Christal Doyle v. Verizon Wireless, et al.

On January 11, 2011, I added my husband on my family/business package with Verizon, and purchased a new and additional Blackberry for him. Since I knew that there was a strong possibility that his new employer would provide him with a company cell later in the month, I made sure to disclose this to the Verizon representative and familiarized myself with Verizon’s return and refund policy.

I was told that I had 30 days to return it for a full refund. Fine.

As suspected, my husband’s new employer supplied him with a business cell, thereby negating the need for this recently purchased $260 somewhat dollars of a Blackberry phone.

Thus, on January 18th (only 1 week post original purchase date), I went back to the Verizon store to return said cell, only to be told by the representative that they could not process the refund until after the 28th of January, which was the end of my billing cycle. I then asked, “Are you going to jerk me around on the 28th by telling me that I’m past the 30-day period for a full refund?” They replied, “No. Absolutely not”. Fine.

So today (2/1/2011), I took yet another trip to the Verizon store to return this cellular phone that’s been tucked safely in the trunk of my car. Guess what the representative tried to dish out to me today? “Sorry, but our return policy changed last month, and we can only allow refunds within 14 days after purchase.” Unfortunately for her, I was more well-versed in Verizon’s P&P than she was. What’s more annoying is that I had to cite her employer’s P&P to HER! (Precious time I will never get back.)

She stopped to think about what I said (*thank gahd!*), conceded and processed the return – only to be told immediately after that, “There will be a $35.00 restocking fee charged to the account”… Are you serious??? A re-stocking fee??? Are companies still using that line??? Like their customers are stupid???

And really, what the heck are “re-stocking fees”???

“There’s nothing I can do. It’s on the fine print on the bottom of the receipt”, she added.

I tell you, as an insurance agent, if I ever merely pointed to “the fine print” on a client’s policy coverage as an answer to their concerns and expected that to be the solution? I would lose my clients, and insurance companies would not exist, and the solution to every medical dilemma would be amputation. Here’s another hum-dinger: People pay MORE for their monthly cell phone bills, phone app’s, and accessories than they do to insure themselves against a medical disaster.
Brilliant.

Folks, take into consideration I have been with Verizon for over 7 years now, and it costs me anywhere from $450-$600/month for my business and residential lines combined. That may not be a lot of money to some of you, but that is NOT chump change for me. On top of that, I have to work around THEIR schedule, going in and out of their darn stores; wasting my time with robotic customer service reps; dealing with time consuming, wasteful, petty nonsense!

In addition, you’d think that these reps would be trained to spot a “valuable customer” by not engaging in such insulting tactics of nickel & diming me? No such luck. You know why? They’ve gotten that big; that successful; and options are few….(Hopefully, not for long).

We need to come up with some sort of “Consumer Aggravation Fee” that we can asses these corporations for lost time and inconveniences they impose upon our lives due to their inefficiencies!

*Grrr*

…Because ObamaCare is an Obama-nation.

From a Facebook thread. Even if you were not privy to the prior posts leading to this response, I’ve kept it generic enough to where one can keep up with the topic in hand.

——- Begin——-

As in independent health insurance agent, if I may inject my POV when it comes to healthcare vs ObamaCare.

So let’s first start with a few basics of what was/is: FACT:

1. The cost to CARE for the top 5 diseases in America was/is not getting any cheaper (Obesity, Coronary Artery Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, Depression, Asthma) Note that Cancer did not make the top 5, contrary to what I would have guessed.

2. Health insurance companies in turn, were continuously increasing rates to PAY for the treatment of these conditions (picture ins’ co’s in the back seat; while medical costs are in the driver’s seat) . Now, please take into consideration that the logic behind INSURANCE is to help pay for the unexpected, unplanned costs of medical treatment and care, provided you put into the pot to extract from the pot. It is NOT the insurance companies’ responsibility to tell you how to live, how to eat, how to take better care of yourself, etc. They are simply the avenue in helping you finance the cost of your medical care.

This is not to say that insurance companies’ desire to be profitable was not in the picture – it was and it is. This is only right considering that the alternative would be to go bankrupt.

3. However, and having said that, the steady premium rate hikes of 10-20% also had to be controlled, as families and business found it more difficult to afford health insurance premiums (note: I did not say “afford health insurance care”)

4. US does not have provisions established for people who access and utilize ER services. Meaning, if one suffers an illness (acute or life threatening) and walks in to a hospital seeking emergency care, he/she WILL be treated , regardless of whether or not he/she is insured or have the ability to pay for the services ~ insert basis of hippocratic oath gone awry.

5. We don’t get younger/healthier, we simply get older, sicker, and die. It is the “older and sicker” that remains the costliest factor thru all this. US ranks as the #3 in the top 10 fattest countries in the world.
You think this causes health premiums to continuously rise? Oh, you betcha – hence, circle back to the top 5 most costly diseases to treat.

Medicare/SS benefits was a well intentioned plan, but if the taxed dollars earmarked for distribution of said benefits are not strictly used to fund same, and if people who did not contribute into the system are eligible for benefits just b/c they qualify age wise, what happens? Well, let me present a scenario: Let’s say you and your family plus a close circle of friends plat Lotto every week. And every week you all pitch in to buy a few tickets, playing the same numbers whether for some superstitious or sentimental reason – and one of your tickets eventually hits the grand prize ~ Would it be ok with you if the State government withheld your net winnings in order to insert a stipulation that based on a recent tax survey, they found that your neighbors down the street have not paid their taxes or is suffering financially, thus they will lower your cash benefits to distribute amongst the others who were not part of your Lotto circle?

So fast forward to HCR – a popular agenda carried by a popular, newly elected president. Now, keep in mind that is not the first time we’ve tried to induce “universal health care” in America; remember HillaryCare? Has anyone ever stopped and wondered how a one very unpopular bill suddenly gets drafted, regains popularity, becomes unpopular again almost becoming a “Dead Bill, only for it to be revived and passed less than 12 months post Obama-Biden taking office? I’ll let you think about that for a few,

Anyway, HCR was supposed to address 2 major things (amongst many): To make health insurance more affordable so that all Americans can obtain health insurance, specifically the “20M Uninsured Americans”

What’s the problem now? Why aren’t more families and/or businesses getting coverage?

A) Nothing – I repeat – NOTHING in the bill addressed the increasing costs of medical CARE and the exorbitant amount of money involved in attacking the Top 5 chronic illnesses. There was nothing in the bill that controls or stop government agencies from frivolous spending – we could go on and on, but the net/net is that the Health Care Reform now known as ObamaCare is actually Health INSURANCE Reform, as this was the easiest way to get the bill passed.

If I may also add this for your viewing pleasure: “The 545 People Responsible for All of US Woes”, by Charley Reese.

B) The uninsured Americans that ObamaCare was citing also included: Illegal aliens, people were eligible for coverage but were in job transitions, as well as individuals who were young, healthy, and overall qualified for coverage but simply CHOSE not to get insurance b/c they did not see the value. It failed to focus solely on the “uninsurABLE”

C) The definition of “All Americans” was not clearly defined.
Let me point out a few things: If you are an illegal alien, If you have qualifying religious exemptions, if you’ve been/are incarcerated.. YOU ARE NOT required to abide by the “play or pay” provisions of ObamaCare, which to me can be summed up to “WTF”.

Add to that: Unions and unionized employees (“EE’s) have different options that do not/need not apply to non-union EE’s. Why?

D) ObamaCare made it mandatory for health ins co’s to insure EVERYONE regardless of pre-existing conditions come 2014. What do you think this will lead to? Let me ask you: If you are able to call an auto insurance co and have them insure your car AFTER you’ve been in a major car accident, wouldn’t that be great? If so, would you be willing to pay 5-10 times more for your auto ins premiums? Yes? Well great, that’s what’s now happening with ObamaCare, thank you very much.

Here’s an example: You’ve been perceived as a healthy, young, vibrant individual. Yesterday, you went for a physical for the first time and after a battery of tests and exams, your physician discovers you have cancer. After you calm down a bit, it hits you that you will soon be subjected to a myriad of costly treatments and medications. But you have no health insurance! No worries. You can pick up the phone, fill out an form, get coverage, and have the insurance company pay for the cost of your treatments. Nice, huh?

But wait, how much will this cost, you ask? Well, America, if you thought health coverage was too expensive before the passing of ObamaCare, just wait ’til it’s “free” in 2014.

Still excited about ObamaCare and “guarantee issue” in the year 2014? Cool.
Because as it stands now, and in preparation for 2014, what are insurance companies forced to do? INCREASE premiums, and increase premiums now. Folks, remember this: The insurance companies are still the ones who have to insure you, me, et al, NOT the federal government. ObamaCare cannot continue without the cooperation and existence of the carriers.

E) People are under the misconception that ObamaCare is now enabling people to get coverage in CA. Untrue. CA has had State run programs addressing the uninsureds/uninsurables all along: Healthy Families, Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP), MediCal.

Why aren’t more people accessing these benefits? For a myriad of reasons: They don’t know about such programs; they’re here illegally and afraid to ask; they can’t afford the the guarantee issue govt plans = MRMIP. Add to that the fact the govt agencies do nothing to educate the masses nor market their programs. May I remind you that our tax dollars are still funding these programs. Then ask me how many of my clients have I been able to enroll under the state run MRMIP?
Take a guess. NONE. Why, you ask? Because although it’s guarantee issue, there’s a waiting period, the benefits are limited and the monthly premiums are 5x more than the private insurance companies rates!! How is that you ask? Well, circle back to “guarantee issue”.

F) ObamaCare is what CAUSED insurance comp’s to back off from offering “child only policies”. Think about it. If you take away the few underwriting guidelines that allow insurance companies to control premiums, they have to make adjustments!

G) The one plan (HSA), established under the recent Bush Admin, geared to help individuals and families take better control of their own monies and take responsibility toward managing their own health care costs; the plan offering that has made it possible for many businesses to afford health coverage and offer it to their EE’s, now has more restricting provisions that will soon make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to offer HSAs. Brilliant. Thus, in a matter of months after passing, ObamaCare has caused more small businesses to stop offering group health ins to their EE’s. Why? Because the tax benefits of doing so has diminished and it’s easier and cheaper for employers to pay the fine than deal w/ the hassle and cost of providing health coverage to their EE’s. Can you picture the vicious circle we’re in?

What else did this lead to? Individuals/EE’s previously covered under their small group employer plans are now having to seek personal/individual coverage. What about those people with pre-exisiting conditions? Well, guess what…such people are shit outta luck. What does an agent like me do to help these people? Well, aside from having to act as interim-counselor, I often times have no alternative but to guide them to what they can afford (which is usually… nothing) or helping them get enrolled in whatever State sponsored programs they qualify for. “Oh, but I don’t want to go to County”. *sigh* Really???

So what do we DO, now?

1) Educate ourselves about the implications of who we vote into office.

2) Stop looking to Government to solve our problems. It will NOT and NEVER will.

3) Address and attack the top 5 health issues, not merely stick a band aid on it.

4) Use common sense when it comes to your health and well-being.

5) Call your personal health insurance agent and ASK FOR HELP or assistance and find out what your individual options are; it’s not the same for everyone.

Christal Doyle, HIP

“How Can You People Eat That Sh*t”

When my husband goes out of town on business, I take that opportunity to cook Filipino dishes that I would not normally prepare in his presence. Yesterday I made bitter-melon with so much bagoong (shrimp paste), and egg-drop, that even I started itching. And ohboy, did it send an aroma in the kitchen; after which I made sure to purge all traces of it – CSI-style.

Being on FB, I updated my status to read, “The only advantage to preparing meals only for myself this week, is I don’t have to hear the words, “How can [you people eat] that [sh*t]“, used in the same sentence. To which, one of my girlfriends commented, “Geez, your hubby still says that??”

Well, in all fairness, when shrimp paste and fermented eggs come into play, I can’t say I blame him. As much as my Caucasian man loves my home-cookin’ Filipino food, there are indeed some dishes that can brutally assault one’s olfaction.

It reminded me of the day my husband inadvertently got a hold of some Filipino salted/fermented eggs, which he thought were simply hard-boiled eggs that I colored red (Really?? You think I have that much time??). This is what happens when he gets the munchies late at night, I’m asleep, and he has to fend for himself in “my” kitchen.

He later reported that he couldn’t gag hard enough nor hurl soon enough to save his taste buds.

Here is the conversation the morning after:

White Boy: “Honey!! Did u know you have rotten eggs in the fridge??”

Me: What? No way. I just bought those eggs.

White Boy: Well, I had some of the hard-boiled ones and I know rotten eggs when I taste it.

Me: Waaaiiit a miiiinute… (opens the fridge) … WHERE ARE MY RED EGGS???

White Boy: I threw them away for you – waaay down in the dumpster; so don’t worry – whatever virus those eggs had can’t hurt you anymore, baby.

Me: O.M.G. .. Those eggs came all the way from the Philippines! My gramma brought them back for me!!”

White Boy: Oh, no wonder they’re spoiled! Twenty hours in a suitcase is no way for eggs to travel! So, I threw them away. I didn’t want you to get sick.

Me: Get sick??!? I’m Filipino!! I’m immune! I can eat at Asian restaurants with an FDA “C” Rating for cryin’ out loud!! Those were SPECIAL SALTED EGGS!”

White Boy: “Uh hm. Is that what you call those. Well, here in America we call that crap ROTTEN EGGS! …(here it comes)….

“How can you people eat that sh*t!!”

Aaaw! Why You Gotta Pick on My President??

Recently, I received a Facebook (“FB”) challenge by an attorney friend of mine, asking as to what I specifically do not like about the health care reform (“HCR”) bill/law and whether my continued objections to the bill are based on “other than” my concerns regarding his assumed impending doom regarding my income, seeing as I am an Independent Insurance Agent. For those of you who know me and have been in the loop since the beginning, you will know that such an insinuation is insulting, to say the least. *insert shaking head, rolling eyes*

He further asks that I specify as to whom I am referring as a “domestic enemy” in my recent FB status of, “To defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic ~ Right now, it is the “domestic” that worries me”.
Here’s my quick answer: “The 40+% of people who are still following the tune of the Pied Piper and make up the approval rating of this Administration’s performance”. (In actuality, the status is indicative of my personal current affairs; but FB readers will relate to statuses in their own way, and their interpretation will mirror what is prevalent in their own lives. That’s what it’s meant to do)

So here goes.

First, let’s get the insurance agent compensation bullshit out of the way.
My personal finances are far from being affected by the passing of ObamaCare. Believe me. Why? Because unlike some people I know (i.e. attorneys), the work I do earns me NO significant dollars to make a major impact in the maintenance of my household or lifestyle. I consult and help people find alternative options regarding the financing of their health care at NO COST to them. Yes, for FREE – with zero concern as to whether I will get compensated or not. Thankfully, I am currently in a position that allows me the luxury to use my experience and knowledge and help people – period. If I happen to get a referral from it and land a paying account, great. If not, no worries. Because sooner or later I know it will all work out. So let’s get this stupid notion out of the way for those idiots who keep trying to slap this on my face, or dare they say the same about other reputable insurance professionals out there. Making this assumption about me is similar to presenting an argument for increased mortgage taxes to a homeless person.

Are there people out there who can prove that my actions/advise have been biased to benefit only the people in my industry? Or benefit only the people who are already insured and only those who CAN afford coverage? Or benefit only the people with whom I share similar political views? Show of hands – anyone… Anyone?… Beuller?… Beuller?

Having said that, just because my livelihood will not be adversely affected by the passing of ObamaCare, at least not yet – is not a good enough reason for me, as a licensed health insurance professional, to sit back and not inform and educate my family, friends, and clients alike about the potentially dire results of this Administration’s initial step towards the nationalization of health care in America.

Name one country where nationalized health care works and is not in on the verge of economic disaster, if not already. Or even, name one state in the US where “universal health care” has been espoused and can declare it a phenomenal success.

“The problem with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money”

Here are just some of the issues I have with ObamaCare:

>There is a big difference between health CARE reform and health INSURANCE reform. There are drastic differences between the UNinsured versus the uninsurABLE versus the WILLFULLY uninsured. Health Care Reform was intended to address the UNinsurable. However, ObamaCare passed without Legislators even fully comprehending the distinction. Thus, in order to capture the uninsurABLE, we sacrificed the strength of the majority, by suffocating and penalizing the small businesses, impose higher taxes on what the government deems as wealthy, increase tax on the young and healthy adults, etc.

>One of the purposes of reform was to “make health coverage more affordable for more people”. Really.
Well, how do we expect to reduce health insurance premiums without controlling thus reducing the cost of care for chronic diseases, individuals’ habits, consumption, lifestyle, and the aging population.

> Tort reform – you’re an attorney. Care to expound as to how malpractice lawsuits have contributed to the ever increasing cost of care? Can you enlighten us as to how tort-reform remained untouched under ObamaCare, regardless of the fact that 34% of every health care dollar spent is tied to defensive medicine and related diagnostic testing?

> “Guarantee issue”. O-M-G. An insurance company will soon be precluded from exercising one of the key underwriting guidelines that help contain rates?? So now a person who suffers a heart attack today and also discovers he has a brain tumor, and whose wife is pregnant to a baby with a recently detected cephalic disorder can get their medical costs immediately covered by a private health insurance carrier? And we expect that in a few years this shall result in lower, more affordable premiums?

> Mandated coverage: What – Like a person no longer has the option to exercise his/her right to be stupid or irresponsbile? That if an individual does not elect a health insurance plan, and one that the government deems to be sufficient coverage, he/she shall be penalized? And how will government impose such penalty? Oh wait, it’s called taxation now, but I digress… Well, it sure will make the lives of this new IRS extension if we ALL filed taxes.

>”Put a stop to the greed of the big, bad, insurance companies” ~ *sigh* I can’t help but shake my head when I hear such asininity. God forbid we wake up one day and discover our private health insurance carrier bankrupt and can no longer pay our claims. More importantly, what Legislators didn’t want people to know is that THEY know that an insurance company’s profit margin is only 2% across the board. (Wow, let’s penalize YOU for your next 2% growth, shall we) But you can’t highlight and tug on man’s 7 deadly sins – “Envy” to fight “Greed” – and make an effective argument at “2%”. DC also understands that investment income has a separate and distinct fund from premiums. But it’s easier to paint the picture of a Wall Street executive with an evil snarl, fat, chubby hands w/ a pinky ring, taking the money of the poor, sick, and uninsured, isn’t it.

Let me point out: Blue Shield of CA is a non-profit organization. Anthem Blue Cross of CA is a for-profit organization. Yet… YET, Anthem’s premium rates are often lower and benefits richer than its non-profit counterpart. … And this is because…..?

Moving on. Along with the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU) whose main focus is to dissect, translate, and disseminate to its broker community the ever-changing and vague stipulations of HCR, we get daily briefs – yes, daily- regarding HCR; on top of which, having to attend monthly meetings. Lately, we have been fortunate to have outside attorneys who are generous enough to deliver current interpretation and provide additional clarification of said bill. If you yourself have read the bill in its entirety and would like to donate your time and expertise for the good of helping the consumers, we would love to have you speak and outline the positives of HCR laws. Just let me know, and I can make this happen.

Are your objections based on something other than concerns that your profession and personal finances will be prejudiced, even though the insurance lobby at Congress didn’t let that happen?

Hilarious. Do you actually think that the insurance lobbyists spent time arguing and fighting for brokers’ compensation at the Hill? That issue doesn’t even hit their radar! They may have touched on the importance and the value of the agent/broker community, in passing; but there were more pressing issues that needed to be addressed on behalf of the consumers: Spread in premium dollars, medical loss ratios, guarantee issue, penalties to individuals, extend of additional regulations for small businesses – just for starters.

And if the insurance lobbyists were fully effective, ObamaCare would not have passed. Reform would have eventually passed, but not ObamaCare. I was told that it would have been easy to fight it – but that all it took was a butt-load of disposable income, which we do not have an abundance of.

And let me add. Not I nor anyone I know and have spoken with was against health care reform or some form of insurance company reform. But ObamaCare did not pass because the majority of the American people voted for it – it passed because 219 individuals in Congress disregarded the 54% of the US opposing population.
I ask, why would this settle well with you?

As to the issue of credentials, why don’t you find those important? Isn’t that how YOU sell yourself to your clients?

It’s FACEBOOK!! I don’t need to credential anyone’s personal opinions to click on “Repost”. I simply have to “Like” what they post, even if at times I do not agree with their op-ed. And let’s get something else straight here – I do not “sell” myself to my clients. LOL.

As far as my profession in concerned, yes indeed, I take my credentialing seriously. Insurance agents are regulated up the waahoo with State and Federal licensing laws. As it should be, because what we do and the guidance we provide affect the lives of our clients. But here’s the bottom line: No amount of credentialing will ever replace an agent’s true integrity and character. There are brokers out there who can display a myriad of pledge pins on their lapels representing certifications for and associations with this-that-and-the-other, but whose techniques and questionable ethical standards give me the creepies and to whom I would not refer an enemy’s mother! And let’s not forget that in EVERY profession, credentialing does not guarantee credibility nor trustworthiness.

Your criticism of Obama seems illogical. Here is a President that had a mandate to press for partisan legislation but instead involved Republicans. The health care bill is a result of that process.

Wha- …What the.. HAAAHHAHAAHAHA. Are you for real??? You took the “Health Care Summit seriously?? You see nothing wrong with the back room deals, finagling, and kick-backs that occurred for Congress to ram HCR down the people’s throats, all to feed the hunger, grandiose, self-serving agenda of the
1st Black President of the United States??

My criticism seems illogical? How?? Why is it illogical for me to refuse support for a man whose views are diabolically opposed to mine, and whose actions of late defies the very heart and logic of what made this country great (at one time)? Why is it illogical for me to oppose a man’s agenda for bigger government? To oppose nationalizing every private sector lest they get too profitable – to oppose government’s definition of what’s too big, too lucrative? Why is it illogical for me to support an elected “leader” of this country whose mantra is to spend our way to prosperity?

Why is it illogical for me to support a president who goes on a world tour apologizing for America’s past behavior, while domestically, continues to run on a panel that further divides the American people? Why should I support an Administration that condemns one of its states called Arizona, by calling for a federal suit intended to preclude said State from enforcing an already established set of immigration laws that would protect their people and its borders; but instead cites “violation of international law” as its defense, rather than standing by and defending the American people?

Furthermore, why is it illogical for me to refuse bigger government, one that squashes the spirit of entrepreneurialism, innovativeness, and plain hard work.

My dear man, I can say the same thing about you: Your full fledge support of Obama seems illogical to me.

Would the bills be good if they were half the length even if the end results were the same? I disagree that neither of the bills accomplish anything positive. As to the finance bill you can’t be of the opinion that nothing should have been done. It was de regulation of the industry that led to the crisis. Legislation was needed to try to prevent a repeat or worse.

No, absolutely not. But after 2300+ pages, it’s still unclear as to how establishing “new” regulation on top of current regulation that simply lacks enforcement will provide a sure fix by the same group of people responsible for the de-regulation to begin with. Should I not be surprised that you of all people do not see anything appalling about the tactic of, “We have to first pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.. (Brilliant)

But wait… come to think of it, what’s wrong with being able to sum up a contract in 1 page and a solid handshake?

Additionally, who the heck are the 800 or so individuals assigned to the “new” regulatory agency? Where did they come from? What makes them qualified? You’re big on certification, and on a mere FB comment; have you checked out the qualifications of these 800 appointees who have surfaced, designated to oversee the country’s financial overhaul?

The POTUS released these following words: “There will be no more tax funded bail outs”…… REALLY? Hmmm… Is he done with his preferred bail out programs, is that why? But wait. What about the following?

• Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
• Social Security
• Unemployment Fund
• Uninsured and Major medical risk fund

… just to name a few. Where will funding come from to keep these afloat? Or did he mean that “there will be no more Wall Street tax-funded bail outs”? If so.. Oh really? And when you mention deregulation, are you referring to the deregulation that occurred during Clinton’s second term?

You disagree with the notion that neither bills accomplish anything positive. That’s fine. You can disagree all you like. But also point out what you perceive as positive impact of either bills. Believe me, I need to hear those, too so that I may extend them to the others.

Are you republican or libertarian?

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, will be big enough to take everything you have.”

Well, had you been indeed “following posts on FB for the past 6 months”, you would not need to ask. I am sure you can tell by now that I am more Libertarian than I am Conservative (which is what I believe you intended to compare?). I took the political survey, and surveys don’t lie. LOL.

Look, I’m no genius; hence, I have to rely on common sense, along with surrounding myself with people who are smarter (which is not hard) intelligent, kinder, some meaner, and from all walks of life. And I do know that you and I will never, ever agree 100%, politically. It is what it is.

Soccer Blues

The following is courtesy of one of my dearest friends, Lance Alexander Files. Needless to say, I share the same sentiments, and since it’s been a while since my last post, why let a good write up go unnoticed, especially when I have a free pass to republish.
So here you go:

1 – 0. How perfect! Oops, pardon me … 1 – nil.

Of course the World Cup ended 1 – 0. Soccer was invented what … 48 B.C. or something? And since then I believe that 97.9% of the games/matches/whatever’s ever played,
end in a 1 – 0. I’m pretty sure that’s a fact.

I saw more soccer in this World Cup than I ever have in my life. Mostly, due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time: Lunchtime at my favorite Mexican Restaurant brought me face to face with this World Cup thingy quite often. And today, I turned it on, on purpose. “Let me try it”, I told myself. It’s big! It’s huge! It’s history!…

… It freaking sucks!
Two hours of dudes running in circles and falling down constantly. I swear they need to widen the field because the players spent more time throwing in the 7,390 balls that went out of bounds, than actually kicking them. And what’s with the dives? I will give soccer guys credit for being somewhat athletic, but for guys that are as fit as they obviously are, how do they seem to be so fragile?? How many guys are holding knees and ankles like a freaking bull shark just took a chunk from their leg, hoping to get some call. My favorite guys are the ones who grab their faces and writhe in agony, when the contact was to the foot. Dude, seriously? In Football, a 280 pound linebacker tries to decapitate the 185 pound running back, who jumps right back up and comes back for more. In Hockey, the defenseman gets a full head of steam and tries to obliterate the forward. Extra props go to him if he puts him through the glass or into the boards ~ but that forward jumps back up and demands the puck right back. In Baseball, if the batter takes a 98 MPH fastball off the triceps, he sure as hell better not rub it. In Basketball … okay, they flop, too. Basketball does kinda suck that way.

But soccer? “Oh no … I’ve been *gasp* tripped! Ohhhhh, da pain! My neck … my back … my neck and my back! … Did I get a call? Cool! And I’m back!”

What is that? At least that French dude who head-butted the guy in the chest some years back made sure the dude felt it! Oh, and I love the looks of confusion after the kicker guys miss the freaking goal wide right by 37 feet or get stoned by the goalie. They all have that, “How did that not go in??” look. I’ll tell you how not, Mr. Soccer Guy… because the ball NEVER goes in! That’s why every game/match/whatever ends with a
1 – 0!

Yes, my friends, I’m sure of it. Soccer just sucks. Spain just beat the Netherlands for the World Cup. We could send nothing but our Boy Scouts to either of those Countries and take them over by force, yet they played in the World Cup finals.

Great sport, world. Please keep it.

HOW TERRIBLE IS WISDOM WHEN IT BRINGS NO PROFIT TO THE WISE?

“Who’s On First” (You’ll Find Out When You Realize You’re Last)

A similar skit is being produced in Washington, DC; the comical health care/insurance reform bill known as Obamacare, sans the brilliance nor the tickle in our funny bone. (I prefer its true moniker, “NObamaCare”)

As discussed in this morning’s media reports, the Democrats are slightly short of the needed votes to get this bill passed, the wrangling of which is akin to “forcing a deadly pill down our throats”. They can’t get the votes because the CBO can’t appropriately price it, and the CBO can’t apply a true cost to it because of what keeps going in and out of the bill; and what’s in the bill, some Democrats want taken out, so they hold off on committing their votes until and unless … *sigh* and the vicious circle continues with these buffoons. And yes, folks, it’s still about the votes – their votes, because it apparently matters none to this Administration what the majority of the people want versus what they deem necessary in the pursuit of their socialistic agenda.

Being an insurance agent, can you just imagine if I sat down with you to discuss your health care needs in the same manner as this Administration’s version of “Who’s on First”? Let’s see; it would go something like this….

Starring:
I Don’t Know = The Insured
Why Not = The Plan
What = The Benefits
Who = The Carrier

> Who’s insured?
> Well, I Don’t Know is insured.
> Wha- Why not??
> Well, now ~ that’s the plan.
> What’s the plan??
> No, What’s the benefits.
> Benefits??? You can’t even tell me who’s insured!
> I told you. I Don’t Know is insured.
> So if you don’t who’s insured…
> No,no… Who is the carrier.
> You tell me!! Hoookaaay… Who is the carrier???
> That’s right!
> What’s right???
> No, What’s the benefits. Right here is where you sign.

Brilliant. If I could only be that conniving.

Really, America?? …

Someone made a comment (indirectly, nonetheless) that with all the media coverage about health care (insurance) reform, I should be careful not to post anything on Facebook that may give the impression that I am siding with the “big bad insurance companies”… Really? Newsflash, buddy: I’M AN INSURANCE AGENT! Of course I will side with the private companies! Why? Because the alternative would be to side with big government! I think one of my dear friends (Rich Gallego) said it best: “You know why I don’t have a problem with big insurance, big pharma, big oil, or big private anything? Because if you don’t like them, you can tell them “no” at anytime. Try telling the government “no”.

With that, the following are some of my “favorite” headlines (in bold) from the past couple of weeks. Feel free to let me know if any portion of the articles cited is inaccurate or if my comments and opinions are just plain looney. (p.s. Thanks to all who take the time to rank my blogs ~ You rock!)

President Obama giving black farmers 1.25 Billion in reparations for all the injustices committed to Blacks in American history. The article further states that President Obama’s $1.25 billion awarded to the 70,000-plus black farmers is “hardly even a beginning”.

What am I missing here? Will someone pleeeease point out to me why this should be applauded.

1.4% military pay increase – smallest since 1962. In the meantime, numbers of welfare program benefits see sharp increase.

Personally, I think that we should reform toward elimination all welfare programs before reforming health care in its entirety. It’s like being in a boat with a leak. Instead of fixing the leak, all we keep doing is paying for more buckets to bail water out of a sinking boat. Additionally, it may be because I grew up in a military home, took summer vacations with my mafia dad, that I became aware of the military and its value, that I find this proposed pay increase so insulting to our servicemen; but tell me why these contributing individuals should be gipped while lazy, immoral, opportunistic, blood sucking (citizens, immigrants, and foreigners alike), get continued government support.

First Lady Michelle Obama wants to end “food deserts” in America, as part of her “Let’s Move” program.

What is a “food desert”? Well, this oxymoron is defined by the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack as a place where there is not an easy, affordable, and reasonable access to fresh fruits and vegetables, i.e. a grocery store. The article further explains that “in low-income and rural areas all across the country, many people rely on convenience stores and fast food restaurants for their nutritional needs, which, as most know, is nutritional suicide.”

So now the government wants to establish “easy, affordable, and reasonable access to fresh fruits and vegetables” at these “food deserts” because the fact that they have fast food restaurants and convenient stores isn’t convenient or healthy enough for the poor people? Did any of you watch Mrs. Obama’s interview with Mike Huckabee? If you missed it, it’s available on youtube for your viewing pleasure. According to Mrs. Obama, food deserts are mostly found in “places like Philadelphia AND Pennsylvania”. Watch it, then THINK about the proposal. And answer these questions: (1) If you finally saved up enough money to invest in yourself and start your own business – may it be a restaurant, a martial arts studio, or pet store, would you take your business to one of these so-called “food deserts”? No?? Why not?? Oh! Oh! I know why…maybe BECAUSE YOU’LL BE BANKRUPT IF NOT MUGGED TO DEATH IN LESS THAN 3 MONTHS!!! (2) Where oh where does Mrs. Obama think the food supply is going to come from? From the room right next to the one that prints our money 24/7? Or from the farm right outside the White House? No, wait – specifically from the black farmers to whom reparations have been awarded??

Wait, I know: She will simply start auditing the earnings and business practices of grocery stores likes Vons, Safeway, Trader Joe’s, etc, commence a full blown investigation as to why such food stores are strategically and exclusively operating in areas of profit. Heck, they’re doing it with insurance companies as part of their health care initiative, aren’t they??

Which brings us to…

Chairman Henry Waxman continues to drill the private businesses, specifically the top 4 health insurance companies, regarding their earnings and business practices.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still a significant number of people who don’t get that this is all political theatrics; who think that they will soon wake up to the benefits of ObamaCare and have access to the best clinic or hospital in town; who think that eliminating the pre-existing clause will help reduce the cost of health insurance or health care. You don’t have to a mathematician to figure out that this just will not work. *sigh* Look, I pay about $450/mo, collectively for a life insurance policy. I’d like to be able to call the insurance company upon the death of my spouse and get a million dollar check for $450, too but that’s just not going to happen!!

All this BS about health care/insurance reform won’t benefit us and the country in the long run. Why? Well for one, it doesn’t address cost containment for the top 5 health diseases and conditions that soak up the majority of the nation’s health care dollars. And you know what else? The attitudes and eating habits of Americans do not or will not change. You know what will immediately help reduce health care costs? Eliminating all morbidly obese people. Because, obesity doesn’t kill; it’s the “byproduct” or side-effects of obesity that does, but in the meantime is costing us billions of dollars to treat.

But, it is the fierce goal of the President and his administration to make a name for themselves in history so Waxman, Pelosi, Sebelius (aka: Larry, Curly & Moe) are setting up smoke screens, because they think we’re all that stupid!

State of Massachusetts is proposing a ban on circumcision

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a “universal health care” state. The health care reform law enacted in 2006 requires that every MA resident obtain health insurance coverage. That being said, it does not surprise me that such preposterous proposals are presented to the table. Hey, Massachusetts! You better start thinking about legalizing prostitution because, gentlemen, paying for sex will soon be the only way you guys get any nookie if this bill passes! Oh but wait, since embracing universal health care, your ever-increasing taxes consume much of your earnings. Aaah, forget being able to pay for sex. The upside is, your “carpal tunnel” should be covered by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Program, ya?

Meanwhile, we have the now bankrupt state of California still hanging on to turning the state into a “single payer” health system. Good lawrd!

And last but not least:

“Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good,” Reid said on the Senate floor Friday morning.

Compassion

I like this word, don’t you? It is defined as “a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.” Acts of compassion, which are encouraged by moral systems around the world, include mercy, gentleness, tenderness, generosity, kindness, patience, self-sacrifice, yada, yada, yada – we get the gist of it.

My problem with compassion, or any other type of emotion for that matter, is when it gets out of hand – when the feeling becomes an irrational urge that later turns into a handicap and contributes to the problem rather than being used as a moral compass.

Kindly allow me to share with you when I first came upon the pure understanding of what the word “compassion” meant.

I was (maybe) 6 years old. I was playing with my dolls and toy guns (yes, yes, dolls & guns) inside my posh air-conditioned bedroom in the Philippines. My nanny had just prepared my mid-day snack as we settled in front of the tele to watch one of my favorite TV shows: TARZAN. This was during the days when Tarzan was a “real manly man”, played by the very handsome Ron Ely (?).

True to form, that afternoon’s episode was about a group of renegade men seeking to get their paws on some rare artifact buried deep in the jungle, to which they had no business owning to begin with. And how a beautiful, blonde, svelte, sexy girl manages to be part of this field trip without a proper army of chaperones half the time, intrigued the heck out of me! It also did not escape me that in every episode, Tarzan is very attentive to the women and always addressed and treated the ladies with special care…

…Ooh but, not so much in that afternoon’s particular episode. Here’s what happened:

Tarzan and his ape companion managed to transport the group of urban jungle junkies from Point A to Point B. In doing so, they happen to stumble upon a young, frail looking boy in the trail, apparently lost, and inadvertently separated from his tribal family (that was the insinuation). Tarzan scooped up the frightened and slightly wounded boy, confident that he will find the little boy’s native family.

Tarzan assesses his followers, tosses the boy into the arms of the only female in the group and appoints her to oversee the cute little runt (of course!), primarily to make sure “it” doesn’t get in the way. They still had miles to go and the last thing Tarzan needed was another “monkey” on his back. In the meantime, food and water supply were running low, almost non-existent because city folks always manage to pack trunks upon trunks of tools but never enough food for these expeditions. (That’s what happens when you don’t have Filipinos in your crew). Thank goodness, Tarzan sports a “banana belt” around his waist (remember that?), and with a bit of grimacing comes to the conclusion that he had to divvy up his banana stash for sustenance (meant primarily for him and his chimp) amongst the humanoids – about 15.5 all together, the .5 being the little boy.

Tarzan handled the food allocation and distribution in the following manner:
First, he ate.
Then, he distributed the rest equally amongst the men.
By the time he got down the line, he had barely a full serving remaining; it was a decision to feed the woman or the child.
Tarzan gave the last banana to the one woman.
None was given to the boy, except for a drink of little water.
None! Not even a sniff of the stinkin’ banana peel!

I remember watching with intense attention to scene details, mouth agape. I don’t even remember breathing as I was utterly curious if Tarzan was going to simply let “my people” die — and NO ONE has ever died in a Tarzan episode, at least none that I can remember, and today might be the first and a child, nonetheless!

What do you think happened next? Yup! You guessed it. The woman comes to the rescue of the boy! She was obviously appalled (evidenced by her huffing and corresponding heaving bosoms) at Tarzan’s display of indifference to the boy’s pain and hunger; and out of compassion, took it upon herself to sacrifice her portions and fed the boy instead.

Tarzan, amidst keeping order amongst the crowd and making sure no one inadvertently eats anything poisonous, notices this. He stomps over to the woman and child seated next to each other (one rippling thigh muscle over the other), and SNATCHES the remaining banana from the boy’s tiny fingers and shoves it to the woman, ordering her to eat. The woman was beyond furious! Tarzan, unfazed and unabashed, takes the very little of what was left over that he pried from the boy’s tiny clutches and grunts forcefully for the woman to EAT IT! She pretends to give in, but as soon as Tarzan turned his back on them, she continued to feed the boy on the sly.

Now, fast forward to the conclusion. How do you think the story ended? Well, Tarzan successfully lead the group back to safety (i.e, the Tourist Information Booth in the jungle), the little boy tucked under one arm, PLUS the extra burden of having to carry the now helpless woman (hair, shoes & make-up all intact of course) over his shoulders. Why? Because the “compassionate” bee-atch allowed emotion to rule over logic, bypassing the one opportunity to sustain herself, eventually became too weak to walk, and passed out.

Tarzan wasn’t too happy about that. He may have carried her all the way to safety, even occasionally stopping to gaze at the sleeping beauty during the treacherous hike, but he made sure to dump her (albeit gently) in the ship, headed back to where she cometh from!

To Increase, Then Not to Increase.

By now, I’m sure you’ve seen the news about Anthem Blue Cross’s (“Anthem”) decision to delay the previously scheduled rate increase.

Here’s what happened in chronological order, summarized and with sidenotes. Please keep in mind that these are just my personal observations and assumptions. Some people may have an opposing opinion, a different understanding, and more inside/background knowledge than I do. Hooray! If that’s the case, I’d love for them to share their wisdom. I also add that contrary to popular belief, agents/brokers need insurance, too and we are equally affected by the evil rate increases like the rest of the peeps. We hate rate hikes as much as, if not more than, you.

That being said, here we go:

1) In preparation for ObamaCare, Anthem Blue Cross of CA (“Anthem”) becomes first to announce rate increase effective March 1st, 2010, by as much as 39%. *OUCH*

ME: Why? Well, probably because Anthem alongside other private insurance carriers knew that they would be stuck with having to help “fund” Obama’s out-of-control spending guised as “health care reform”. Anthem’s actions are similar to that of “defensive medicine”, carrier style.

People should also know that Anthem was not imposing a rate hike on ALL of their plans, therefore not every one of their members were to be affected. But, for those whose rates would possibly be increased, Anthem provided new and alternative plans where premiums were much lower without sacrificing core benefits. It just required a bit of leg work on the part of the agents and its members.

2) Kathleen Sebelius (HHS) sends a letter to Anthem, demanding that they justify their pending rate increases, citing that such an increase would be detrimental in the midst of an economic crisis, not to mention excessive and inappropriate by a company whose last quarter’s earnings grossed $2.5Billlllllion.

Me: Let’s pause for just a minute here: Soooo, the government can now question why and how a private business dare make so much money and not share the wealth? And based on what it perceives to be “a lot of money”??

Did Sebelius wake up one morning back East, got wind of this activity in the West and thought to herself, “Brilliant! I shall use Anthem as an example to help resuscitate a dying agenda. This should make my president happy!”. Sebelius, then excited to publicly exert her authority (Ok, Eric Cartman!), proceeds with putting Anthem on the spot. Timing is everything, isn’t it.

3) After a brief silence (which is an eternity if you’re an insurance agent or consumer), Anthem responds to Sebelius’ demand letter.

Me: In reading Anthem’s points, these may all be very well, good and true, but it’s weak. What Anthem did here was coward to bad publicity and further strengthen the stigma of “the big bad insurance company”.

What happens when one is more concerned about being pc, too careful to not hurt the other’s feelings and more importantly, underestimates its audience’s ability to process straight, hard facts..?

4) … Sebelius “rejects” Anthem’s response. (Tah daaaah).

Me: REALLY. Sebelius rejects a private company’s positioning? Let’s not forget that the outrageous rate increase was in an essence fueled by the President’s very dismissive attitude toward the public’s outcry against his administration’s proposed health care/insurance reform.

Then, to top it off, Steve Poizner, the California Insurance Commissioner- Running-for-Governor dude, dressed in the latest season’s Sheep’s clothing, quickly jumps on the witch hunting wagon, feigns disgust at Anthem’s actions, adding that he would pull Anthem’s license if they proceeded with the massive rate increase.

Now, I don’t know much about Poizner personally and I think he’s on my hubby’s FB friend list; but I do know this: His office is responsible for oversight and regulating private insurance companies; meaning that
benefit plans, rates, and rate increases all have to be filed with and approved by the Department of Insurance (“DOI”) before it can even be released to the public! Sidenote: Someone made a comment on my FB, “Do you actually think the DOI looks at all that stuff?” My response in a nutshell? “That’s their job!!”

Back to Anthem’s spineless public response, personally I would have started with something like, “With no due respect, Kathleen, don’t use us to advance your clueless agenda, and until you become personally responsible for running a successful business that also helps keep the government-run programs afloat, I suggest you stick to baking brownies.” But instead….

5) Anthem delays rate increase. *ohgeez*

Oh sure, Anthem postpones the rate hike – for 2 stinkin’ months!! In the meantime, every agent has hustled to move their clients around in preparation for the increase. But hey, it’s all good because, at least for me, all my clients are in a better plan within Anthem.

Listen, there’s never a good time to raise rates. But let me ask you: If you owned your own business, what would you do in an economic crisis? Wouldn’t you take the time to rethink your strategy and adjust to stay afloat? Are insurance companies who btw, help fund the state-run programs, wait until the economy gets better to adjust their rates? Or any business for that matter? Not everyone believes the Obama-mantra of spending one’s way out of debt, you know.

I also think it’s hilarious how the other insurance carriers are on the sidelines, whistling as they look away, thinking, “Ssshhh,, let’s keep our heads down and hopefully we don’t get noticed.” You know what all these articles fail to mention? That about 6 months ago, Blue Shield of California, doing business as a not-for-profit insurance company, raised their rates up to 65%!!!! Plus, I’ll have you know that even with the rate increase, Anthem’s plans would not have been that much higher than the rest of its competitors. Let’s face it; Anthem leads the way in plan benefit designs and premium containment. The other companies simply wait and duplicate.

(Disclosure: I’m an independent agent so I have no ties to any one company; I just skim off the top 5 and recommend only the best to my clients. End of story)