Posts by Nicole Long28

Once those three years pass, your bonus just vanishes, and then your insurance provider starts absolutely skinning you alive.

Thomas Clark912 said:This whole country is just one giant wild west. You can't get anything done around here if you actually try to play by the rules.

Want more? 🤣 It’s all right there under the fine print, signed by Secretary Maras himself. That section "IV" is particularly crazy The scope of legal regulations includes the following program modules where it looks like a local deli owner needs to know more law than some actual judges.

I've just got this one article as commentary . And he’s actually trying to give advice to employers? Man, talk about an ego. HE. Like he's some kind of big-shot uncle or something.

Surgery just isn't an option here, especially since there has been an oral version available for quite some time now http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/con.../11/1643.short , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11822766 , http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Docum...ne%20final.pdf . I suppose I can't quite blame the doctor—maybe he simply doesn't know, or perhaps he knows but didn't bother suggesting an alternative or explaining how to actually get the medication to the nurse. It’s possible the hospital could order it directly under their own name and then handle the payment. I mean, taking a pill is definitely not the same thing as going under the knife.

Hi everyone. My sister has bone metastases (from primary breast cancer), and her doctors are now considering putting her on Vinorelbine. Since her previous treatments—she’s basically tried everything under the sun—have "wrecked" her veins, even basic blood draws are an absolute nightmare for her. They usually have to poke her several times, which means she definitely needs to take something to calm down beforehand. Her oncologist mentioned that because of her vein condition, she might actually need surgery first to have a port implanted in her chest, since Vinorelbine is just so harsh on the vessels 😢. That was discussed this past Friday. I found out that Vinorelbine is also available in a tablet form called Navelbin, but they aren't available here; they aren't on the approved list, even though they act so similarly. I'm wondering, how does one actually get ahold of that specific medication? What do I need to do? A recommendation, a prescription (from whom?)

I've noticed that online banking fees have gone up by 11% (from $9 to $3.25) and the fee for an authorized representative has spiked by 400% (from $0.50 to $0.67).

There’s actually an even better option than Aredia called Zometa, which is registered here and can be bought without a prescription. An ampule (which provides enough for one IV dose to be repeated every three weeks) costs about $667. Aredia is also given via IV every three weeks, but the administration takes much longer—the infusion lasts several hours, whereas the Zometa infusion is only about 20 minutes.

At our oncology centers, you really need some heavy-duty connections to get them to cover Aredia through the hospital or Medicare or whatever else. They prefer those cheap little "Tic Tac" drugs like Bonefos; sure, they're all in the same class, but it's not exactly the same as drinking a budget house wine versus a bottle of Dom Perignon, even if they are both wine. You won't find Zometa at the clinics because, besides being the most expensive, according to the fascist guidelines from Medicare, it's supposedly reserved for men with prostate cancer that has metastasized to the bone. As for women with breast cancer metastasizing to the bone? Forget about it. That's why most female oncology patients have probably never even heard of this drug.

Interest rates are always expressed on an annual basis, I suppose.

Does anyone have a recommendation for an orthopedic surgeon who performs those surgeries in Washington, D.C.? Maybe a name or contact info? 🙂

Kill two birds with one stone. Head over to Chase to grab that new card and check on your account balance at the same time.

@Lawrence Cruz

I didn't realize that "morality and ethics" were only mentioned on the PDF. I guess the money wasn't just snatched from the account without reason; maybe someone was just being careless during the transfer.

@wearygardener7
The person making the payment definitely messed up. If a bank error had occurred, they probably would have just reversed it without even asking you.

wearygardener7 said:They asked me to come in and sign some kind of consent form... does that mean I shouldn't sign anything at all? Or what am I supposed to do?

They can only ask you, they can't demand it. They have to do this because they can't process a payment from your account without your signature. It's really up to you to decide how you want to handle it. 🙂

I suppose I could give you a tip privately. It would be the right thing to do to return the money, but honestly, nobody can force your hand. Even the bank isn't allowed to hand over your personal info—like your full name or address—to the sender because they have to maintain privacy standards too. If that person decides to sue you for unjust enrichment (though I doubt they would since it’s such a small amount), then the bank would finally be able to release your details once they get a court order.

In what scenario? I mean, if I decide to "shred" their precious little "product," or maybe if I just opt for a physical terminal instead of using Chase Mobile?

Can I just pick and choose parts of that student package—like maybe just the checking account, savings, overdraft, and online banking—while skipping the rest, or am I stuck paying the full $1.75 for everything?

George Barrett35 said:The second you enter into a business relationship with a bank, you’ve essentially handed over your entire life on a silver platter, giving them unconditional permission to use and trade your personal data however they see fit.
Like I said before, every single employee represents Bank of America, which means they all have the authority to access that data.
Internal authorizations within a bank are governed strictly by internal protocols and have absolutely nothing to do with the client. It’s quite simple, really—those rules don't touch the customer at all, just like how an employee's salary, their vacation days, or their specific working hours aren't part of the general terms and conditions of service.
Unauthorized data access would be something like an employee snooping around just to see how much her friend is making and then gossiping about it with the rest of the group, but that’s clearly not what we're dealing with here.

Wait, who exactly is this "Bank" entity? Is she only considered part of Bank of America if she sends you an official letter, or does she just cease to exist otherwise?

Let me ask you something... if some server called you up out of the blue in a situation like that and just went absolutely ballistic, tearing you apart and screaming every insult under the sun, would you actually go and report her to her bosses?

Look, this isn't even up for debate here, and I have absolutely no intention of wasting my breath trying to justify someone acting unprofessional or being downright rude, because quite frankly, there's no excuse for it.

Morning! When a client signs a contract at JP Morgan Chase, there's actually a specific clause in there: "By signing this ugovor, the Owner provides explicit consent to Bank of America to take any actions regarding the processing and exchange of their personal data listed in this ugovor, which includes the Bank's right to collect, store, record, organize, view, and transfer personal data for the purpose of conducting the Bank's routine business and the operations of JPMorgan Chase & Co. related to this contractual relationship, as well as forwarding it to legal entities under Section 181 of the Banking Act."
So, it isn't without reason, and there's no question about the exchange. But the most important part is that bolded section, where fixing a private mistake made by an official certainly doesn't count as routine business.

George Barrett35 said:The second you enter into a business relationship with a bank, you’ve essentially handed over your entire life on a silver platter, giving them unconditional permission to use and trade your personal data however they see fit.
Like I said before, every single employee represents Bank of America, which means they all have the authority to access that data.
Internal authorizations within a bank are governed strictly by internal protocols and have absolutely nothing to do with the client. It’s quite simple, really—those rules don't touch the customer at all, just like how an employee's salary, their vacation days, or their specific working hours aren't part of the general terms and conditions of service.
Unauthorized data access would be something like an employee snooping around just to see how much her friend is making and then gossiping about it with the rest of the group, but that’s clearly not what we're dealing with here.

Wait, who exactly is this "Bank" entity? Is she only considered part of Bank of America if she sends you an official letter, or does she just cease to exist otherwise?

Let me ask you something... if some server called you up out of the blue in a situation like that and just went absolutely ballistic, tearing you apart and screaming every insult under the sun, would you actually go and report her to her bosses?

Look, this isn't even up for debate here, and I have absolutely no intention of wasting my breath trying to justify someone acting unprofessional or being downright rude, because quite frankly, there's no excuse for it.

When you sign a contract, you are simultaneously signing off that you are aware of the general terms and certain decisions—depending on what the contract covers—which means they absolutely apply to the client and are available to them.

Obviously, decisions about vacations or salaries don't concern me because those aren't business-related decisions for a client, but things like decisions on how much interest can be offered on savings if I'm a depositor do concern me. A bank isn't the NKVD; everything shouldn't be a secret.

George Barrett35 said:The second you enter into a business relationship with a bank, you’ve essentially handed over your entire life on a silver platter, giving them unconditional permission to use and trade your personal data however they see fit.
Like I said before, every single employee represents Bank of America, which means they all have the authority to access that data.
Internal authorizations within a bank are governed strictly by internal protocols and have absolutely nothing to do with the client. It’s quite simple, really—those rules don't touch the customer at all, just like how an employee's salary, their vacation days, or their specific working hours aren't part of the general terms and conditions of service.
Unauthorized data access would be something like an employee snooping around just to see how much her friend is making and then gossiping about it with the rest of the group, but that’s clearly not what we're dealing with here.

Wait, who exactly is this "Bank" entity? Is she only considered part of Bank of America if she sends you an official letter, or does she just cease to exist otherwise?

Let me ask you something... if some server called you up out of the blue in a situation like that and just went absolutely ballistic, tearing you apart and screaming every insult under the sun, would you actually go and report her to her bosses?

Look, this isn't even up for debate here, and I have absolutely no intention of wasting my breath trying to justify someone acting unprofessional or being downright rude, because quite frankly, there's no excuse for it.

Unauthorized is unauthorized, regardless of whether or not you actually use that data.

George Barrett35 said:The second you enter into a business relationship with a bank, you’ve essentially handed over your entire life on a silver platter, giving them unconditional permission to use and trade your personal data however they see fit.
Like I said before, every single employee represents Bank of America, which means they all have the authority to access that data.
Internal authorizations within a bank are governed strictly by internal protocols and have absolutely nothing to do with the client. It’s quite simple, really—those rules don't touch the customer at all, just like how an employee's salary, their vacation days, or their specific working hours aren't part of the general terms and conditions of service.
Unauthorized data access would be something like an employee snooping around just to see how much her friend is making and then gossiping about it with the rest of the group, but that’s clearly not what we're dealing with here.

Wait, who exactly is this "Bank" entity? Is she only considered part of Bank of America if she sends you an official letter, or does she just cease to exist otherwise?

Let me ask you something... if some server called you up out of the blue in a situation like that and just went absolutely ballistic, tearing you apart and screaming every insult under the sun, would you actually go and report her to her bosses?

Look, this isn't even up for debate here, and I have absolutely no intention of wasting my breath trying to justify someone acting unprofessional or being downright rude, because quite frankly, there's no excuse for it.

Exactly. If they have the authority to browse through private data, then I guess they should also have the authority to draft a few lines on official Bank of America letterhead and slap an official seal at the bottom.

George Barrett35 said:The second you enter into a business relationship with a bank, you’ve essentially handed over your entire life on a silver platter, giving them unconditional permission to use and trade your personal data however they see fit.
Like I said before, every single employee represents Bank of America, which means they all have the authority to access that data.
Internal authorizations within a bank are governed strictly by internal protocols and have absolutely nothing to do with the client. It’s quite simple, really—those rules don't touch the customer at all, just like how an employee's salary, their vacation days, or their specific working hours aren't part of the general terms and conditions of service.
Unauthorized data access would be something like an employee snooping around just to see how much her friend is making and then gossiping about it with the rest of the group, but that’s clearly not what we're dealing with here.

Wait, who exactly is this "Bank" entity? Is she only considered part of Bank of America if she sends you an official letter, or does she just cease to exist otherwise?

Let me ask you something... if some server called you up out of the blue in a situation like that and just went absolutely ballistic, tearing you apart and screaming every insult under the sun, would you actually go and report her to her bosses?

Look, this isn't even up for debate here, and I have absolutely no intention of wasting my breath trying to justify someone acting unprofessional or being downright rude, because quite frankly, there's no excuse for it.

I guess it’s more about where she actually got that number rather than how she acted. That's really what I've been trying to say this whole time.

George Barrett35 said:And how exactly do you know it was unauthorized? Are you intimately familiar with this employee's specific job description, or are you just assuming because someone once made a similar scene?

I certainly have, provided it was necessary for business purposes...

A Bank of America employee on the clock *is* the bank. Or do you honestly believe there is some mythical Mr. or Ms. Bank who stands alone as the sole representative of the entire institution?
No matter how you try to spin it—likely based on the idea that an employee is personally liable for shortages—she was calling him in her official capacity as a staff member. She wasn't calling him to sell him Tupperware; she was calling to fix a mistake made during work hours, and making mistakes is just part of the job.

I guess if a client isn't even physically present at the branch to request a specific service from Bank of America, then some unprofessional staffer trying to "fix" things by snooping through their private data just isn't authorized. Maybe it's just my opinion, but that's definitely not right.

I guess I don't really know what specific authority that employee actually has, but I highly doubt JP Morgan Chase is such a disorganized mess that tellers can just surf through private data like that. It’s especially strange since nothing in the general terms and conditions mentions anything about a situation like this.

George Barrett35 said:And how exactly do you know it was unauthorized? Are you intimately familiar with this employee's specific job description, or are you just assuming because someone once made a similar scene?

I certainly have, provided it was necessary for business purposes...

A Bank of America employee on the clock *is* the bank. Or do you honestly believe there is some mythical Mr. or Ms. Bank who stands alone as the sole representative of the entire institution?
No matter how you try to spin it—likely based on the idea that an employee is personally liable for shortages—she was calling him in her official capacity as a staff member. She wasn't calling him to sell him Tupperware; she was calling to fix a mistake made during work hours, and making mistakes is just part of the job.

The employee was essentially left out on a limb here. It really shows how the bank refuses to back its people up with an official memo that would actually bring this dirty laundry to light; instead, they just left the staffer standing there in the wind to deal with it however they can. The bank simply doesn't care. They’re cold, rigid, and heartless, yet they sure know how to collect their fees. What if she just takes that amount from her own pocket? That's going to cause a massive headache. She might as well dig through the data for them since they aren't losing a dime. And if a client notices and reports it, I guess the bank will just pin it all on her and play dumb.

Regarding official protocols, there's such a thing as an official phone or a work mobile, but an "official call" doesn't really exist. We all know what constitutes civilized, professional communication, I suppose.

George Barrett35 said:And how exactly do you know it was unauthorized? Are you intimately familiar with this employee's specific job description, or are you just assuming because someone once made a similar scene?

I certainly have, provided it was necessary for business purposes...

A Bank of America employee on the clock *is* the bank. Or do you honestly believe there is some mythical Mr. or Ms. Bank who stands alone as the sole representative of the entire institution?
No matter how you try to spin it—likely based on the idea that an employee is personally liable for shortages—she was calling him in her official capacity as a staff member. She wasn't calling him to sell him Tupperware; she was calling to fix a mistake made during work hours, and making mistakes is just part of the job.

Let's try a slightly clumsy analogy here just so I can hedge against any criticism and make sure we don't end up involving the FBI. Imagine a hospital employee—say, a surgeon performing an operation—who loses a patient and then calls the family to say: "Look, I'm calling because of my mistake; your relative passed away, it doesn't matter how it happened, you aren't getting any paperwork from us, so please just get over it immediately and come pick up the body because that's our problem now." Such a "doctor" would be branded even worse than Mengele, and everyone would absolutely crucify them for their conduct, their attitude, and their lack of basic manners. But when someone at Bank of America does the exact same thing? Suddenly, everything is fine. It's enough to make your head spin. We all make mistakes, obviously not on purpose, but man, behaving like a bull in a china shop just isn't the way to go.

Steven Reed said:I'm telling you again: it's highly unlikely a teller was the one who made contact.😉
Regarding admitting a mistake—you can read previous posts to see that regardless of the bank's error (like a misdirected deposit), this is still the client's problem because he received and kept funds that don't belong to him. Instead of advising him on how to resolve this with the least amount of friction, you people are offering "wonderful" advice like: "Why do you care? They messed up..." or "Sue them for a privacy violation..."—absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the client signed a waiver allowing the bank to use his data. Accessing that data in this specific instance doesn't constitute a breach of banking privacy.😉
Secondly, regardless of the bank's slip-up, the client is holding money that isn't his! Period! It isn't his money, no matter whose fault it was!

It isn't a bank mistake; it’s an individual mistake. There is a massive difference.

Steven Reed said:I'm telling you again: it's highly unlikely a teller was the one who made contact.😉
Regarding admitting a mistake—you can read previous posts to see that regardless of the bank's error (like a misdirected deposit), this is still the client's problem because he received and kept funds that don't belong to him. Instead of advising him on how to resolve this with the least amount of friction, you people are offering "wonderful" advice like: "Why do you care? They messed up..." or "Sue them for a privacy violation..."—absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the client signed a waiver allowing the bank to use his data. Accessing that data in this specific instance doesn't constitute a breach of banking privacy.😉
Secondly, regardless of the bank's slip-up, the client is holding money that isn't his! Period! It isn't his money, no matter whose fault it was!

He didn't receive it (since it was just "dumped" into his account) and he didn't keep it (because the bank sent it onward due to a garnishment).

Steven Reed said:I'm telling you again: it's highly unlikely a teller was the one who made contact.😉
Regarding admitting a mistake—you can read previous posts to see that regardless of the bank's error (like a misdirected deposit), this is still the client's problem because he received and kept funds that don't belong to him. Instead of advising him on how to resolve this with the least amount of friction, you people are offering "wonderful" advice like: "Why do you care? They messed up..." or "Sue them for a privacy violation..."—absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the client signed a waiver allowing the bank to use his data. Accessing that data in this specific instance doesn't constitute a breach of banking privacy.😉
Secondly, regardless of the bank's slip-up, the client is holding money that isn't his! Period! It isn't his money, no matter whose fault it was!

If I hadn't advised him otherwise, I wouldn't have (by the way, the man can't return it, and he wants to, but that same bank already forwarded the funds due to a garnishment), but I am now encouraging him to file a complaint about the privacy breach. We aren't pushovers who should be afraid of the bank like the devil.

Steven Reed said:I'm telling you again: it's highly unlikely a teller was the one who made contact.😉
Regarding admitting a mistake—you can read previous posts to see that regardless of the bank's error (like a misdirected deposit), this is still the client's problem because he received and kept funds that don't belong to him. Instead of advising him on how to resolve this with the least amount of friction, you people are offering "wonderful" advice like: "Why do you care? They messed up..." or "Sue them for a privacy violation..."—absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the client signed a waiver allowing the bank to use his data. Accessing that data in this specific instance doesn't constitute a breach of banking privacy.😉
Secondly, regardless of the bank's slip-up, the client is holding money that isn't his! Period! It isn't his money, no matter whose fault it was!

They can use it for official business related to the client-bank relationship or by court order, not to fix an employee's private problems.

Steven Reed said:I'm telling you again: it's highly unlikely a teller was the one who made contact.😉
Regarding admitting a mistake—you can read previous posts to see that regardless of the bank's error (like a misdirected deposit), this is still the client's problem because he received and kept funds that don't belong to him. Instead of advising him on how to resolve this with the least amount of friction, you people are offering "wonderful" advice like: "Why do you care? They messed up..." or "Sue them for a privacy violation..."—absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the client signed a waiver allowing the bank to use his data. Accessing that data in this specific instance doesn't constitute a breach of banking privacy.😉
Secondly, regardless of the bank's slip-up, the client is holding money that isn't his! Period! It isn't his money, no matter whose fault it was!

He’s just stuck here. He didn't get a choice in whether to accept the deposit, just like he can't stop a garnishment because he doesn't have that option. Ideally, he would just pay it back if he could, but the teller wants him to return it even if it means hitting an overdraft and getting hit with God knows how much interest. I guess it feels like the bank expects people to just "take it on the chin" when they make a mistake instead of making these arrogant, high-handed demands.

George Barrett35 said:There are about fifty posts here spinning in circles about some refund process that, from what I can tell, isn't even what the original poster is asking for.
From reading the very first post, my understanding is that FIFA pulled $500 from the account to cover an enforcement action, and now the bank can't just reverse the error because doing so would push the balance into the red. The guy was asked to sign a request for a refund—or some similar paperwork—not to wire money back. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

As for this whole "unauthorized access to data" thing, I don't see why anyone is making a fuss about it. You handed over your private info to the bank voluntarily. Whether they have the authority to use it is strictly an internal matter for the bank to handle.

The issue is specifically that it was unauthorized. It’s controversial because that data is protected by banking privacy laws. My question for you and anyone else working in the banking sector is this: have you ever just snooped through the accounts of politicians, business moguls, or athletes out of pure curiosity when they weren't even your clients? I bet you haven't, because you know if an audit catches you, you're getting fired on the spot.

When I provide my information, I do so under specific terms. Also, I highly doubt any board of directors at any major bank operating in the USA would ever pass an internal policy stating, "If an employee makes a mistake that costs them personally, they are allowed to access a client's account to fix the mess themselves."

Steven Reed said:The client is contacted the same day. There isn't time to wait for a formal letter to be sent, processed, and replied to.
Also, I highly doubt he was called by the person who messed up his ledger. As far as I know, deposits at Chase are handled at the teller window, yet he was called by a personal banker. 😉

As for the way they approached him—I'd rather not comment (assuming the guy actually wrote everything down accurately).

It’s not about lacking time; it’s that sending a formal notice would force them to admit the error. If everything is settled over the phone, the client ends up with zero proof of the bank's blunder. Not to mention the inconvenience. With a formal letter, you can take 3, 5, or 8 days to respond with a cool head, whereas someone might catch you off guard on the phone.

Steven Reed said:The client is contacted the same day. There isn't time to wait for a formal letter to be sent, processed, and replied to.
Also, I highly doubt he was called by the person who messed up his ledger. As far as I know, deposits at Chase are handled at the teller window, yet he was called by a personal banker. 😉

As for the way they approached him—I'd rather not comment (assuming the guy actually wrote everything down accurately).

I wouldn't want to talk about the method either. What shocks me is that someone used an unofficial channel at all. Banks usually love everything to be official, documented, verified, and notarized... unless it doesn't serve their interests. In those cases, a phone call works just fine.😁

I guess she didn't actually call him on behalf of the bank, even though she made it look like an official inquiry while acting as if Chase would back her up—when really, this is just her own personal mess. Honestly, if word gets out that their staff is behaving like this, their reputation will be totally trashed!

If the auditors, managers, and everyone else up the ladder realize there’s a shortage, they should probably get their heads together and decide whether to charge the teller or the client. If they go after the client, they need to send a polite, charming letter to stay on their good side, since everything depends on their goodwill. That's how you handle things professionally and like adults, instead of just snooping through accounts.

You say management allows access to data, and I suppose I believe you (even if it isn't in the fine print), but it’s a huge difference when a CEO looks at private info just to draft a request for repayment, and then the teller starts some kind of personal vendetta.