311

Post by code_duck » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 9:20 PM UTC

nickflood wrote: post #264

code_duck wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also enables Amazon to claim you purchased a different item than you did, or charge a different price. The only way to obtain documentation of a purchase is to take a screenshot of every transaction. I bought some lightbulbs from Amazon recently. I am quite sure I purchased some 7-8 watt LED candle bulbs. I received a package of 50 watt incandescents, which was definitely not what I wanted. I went to my Amazon a…

The invoices and the "order details" page (one that looks like it's from 2000's internet) should retain the item description at the time you bought the item. That's how I successfully claimed a refund on the item that claimed "2 of item" and shipped me only one.

Thanks, I haven't actually tried the desktop site - only the phone app. I will check it out.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#312

Post by balderdash » Tue, Mar 15, 2022, 1:01 AM UTC

immibis wrote: post #309

_uy6i wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CU and Bank both have shareholders. The shareholders of a credit union are by law/definition its customers/depositors. The shareholders of a bank can be anyone.

Yes, in a bank you have shares in whatever is left over after profit is taken. They try very hard to make it so your shares are worth the same amount as when you bought them, plus a known rate.

That’s not how it works

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#313

Post by y3sh » Tue, Mar 15, 2022, 10:19 AM UTC

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?

Amazon list hijacking, happens regularly

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#314

Post by jackthetab » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

monktastic1 wrote: post #90

salawat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow. Blue Cross hosed that? Max Out of Pocket: This is the yearly maximum accumulation that an insured individual must pay before the insurer takes on full financial responsibility for subsequent claims. This comes in generally one of two flavors: a family or individual. The individual is straightforward. If you have a MOOP of $1000, and you've paid out $1000 in copays or coinsurance after meeting your deductible…

https://imgur.com/a/t7M2RGv When I called, I was told that it's there to show that the OOP max for in-network and out-of-network providers isn't summed to get my total OOP max; instead it's just equal to my OON OOP max. (Of course, this plan makes it hard to go bankrupt, unlike all ACA plans. That was a bit of literary liberty.)

> (Of course, this plan makes it hard to go bankrupt, unlike all ACA plans.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm currently looking into ACA plans and would rather not go bankrupt...

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#315

Post by b3morales » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 1:45 AM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #310

b3morales wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, indeed. BofA is only as big as it is because it was allowed to Kirby up dozens of regional banks in the late 90s/early 00s. It did nothing to earn its position and has done nothing but exploit it since. It is a poster child for anti-customer consolidation.

A tangent: Reading your comment, at first I smiled at the verb 'Kirby', thinking it was a reference to the vacuum company... then I realized that it may be a reference to the videogame character. Then I wondered if the video game character's name is derived from the vacuum company, or is it a coincidence? Am I an idiot for never noticing that before? Like most of my trains of thought, it ends with me cursing myself f…

Oh wow, I did not know about the vacuum company at all, only the video game character.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#316

Post by salawat » Sat, Mar 19, 2022, 3:29 AM UTC

monktastic1 wrote: post #243

salawat wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah... So they're differentiating MOOP levels they'll honor based on the provider in question. I'm guessing they probably have some funneling arrangement that recoups the extra spend they'd incur from the potentially more frequent MOOP attainment in network. Cute, but it really kinda sidesteps the concept of "Max out of pocket". I sense an MBA at work.

Replying here because I couldn't respond to your other comment. All the ACA plans I've looked at pay nothing for OON, so in effect there's no maximum I may pay, right? I'm curious about this redlining solution. How do you decide how much you'll pay them?

Basically, you can just piggy-back essentially on your insurer's bargaining power by agreeing to what they would agree to pay +/- a percent on top. The provider can still refuse to provide service to the updated terms of course, but it puts the ball in their court, and insulates you from "surprise" bills.

Just blindly signing it means exactly what is on that sheet of paper, that the provider settles on an amount, and you are accepting an obligation to repay it. Redlining and setting a ceiling on what you're willing/able to pay shows good faith. Which if it comes to a court case, goes a long way.