• edwardbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I actually read somewhere that this is exactly the case they are making. It’s anti-consumer friendly or some dimwitted bulshit like that

      • theangryseal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        What if a poor woman is on her pee rod and cancels in anger before we put her on the phone with our best beggar?

        She’ll need to sign right back up the next week when her pee rod anger is gone.

        Think of the poor woman.

        And what about dudes? No get laid for a month and start getting cranky. What if been kicked in the nuts and cancel in anger?

        Think of the poor shattered test tickle.

        Be consumer friendly, please. Think of the children with no inner net bcuz cancel was too easy for drunk parents.

        Think of the poor child.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          You jest, but this may actually be an effective argument with the tech incompetent execs. Hopefully the FTC is more competent, but, somehow, I doubt it.

          Edit, Autocorrect

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Although when cancellation requires only one click, it doesn’t give consumers a fair chance to be interrupted by a pressing matter.

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I feel no surprise billing should have had something that uncovered medical care be specifically spelled out and signed off by the patient before its done or the provider will be on the hook.

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          I think it is a tricky situation. For example, you might authorize a minor surgery for instance, only for the surgeon to realize there is a larger problem and they need to perform a more expensive procedure. If you are unconscious, there is no way to get consent, and likewise you want providers to have the flexibility to perform time sensitive procedures without concern that it would never be paid for because there wasn’t prior consent.

          • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            That’s not where the surprise is coming from. The surprise is that the hospital failed to tell you there might be out-of-network staff that might be involved in your surgery, even though you were careful to choose a hospital that is in-network. So your insurance won’t cover the out of network doctors, and you don’t have any choice of how many or which other doctors (other than your scheduled surgeon) get involved. Those out of network staff then bill you separately from the whole procedure. That’s the surprise.

          • RidderSport@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            There’s an easy solution for that, you pay only fee of sum x for any surgery, the rest is paid by your insurance. They have the money, power and leverage to actually realise competition in the medical field

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Even worse ISPs are asking for routing numbers instead of credit cards now so you can’t even block or dispute payments.

    • undefined@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I wonder how this works in other countries because I know it’s normal to do (what we call) ACH-to-ACH transfers.

      I’m actually all for speeding up ACH and using it more often (rather than P2P transfers apps), but you raise a valid concern here.