Just a reminder: I'm no fan of McCain. There were at least 4 other primary candidates (from both parties) that are better for the job. However, none of them are Obama. I'm sick & tired of hearing that only racists & elitists refuse to support him. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Obama is the worst kind of elitist because he wants you (the voter) to hate the wealthy while supporting his campaign but the Obamas aren't exactly poor. He wants you to blame the middle- & upper-class for all of society's ills, when in fact the businesses they own & the taxes they pay are the only things that keep this nation from being a third-world country.
As someone who has grown up without a garage, I have tried to feel Obama's pain, without success. I earn considerably less than the Obamas but give a much higher percentage of my earnings to charity -- over 5% versus their less than 1%, all of which went to their racist, anti-American "church". (Something like, they earned over $4 million last year & donated just $27 K, all of it to rev. Wright's "church".) As such, I find Obama's plan to use billions in American tax dollars to end world poverty to be a hypocritical joke. We already send billions to those countries yet the world hates America, constantly complains that we don't do enough & blames us for all of the world's problems.
Obama dismisses the actions of terrorists as though it's no big deal so what's next? Reinstating all of the liberties lost by felons? Would any criminal be punished if it were up to Obama? I suspect the wealthy capitalists pigs who earn "windfall" profits & don't make "meaningful" contributions to those deserving handouts would be our new capital cases in the US of Obama.
And where si the media in all of this? If McCain or Hillary had belonged to a racist church, they would have been forced out fo the primaries before they'd even gotten started. Not to mention if a racist church was the SOLE beneficiary of that's candidate's charity . . . Why the double standard? As for the lipstick on a pig comment, how about if McCain or Palin were tossing out the phrase "calling a spade a spade" while stumping? They'd be forced out of the election process.
McCain has served his country while Obama consorts unapologetically with domestic terrorists. McCain has been a renegade in his own party, serving his constituents needs & views while actually reaching out to cross party lines. Obama is a product of what may possibly be the most corrupt political culture in America because Chicago is infamous for nepotism & sleaze. McCain has been in the public eye for decades & has nothing to hide. Obama's is sneaking around behind the scenes trying to get the Justice Department to stop his opponents television ads from being broadcast, even though the ads are fact & in no way slanderous. What kind of country will this be with that kind of power-drunk totalitarian in charge? He'll make Rove & Rumsfeld look like kids playing office.
These are just a couple of off-the-cuffs facts I can toss out over my morning coffe. I'll add links later so that readers can view the facts for themselves.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Health Care Courtesy of the Fourth Reich
Continuing our series of pointing out the flaws in Obama's Blueprint for Change, there's some pretty scary stuff about health insurance coverage here. Let me preface my criticisms by stating that I am more than superficially qualified to critique health care proposals. I've been without coverage due to assinine reasons (having had a non-malignant freckle removed from my arm 5 years prior made me "uninsurable" according to BCBS). I have paid both ridiculously high premiums & ridiculously expensive bills when I was without coverage.
I also have family members & friends who have been driven to bankruptcy (or the very brink) due to medical costs. I'm studying for an RN degree so have knowledge from the perspective of both a consumer & a health care professional. Perhaps most significant, I've had sole responsibility for all benefits at a small business for almost 10 years. This has led to an extensive education in the different types of insurance, premium levels, coverage inclusions/exclusions & much more. It has also allowed me to become intimately familiar with problems, obstacles & costs both from the employee's view & the employer's.
That being said, some of the most basic tenets of his plan are disapointing at best & sometimes frightening. For instance on page 6: "Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions." By forcing insurers to cover people they would ordinarily decline, one of two things will happen: Either tax dollars will be spent subsidizing premiums for a select few while the rest of us continue to pay our own way OR the insurers will rape us all with even grossly higher premiums thanks to the government mandates. Most likely, both will happen to some degree.
"Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public
plan or purchase a private health care plan."
"National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and
make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
(3) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
(4) Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.
(5) Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve as a critical safety net."
So we have a plan that will expand Medicaid & SCHIP at the expense of taxpayers in addition to creating new options for young adults. On top of that, federal money will be spent to subsidize coverage for people in other plans in addition to the 3 mentioned above. Then on top of that, even more federal money will be spent to create a new bureaucracy (never a good thing) which will impose rules & regulations outside of the letter of the law by circumventing our existing system of creating federal regulations.
This bureaucracy will also infringe on the rights of business owners by defining what is a "meaningful" contribution & enforcing financial penalties. This is a half-step away from that same government agency deciding that middle-class taxpayers aren't doing enough to help the rest of the country make ends meet. Such a plan would open the door not only to socialized medicine & insurance in the US but also to the socialization of the insurance industry, private healthcare providers, all privately owned business in the nation & our tax money.
It isn't the government's place to force businesses to change their client base. Our tax money should not be spent infringing on the rights of private business owners, providers or healthcare instutions. Reform should come through tort laws & consolidation of services, not through federal laws & excessive spending of taxpayer money. First we need to recognize that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it if the plan of action is foolhardy. Then we also need to acknowledge that increasing bureaucracy is the opposite of efficiency, change, hope or accomplishment. Glaciers melt faster than bureaucracy works & global warming has nothing to do with it.
Finally, we should acknowledge that some states have already fantastic plans in place that show Obama's plan for the joke it is & these plans don't cost taxpayers a single cent. Massachusetts leads the nation in comprehensive, efficient, affordable blanket coverage for all but the Dems can't acknowledge the success of Romney's administration since it contradicts everything the Dems propose on this issue.
In MA, people both above & below the poverty level receive free coverage. A single person earning up to $30,000 and a family of 4 earning up to $60,000 are eligible for subsidy. The state has created a clearinghouse for insurers that drastically lowers administrative costs, allowing insurance companies to offer significantly reduced (read: reasonable, affordable) premiums. The clearinghouse works with residents & employers to offer single & group coverage on an income-sensitive sliding scale.
This keeps all freedoms intact without infringing on the rights of private business, healthcare providers or the backbone of our economy, the taxpayer. Rather than waste tax money, MA has "fixed" this complicated problem in their state without increasing spending or taxes. Romney proposes using it as a model for other states to create plans specific to their residents & leaving the federal government out of it entirely.
That seems like a win-win for everyone so why won't the Dems acknowledge this gem?
I also have family members & friends who have been driven to bankruptcy (or the very brink) due to medical costs. I'm studying for an RN degree so have knowledge from the perspective of both a consumer & a health care professional. Perhaps most significant, I've had sole responsibility for all benefits at a small business for almost 10 years. This has led to an extensive education in the different types of insurance, premium levels, coverage inclusions/exclusions & much more. It has also allowed me to become intimately familiar with problems, obstacles & costs both from the employee's view & the employer's.
That being said, some of the most basic tenets of his plan are disapointing at best & sometimes frightening. For instance on page 6: "Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions." By forcing insurers to cover people they would ordinarily decline, one of two things will happen: Either tax dollars will be spent subsidizing premiums for a select few while the rest of us continue to pay our own way OR the insurers will rape us all with even grossly higher premiums thanks to the government mandates. Most likely, both will happen to some degree.
"Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public
plan or purchase a private health care plan."
"National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and
make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
(3) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
(4) Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.
(5) Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve as a critical safety net."
So we have a plan that will expand Medicaid & SCHIP at the expense of taxpayers in addition to creating new options for young adults. On top of that, federal money will be spent to subsidize coverage for people in other plans in addition to the 3 mentioned above. Then on top of that, even more federal money will be spent to create a new bureaucracy (never a good thing) which will impose rules & regulations outside of the letter of the law by circumventing our existing system of creating federal regulations.
This bureaucracy will also infringe on the rights of business owners by defining what is a "meaningful" contribution & enforcing financial penalties. This is a half-step away from that same government agency deciding that middle-class taxpayers aren't doing enough to help the rest of the country make ends meet. Such a plan would open the door not only to socialized medicine & insurance in the US but also to the socialization of the insurance industry, private healthcare providers, all privately owned business in the nation & our tax money.
It isn't the government's place to force businesses to change their client base. Our tax money should not be spent infringing on the rights of private business owners, providers or healthcare instutions. Reform should come through tort laws & consolidation of services, not through federal laws & excessive spending of taxpayer money. First we need to recognize that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it if the plan of action is foolhardy. Then we also need to acknowledge that increasing bureaucracy is the opposite of efficiency, change, hope or accomplishment. Glaciers melt faster than bureaucracy works & global warming has nothing to do with it.
Finally, we should acknowledge that some states have already fantastic plans in place that show Obama's plan for the joke it is & these plans don't cost taxpayers a single cent. Massachusetts leads the nation in comprehensive, efficient, affordable blanket coverage for all but the Dems can't acknowledge the success of Romney's administration since it contradicts everything the Dems propose on this issue.
In MA, people both above & below the poverty level receive free coverage. A single person earning up to $30,000 and a family of 4 earning up to $60,000 are eligible for subsidy. The state has created a clearinghouse for insurers that drastically lowers administrative costs, allowing insurance companies to offer significantly reduced (read: reasonable, affordable) premiums. The clearinghouse works with residents & employers to offer single & group coverage on an income-sensitive sliding scale.
This keeps all freedoms intact without infringing on the rights of private business, healthcare providers or the backbone of our economy, the taxpayer. Rather than waste tax money, MA has "fixed" this complicated problem in their state without increasing spending or taxes. Romney proposes using it as a model for other states to create plans specific to their residents & leaving the federal government out of it entirely.
That seems like a win-win for everyone so why won't the Dems acknowledge this gem?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
How Could Anyone Want This?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of McCain. He wasn't my first choice for presidential candidate - or even my second, third, fourth or fifth. However, he's the least of the evils because at least he isn't a radical Marxist while Obama may well be their poster boy.
At first I dismissed the chatter as typical talk radio fodder. But as I learn more, I become increasingly concerned. And my concern is twofold: Not only are the facts disturbing but that fact that they're being ignored by the mainstream media is downright chilling.
The simplest way to address these pressing issues is to go the source. I've downloaded Obama's Blueprint for Change to take you through the inconsistencies one by one.
The foundation of his platform for "change" is lobbyist reform & transparency in government. This is a direct quote from the summation of the document: "Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops. Obama’s appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests." This quote is taken from page 5: "A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees."
The problem here is that much of his life & his ties are shrouded in secrecy while all of these facts are being ignored by the media. Responsible news sources such as the Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, Slate & many others have repeatedly provided factual evidence not only that Obama isn't living up to his own campaign finance claims but also that he's accepting money from sources he beats up in the media.
The GOP has a compelling compilation of quotes & sources here. I've read all of the cited articles to verify for myself that every quote is complete & true. For a quick synopsis of some of the major points in this discussion, there's a great summary posted here on Yahoo Answers. I've only tracked down about half of these claims so far but all of them have panned out as completely true & verifiable. Here are the main points:
The Obama campaign employs former federal lobbyists & uses volunteer advisors who also happen to be current lobbyists.
The campaign has steadfastly refused to release a list of outside advisors.
Obama accepts donations from spouses & partners of active lobbyists, as well as holding campaign functions in the offices of organizations engaged in lobbying.
He also refuses money from groups lobbying for specific industries, like pharmaceuticals, but does accept money from executives of the corporations who hire those same lobbyists.
This entire issue is a new platform created for his Presidential bid, as he always accepted money from lobbyists & PAC's (as well as worked with them) during his time as an Illinois state rep & also as a federal Senator. In fact, his state campaigns were about 2/3 funded by these sources.
Some of the super delegates pledged to Obama are current federal lobbyists.
He's making a whole Presidential bid out of crucifying his opponents in the media while he's doing the same damn thing & has been for a long time. At least everyone else owns up to it. By hiding the facts, he's preventing voters from making an informed choice. Since we know that all of the candidates are tied to special interests, we have a right to know exactly what those special interests are & the degree of the ties before casting our vote. Yet the Obama campaign is going to great pains to withhold this information.
Only the candidate benefits when voters are uninformed or misinformed so it's an extremely self-serving tactic. I don't appreciate any candidate presupposing what I do or do not need to know. Surely such an attitude isn't helping the Obama disciples dispel the self-appointed messiah myth the like to whine about so much.
And don't think for a minute that these are the only frightening hidden ties of Obama. Stay tuned for further information on Rev. Meeks, Public Allies, George Soros, William Ayers & many of the other questionable allegiances this would-be President would force on this country, none of which are in the best interests of America or the American people.
At first I dismissed the chatter as typical talk radio fodder. But as I learn more, I become increasingly concerned. And my concern is twofold: Not only are the facts disturbing but that fact that they're being ignored by the mainstream media is downright chilling.
The simplest way to address these pressing issues is to go the source. I've downloaded Obama's Blueprint for Change to take you through the inconsistencies one by one.
The foundation of his platform for "change" is lobbyist reform & transparency in government. This is a direct quote from the summation of the document: "Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops. Obama’s appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests." This quote is taken from page 5: "A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees."
The problem here is that much of his life & his ties are shrouded in secrecy while all of these facts are being ignored by the media. Responsible news sources such as the Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, Slate & many others have repeatedly provided factual evidence not only that Obama isn't living up to his own campaign finance claims but also that he's accepting money from sources he beats up in the media.
The GOP has a compelling compilation of quotes & sources here. I've read all of the cited articles to verify for myself that every quote is complete & true. For a quick synopsis of some of the major points in this discussion, there's a great summary posted here on Yahoo Answers. I've only tracked down about half of these claims so far but all of them have panned out as completely true & verifiable. Here are the main points:
The Obama campaign employs former federal lobbyists & uses volunteer advisors who also happen to be current lobbyists.
The campaign has steadfastly refused to release a list of outside advisors.
Obama accepts donations from spouses & partners of active lobbyists, as well as holding campaign functions in the offices of organizations engaged in lobbying.
He also refuses money from groups lobbying for specific industries, like pharmaceuticals, but does accept money from executives of the corporations who hire those same lobbyists.
This entire issue is a new platform created for his Presidential bid, as he always accepted money from lobbyists & PAC's (as well as worked with them) during his time as an Illinois state rep & also as a federal Senator. In fact, his state campaigns were about 2/3 funded by these sources.
Some of the super delegates pledged to Obama are current federal lobbyists.
He's making a whole Presidential bid out of crucifying his opponents in the media while he's doing the same damn thing & has been for a long time. At least everyone else owns up to it. By hiding the facts, he's preventing voters from making an informed choice. Since we know that all of the candidates are tied to special interests, we have a right to know exactly what those special interests are & the degree of the ties before casting our vote. Yet the Obama campaign is going to great pains to withhold this information.
Only the candidate benefits when voters are uninformed or misinformed so it's an extremely self-serving tactic. I don't appreciate any candidate presupposing what I do or do not need to know. Surely such an attitude isn't helping the Obama disciples dispel the self-appointed messiah myth the like to whine about so much.
And don't think for a minute that these are the only frightening hidden ties of Obama. Stay tuned for further information on Rev. Meeks, Public Allies, George Soros, William Ayers & many of the other questionable allegiances this would-be President would force on this country, none of which are in the best interests of America or the American people.
The Reason We Have Trails & Parks
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the rights of bicyclists with the advent of the City of Pittsburgh’s new city Bicycle Czar. It’s turning into a heated debate between motorists & cyclists, but many of the real issues are being obscured by the knee-jerk reactions of the speakers.
I commute on foot but also bike frequently, as well as owning & regularly operating a car. Thus, I feel as though I’ve got a foot in every corner on this issue. I can’t help but wonder why cyclists feel that all responsibility & accountability rests on the shoulders of everyone else. Some opinions in particular really stand out as foolish & hypocritical.
Cyclists whine that motorists are ignorant of bicycle laws. This may well be true but we can’t exactly impose cycling education on drivers when cyclists aren’t required to learn anything at all. The fair solution would be for everyone to pass the same written tests & follow the same measures to maintain a license. Cyclists should have to register a license the same way that drivers register a vehicle. In this way, everyone is equally educated & equally identifiable via a state-issued photo license & vehicle plate, thus equally accountable. It’s beyond unreasonable for a select group to have all of the same rights without any of the responsibility.
Cyclists are also whining about an op-ed piece suggesting a modest fee to cyclists that would be used to fund bike-friendly improvements to our infrastructure. Some claim this “financial burden” would make decrease the popularity of biking. How about $10 per year? I hardly think such a cost would discourage anyone. That can hardly be construed as a financial burden by any stretch of the imagination. One especially ridiculous letter to the editor even claims that such fees go against the very principle of sharing the road because it would prevent cyclists from feeling entitled to our roads.
Excuse me, but right now motorists are the only people who have any entitlement to our roads. They’re shouldering the entire financial burden, yet are being asked to accommodate the (sometimes extreme) inconvenience of others. Various motorist fees, as well as the ridiculously high fuel taxes in PA, pay for the roads & bridges. Drivers are already being forced to subsidize a bus system that most of us don’t use & now we’re being told that some other group has the right to use our roads but no responsibility to help subsidize the burden. I don’t think so.
Many of the cyclists are also complaining about the cluelessness or outright rudeness of drivers. The biggest problem (from the many letters I’ve seen on this subject) seems to be drivers turning. Cyclists feel that drivers have no business turning if a bike is approaching because the cyclist is forced to slow down or stop in order to avoid riding into the turning car.
Well cyclists can’t have it both ways: either you want the same rights as motor vehicles or you want to be able to do a whole bunch of stuff that’s illegal for cars. If a car drove along the shoulder or created his own lane in traffic & hit a car making a legal turn, who’s at fault? It’s certainly never going to be the car making a legal turn, it’s going to be the jerk breaking the law.
If you want the same rights, then you have to follow the same laws. No more sidling up between me & the car to my left at the light. No more skating through the deserted intersection while I wait for the green light. How many times has this happened to you: There’s a lot of traffic on a main road where the speed limit may be as high as 35 or 40 mph, yet everyone’s going about 15 because some jerk on a bike refuses to move over so that cars may pass. But once you all get to a traffic light, the bike jerk is happy to move to the side & go around all of the vehicles already waiting at the intersection. He sneaks through, crosses the intersection against the light & half a block down the road, there’s an even longer line of cars, trucks & buses stuck behind this idiot because he just had to pass at the intersection. It’s got to end.
It sounds to me like the only “danger” cyclists truly want to avoid is accountability.
I commute on foot but also bike frequently, as well as owning & regularly operating a car. Thus, I feel as though I’ve got a foot in every corner on this issue. I can’t help but wonder why cyclists feel that all responsibility & accountability rests on the shoulders of everyone else. Some opinions in particular really stand out as foolish & hypocritical.
Cyclists whine that motorists are ignorant of bicycle laws. This may well be true but we can’t exactly impose cycling education on drivers when cyclists aren’t required to learn anything at all. The fair solution would be for everyone to pass the same written tests & follow the same measures to maintain a license. Cyclists should have to register a license the same way that drivers register a vehicle. In this way, everyone is equally educated & equally identifiable via a state-issued photo license & vehicle plate, thus equally accountable. It’s beyond unreasonable for a select group to have all of the same rights without any of the responsibility.
Cyclists are also whining about an op-ed piece suggesting a modest fee to cyclists that would be used to fund bike-friendly improvements to our infrastructure. Some claim this “financial burden” would make decrease the popularity of biking. How about $10 per year? I hardly think such a cost would discourage anyone. That can hardly be construed as a financial burden by any stretch of the imagination. One especially ridiculous letter to the editor even claims that such fees go against the very principle of sharing the road because it would prevent cyclists from feeling entitled to our roads.
Excuse me, but right now motorists are the only people who have any entitlement to our roads. They’re shouldering the entire financial burden, yet are being asked to accommodate the (sometimes extreme) inconvenience of others. Various motorist fees, as well as the ridiculously high fuel taxes in PA, pay for the roads & bridges. Drivers are already being forced to subsidize a bus system that most of us don’t use & now we’re being told that some other group has the right to use our roads but no responsibility to help subsidize the burden. I don’t think so.
Many of the cyclists are also complaining about the cluelessness or outright rudeness of drivers. The biggest problem (from the many letters I’ve seen on this subject) seems to be drivers turning. Cyclists feel that drivers have no business turning if a bike is approaching because the cyclist is forced to slow down or stop in order to avoid riding into the turning car.
Well cyclists can’t have it both ways: either you want the same rights as motor vehicles or you want to be able to do a whole bunch of stuff that’s illegal for cars. If a car drove along the shoulder or created his own lane in traffic & hit a car making a legal turn, who’s at fault? It’s certainly never going to be the car making a legal turn, it’s going to be the jerk breaking the law.
If you want the same rights, then you have to follow the same laws. No more sidling up between me & the car to my left at the light. No more skating through the deserted intersection while I wait for the green light. How many times has this happened to you: There’s a lot of traffic on a main road where the speed limit may be as high as 35 or 40 mph, yet everyone’s going about 15 because some jerk on a bike refuses to move over so that cars may pass. But once you all get to a traffic light, the bike jerk is happy to move to the side & go around all of the vehicles already waiting at the intersection. He sneaks through, crosses the intersection against the light & half a block down the road, there’s an even longer line of cars, trucks & buses stuck behind this idiot because he just had to pass at the intersection. It’s got to end.
It sounds to me like the only “danger” cyclists truly want to avoid is accountability.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Jared, Galla-ripoff of Jewelry IV
I called Customer Relations & tell a very nice woman the whole story about my mail, credit report, etc. She is so horrified that she puts me on hold before I can even tell the whole story & puts her supervisor on the phone.
I begin again. The supervisor is so horrified that she also stops me & puts her supervisor on the phone. This time I get to tell the entire story & she is extremely apologetic, for both the mistake & for the behavior of the store manager.
They tell me that the account is being closed as we speak & I have until April 26 to return the rings for a complete refund. I tell her I am going there as soon as we hang up, so she says that she'll call the store immediately to authorize the return.
I race to the store as quickly as possibly in rush hour traffic on McNightmare Road. As soon as I'm waited on, I'm put on ice while the lovely Chantal is brought out. Of course, she insists that nobody called so she has to call Credit for a return authorization. She keeps me waiting for about 20 minutes, briefly popping over to ask if I have a cell phone. No.
I do have a cell phone, but I'll be damned if this horrific monster of a woman is going to have some phone bank weasel call me to say they won't accept the return. Eventually, she has to accept my return but as she processes it, she's banging the keys so hard I really thought she would break her computer.
As she works, she informs me that she herself was right all along & that the supervisor who authorized the return had no authority to do so. In fact, they had attempted to call me just moments after hanging up with me to say that I can't return the rings.
That's funny because my BF was home & the last thing I did before entering the store was call him to see if they tried to back out of the return. They did not call. We have caller ID & he had a phone next to him the entire time, so there's no mistake.
She goes on to inform me that the woman who authorized the return is going to be in a lot of trouble for doing so & will likely be disciplined. I merely stated that it's a sin if the only honest employee in the organization were to be faulted for acting upon their claim of customer service being the company's #1 priority.
I added that I just want to be rid of the account & the rings -- we didn't return the gifts we had purchased, so they still got some of my money. I wasn't being unreasonable. I bit my tongue so as to stop myself from telling her that I bought a fantastic ring with multiple sapphires & 50%more diamonds at a competitor for only $50 more than the plain, unimaginative band I was returning.
And I certainly didn't rub her face in the fact that my fiancee got the exact same band elsewhere for nearly $200 less than Jared's price. All in all, I believe I handled myself with great aplomb, considering that their incompetence could have serious repurcussions for years.
Now off I go to find yet another way to monitor my credit & protect myself, thanks to Jared the Crapperia of Jewelers.
I begin again. The supervisor is so horrified that she also stops me & puts her supervisor on the phone. This time I get to tell the entire story & she is extremely apologetic, for both the mistake & for the behavior of the store manager.
They tell me that the account is being closed as we speak & I have until April 26 to return the rings for a complete refund. I tell her I am going there as soon as we hang up, so she says that she'll call the store immediately to authorize the return.
I race to the store as quickly as possibly in rush hour traffic on McNightmare Road. As soon as I'm waited on, I'm put on ice while the lovely Chantal is brought out. Of course, she insists that nobody called so she has to call Credit for a return authorization. She keeps me waiting for about 20 minutes, briefly popping over to ask if I have a cell phone. No.
I do have a cell phone, but I'll be damned if this horrific monster of a woman is going to have some phone bank weasel call me to say they won't accept the return. Eventually, she has to accept my return but as she processes it, she's banging the keys so hard I really thought she would break her computer.
As she works, she informs me that she herself was right all along & that the supervisor who authorized the return had no authority to do so. In fact, they had attempted to call me just moments after hanging up with me to say that I can't return the rings.
That's funny because my BF was home & the last thing I did before entering the store was call him to see if they tried to back out of the return. They did not call. We have caller ID & he had a phone next to him the entire time, so there's no mistake.
She goes on to inform me that the woman who authorized the return is going to be in a lot of trouble for doing so & will likely be disciplined. I merely stated that it's a sin if the only honest employee in the organization were to be faulted for acting upon their claim of customer service being the company's #1 priority.
I added that I just want to be rid of the account & the rings -- we didn't return the gifts we had purchased, so they still got some of my money. I wasn't being unreasonable. I bit my tongue so as to stop myself from telling her that I bought a fantastic ring with multiple sapphires & 50%more diamonds at a competitor for only $50 more than the plain, unimaginative band I was returning.
And I certainly didn't rub her face in the fact that my fiancee got the exact same band elsewhere for nearly $200 less than Jared's price. All in all, I believe I handled myself with great aplomb, considering that their incompetence could have serious repurcussions for years.
Now off I go to find yet another way to monitor my credit & protect myself, thanks to Jared the Crapperia of Jewelers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Stumble It!