Things that I find mildly irritating v.2

[Stadler]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   I get it, it's just me, but I don't believe in "deserve".  In 1980 in Lake Placid, not ONE of those guys thought they deserved anything other than a chance to play, and to a man, after one of the greatest victories in sports, one that NO ONE thought they could pull off, and that resonated across (at least) two entire nations politically, socially and culturally, there was nothing but humility and grace and thankfulness.

Maybe the one requires the other; maybe that sense of entitlement is necessary to make the political stand (or, perhaps, the political belief informs the entitlement mentality) but TO ME, it's just takes some of the champion spirit out of it.   But at the end of the day, it's her moment and she can celebrate it how she pleases.   

[gmillerdrake]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   

her true colors are shining through. She's on a marketing campaign to land as big of an endorsement deal as possible. Which, when it happens....I'm curious as to if she'd split that check with all her team mates. Equal pay and all....

[KevShmev]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   

her true colors are shining through. She's on a marketing campaign to land as big of an endorsement deal as possible. Which, when it happens....I'm curious as to if she'd split that check with all her team mates. Equal pay and all....

I doubt it.

And like we discussed yesterday, if you say anything critical about someone in the LGBTQ community now, "you are anti-LGBTQ!"  Which is horse crap.  One doesn't have to fully support every single thing someone part of the movement says or does to support the cause, and it's that kind of "all or nothing" thinking that causes such bad discourse.

Rapinoe's whole look and attitude just screams, "LOOK AT ME!!!"

[The Walrus]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   I get it, it's just me, but I don't believe in "deserve".  In 1980 in Lake Placid, not ONE of those guys thought they deserved anything other than a chance to play, and to a man, after one of the greatest victories in sports, one that NO ONE thought they could pull off, and that resonated across (at least) two entire nations politically, socially and culturally, there was nothing but humility and grace and thankfulness.

Maybe the one requires the other; maybe that sense of entitlement is necessary to make the political stand (or, perhaps, the political belief informs the entitlement mentality) but TO ME, it's just takes some of the champion spirit out of it.   But at the end of the day, it's her moment and she can celebrate it how she pleases.

But your example is using men, who aren't paid less than anyone else. Men don't have to worry about not getting paid equally because it's the standard and therefore they aren't as cognizant of the difference. If she's doing the same work as the men why not pay her the same, OR at least work something out/try to, taking into consideration the vastly different levels of income the male/female leagues make?

[gmillerdrake]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   

her true colors are shining through. She's on a marketing campaign to land as big of an endorsement deal as possible. Which, when it happens....I'm curious as to if she'd split that check with all her team mates. Equal pay and all....

I doubt it.

And like we discussed yesterday, if you say anything critical about someone in the LGBTQ community now, "you are anti-LGBTQ!"  Which is horse crap.  One doesn't have to fully support every single thing someone part of the movement says or does to support the cause, and it's that kind of "all or nothing" thinking that causes such bad discourse.

Rapinoe's whole look and attitude just screams, "LOOK AT ME!!!"

Honestly if I were LGBTQ looking for a spokesperson or a little girl looking for a role model....Rapinoe would be my last choice....precisely for what Bill pointed out about her 'me' attitude and ego that is shining through right now. Like I said, I think she's in a marketing phase right now and doing her best to stand above the crowd.

What i do know is that I've spent entirely too much time bitching about her for the past five days.....so that shows the sad state of affairs my life is at right now. 

[MirrorMask]

But your example is using men, who aren't paid less than anyone else. Men don't have to worry about not getting paid equally because it's the standard and therefore they aren't as cognizant of the difference. If she's doing the same work as the men why not pay her the same, OR at least work something out/try to, taking into consideration the vastly different levels of income the male/female leagues make?

But it's not the same "work", as in a job. It's sport and there is a demand for it and people are paid accordingly to what they allow their team to earn.

Football players are not paid out of the kindess of the heart of the club owner - they're paid because it's convenient for those clubs to secure their skills in order to earn even more revenue.

Metallica is a band and a newcomer group that has just made his first album is a band too. Should they be both paid the same from the promoter of a festival? if they pay Metallica 1 million it's because that allows them to earn 1.5 millions or whatever, not because someone has decided that Metallica have the divine right to be paid more. It's a demand and offer law, simple as that.

I fully support respect and recognition for female athletes, but equal pay is something you require for actual jobs, not for something subjected to the whims of the public's attention like sports and music. The day the world collectively stops to care about football, it's the day the paycheck for football male players drastically declines.

[gmillerdrake]

But it's not the same "work", as in a job. It's sport and there is a demand for it and people are paid accordingly to what they allow their team to earn.

Football players are not paid out of the kindess of the heart of the club owner - they're paid because it's convenient for those clubs to secure their skills in order to earn even more revenue.

Metallica is a band and a newcomer group that has just made his first album is a band too. Should they be both paid the same from the promoter of a festival? if they pay Metallica 1 million it's because that allows them to earn 1.5 millions or whatever, not because someone has decided that Metallica have the divine right to be paid more. It's a demand and offer law, simple as that.

I fully support respect and recognition for female athletes, but equal pay is something you require for actual jobs, not for something subjected to the whims of the public's attention like sports and music. The day the world collectively stops to care about football, it's the day the paycheck for football male players drastically declines.

Boom. Nailed it.

[The Walrus]

I was specifically responding to the point Stads made about the guys just "playing for the love of playing" and being happy to be there. The guys obviously aren't worrying about their pay because 1) they're already making bank and 2) they're already the standard, they don't have to worry about being shafted because of their sex. I already stated earlier I agree that paying them differently simply because the leagues make different amounts of money is okay IMO.

I just think it's very odd that there is THAT big a difference between the prize winnings and perhaps that gap could be lessened. It's very clearly lopsided and a massive amount of more money goes to the men than the women even if the woman is the better athlete. I mean it's cool and all that we're guys and we don't have to worry about the pay gap affecting us ourselves, but we should be a little more cognizant of this insanely large gap and maybe even try to fix that a little? The leagues might make different money, but again, what if the woman is simply the better athlete? In that case the man is directly benefiting exclusively because his sex placed him in a league that dishes out far more money. ("We won't know because they won't compete against each other" - well, make the champs go head to head, then, and we'll see.)

EDIT: Also, we already have a day where the world stops for football. It's called Super Bowl Sunday.

[KevShmev]

MirrorMask nailed it.

[MirrorMask]

I just think it's very odd that there is THAT big a difference between the prize winnings and perhaps that gap could be lessened. It's very clearly lopsided and a massive amount of more money goes to the men than the women even if the woman is the better athlete. I mean it's cool and all that we're guys and we don't have to worry about the pay gap affecting us ourselves, but we should be a little more cognizant of this insanely large gap and maybe even try to fix that a little? The leagues might make different money, but again, what if the woman is simply the better athlete? In that case the man is directly benefiting exclusively because his sex placed him in a league that dishes out far more money. ("We won't know because they won't compete against each other" - well, make the champs go head to head, then, and we'll see.)

I get this, but I daresay that the most popular sport is still the better paying.

In Italy football is the second religion (probably the first actually), basket is quite good, and the other sports basically are remembered only when some gold medal is won at the Olympic games. I really don't know what the best basket player in Italy does - but I'll take a wild guess that it's significantly less than what even an average football player does. All because of that law and demand offer.

How would it go between men and women in a football team? it depends. I don't really follow women's football, but in Italy we even remembered that there is such a thing as female football because the national team reached the quarter finals at the World Cup, which is their best result in history by far. I've stumbled upon some forums and the general consensus of people following it is that a second, even third division club would trash the women's national team.

It's a cycle - a good performance brings more interest which brings more women picking up that sport which brings more expertise in the long run, and then eventually more actual skills which could be compared. As of now, at least in Italy, the technical gap between men and women IS there, and it's all in the balance of men.

But do we really need to pay men that much? probably not, but again, demand and offer. Do we really need to pay Metallica and Kiss that much? shouldn't we follow more young bands and support them to keep the genre alive? the public wants what it wants and the money follows accordingly.

[The Walrus]

I don't think the comparison between sports and bands is a very good one, personally, but I understand what your point is. I guess I just have a larger problem with sports in general and how people get paid countless millions of dollars to play a game (and a lot of them are shitty people who get a pass just for kicking balls around), but humans value it that much I guess

[Stadler]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   I get it, it's just me, but I don't believe in "deserve".  In 1980 in Lake Placid, not ONE of those guys thought they deserved anything other than a chance to play, and to a man, after one of the greatest victories in sports, one that NO ONE thought they could pull off, and that resonated across (at least) two entire nations politically, socially and culturally, there was nothing but humility and grace and thankfulness.

Maybe the one requires the other; maybe that sense of entitlement is necessary to make the political stand (or, perhaps, the political belief informs the entitlement mentality) but TO ME, it's just takes some of the champion spirit out of it.   But at the end of the day, it's her moment and she can celebrate it how she pleases.

But your example is using men, who aren't paid less than anyone else. Men don't have to worry about not getting paid equally because it's the standard and therefore they aren't as cognizant of the difference. If she's doing the same work as the men why not pay her the same, OR at least work something out/try to, taking into consideration the vastly different levels of income the male/female leagues make?

But that's the point; I'm arguing that she's maybe NOT doing the same work as the men.  Is "the work" just "kicking a soccer ball"?   And I'm saying that we have to consider that it may not be that simple or straightforward.   I personally don't think it is, at least not completely.    But assume I'm wrong and it is that simple:  strap on a jersey and shin guards, and you're all the same.   So then what are the ramifications of that:  Every player on the team, regardless of whether you play one minute or you win Golden Boot or Golden Ball, you get the same.  Gloryhammer should be paid for strumming guitars the same amount of Taylor Swift.   Odell Beckham and Vince Papale should be paid the same amount.  I should be paid the same amount as F. Lee Bailey. 

If that's your approach, then fine, as far as it goes, but that's not how the system is currently set up, and it's not really equipped to be modified that way without some larger, more drastic changes.  We're not talking about "helping the poor" anymore, we're talking about strict wealth reallocation across the board.   

[Cool Chris]

Surprised no one has yet said "When some asshole posts a semi-political comment in this thread that totally derails it for 2 pages." 

[gmillerdrake]

Surprised no one has yet said "When some asshole posts a semi-political comment in this thread that totally derails it for 2 pages." 

I see what you did there.....

[The Walrus]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   I get it, it's just me, but I don't believe in "deserve".  In 1980 in Lake Placid, not ONE of those guys thought they deserved anything other than a chance to play, and to a man, after one of the greatest victories in sports, one that NO ONE thought they could pull off, and that resonated across (at least) two entire nations politically, socially and culturally, there was nothing but humility and grace and thankfulness.

Maybe the one requires the other; maybe that sense of entitlement is necessary to make the political stand (or, perhaps, the political belief informs the entitlement mentality) but TO ME, it's just takes some of the champion spirit out of it.   But at the end of the day, it's her moment and she can celebrate it how she pleases.

But your example is using men, who aren't paid less than anyone else. Men don't have to worry about not getting paid equally because it's the standard and therefore they aren't as cognizant of the difference. If she's doing the same work as the men why not pay her the same, OR at least work something out/try to, taking into consideration the vastly different levels of income the male/female leagues make?

But that's the point; I'm arguing that she's maybe NOT doing the same work as the men.  Is "the work" just "kicking a soccer ball"?   And I'm saying that we have to consider that it may not be that simple or straightforward.   I personally don't think it is, at least not completely.    But assume I'm wrong and it is that simple:  strap on a jersey and shin guards, and you're all the same.   So then what are the ramifications of that:  Every player on the team, regardless of whether you play one minute or you win Golden Boot or Golden Ball, you get the same.  Gloryhammer should be paid for strumming guitars the same amount of Taylor Swift.   Odell Beckham and Vince Papale should be paid the same amount.  I should be paid the same amount as F. Lee Bailey. 

If that's your approach, then fine, as far as it goes, but that's not how the system is currently set up, and it's not really equipped to be modified that way without some larger, more drastic changes.  We're not talking about "helping the poor" anymore, we're talking about strict wealth reallocation across the board.   

Okay, fair argument. Then can you explain to me why Ariana Grande got paid twice as much as Beyonce for performing at Coachella, then? Beyonce worked much harder and for longer to get to where she's at. So why is the younger person who hasn't done nearly the legwork Beyonce has getting paid more? It's something to think about.

I think it's very easy as a man to lean back and just point at the infrastructure and how much value is placed on them as an argument for why men and women in athletic careers get paid differently. Except it's been that way since the dawn of Man - men are seen as more valuable than women. That doesn't mean that's the way it should be, or that it's fair. You're just conditioned to accept it as the way it is. I think a lot of men could open their minds a bit more (this isn't directed to anyone specifically here, but in general, men are not very good at accepting that women are equal and deserve equal treatment and equal pay for equal work). Just because it's sport and the leagues make different money is not a slam-dunk argument against paying female athletes more imo. I think it's valid to an extent, just logistically speaking that's how it works, but it doesn't make it fair.

[Harmony]

Female athletes are calling attention to the bigger issue.  Equal pay for women nationally could add more than $500 billion to the U.S. economy and cut poverty in half in homes with working women.  It isn't a small thing to be asking.

According to our research, if change continues at the same slow pace as it has done for the past fifty years, it will take 40 years—or until 2059—for women to finally reach pay parity.

For women of color, the rate of change is even slower:  Hispanic women will have to wait until 2224 and Black women will wait until 2119 for equal pay.

Source:
https://iwpr.org/issue/employment-education-economic-change/pay-equity-discrimination/

[Stadler]

It's more than just "equal pay" though; there's a video out there of Rapinoe with champonya saying "I deserve this".   Not "we", "I", and "deserve".   That to me screams entitlement.   I get it, it's just me, but I don't believe in "deserve".  In 1980 in Lake Placid, not ONE of those guys thought they deserved anything other than a chance to play, and to a man, after one of the greatest victories in sports, one that NO ONE thought they could pull off, and that resonated across (at least) two entire nations politically, socially and culturally, there was nothing but humility and grace and thankfulness.

Maybe the one requires the other; maybe that sense of entitlement is necessary to make the political stand (or, perhaps, the political belief informs the entitlement mentality) but TO ME, it's just takes some of the champion spirit out of it.   But at the end of the day, it's her moment and she can celebrate it how she pleases.

But your example is using men, who aren't paid less than anyone else. Men don't have to worry about not getting paid equally because it's the standard and therefore they aren't as cognizant of the difference. If she's doing the same work as the men why not pay her the same, OR at least work something out/try to, taking into consideration the vastly different levels of income the male/female leagues make?

But that's the point; I'm arguing that she's maybe NOT doing the same work as the men.  Is "the work" just "kicking a soccer ball"?   And I'm saying that we have to consider that it may not be that simple or straightforward.   I personally don't think it is, at least not completely.    But assume I'm wrong and it is that simple:  strap on a jersey and shin guards, and you're all the same.   So then what are the ramifications of that:  Every player on the team, regardless of whether you play one minute or you win Golden Boot or Golden Ball, you get the same.  Gloryhammer should be paid for strumming guitars the same amount of Taylor Swift.   Odell Beckham and Vince Papale should be paid the same amount.  I should be paid the same amount as F. Lee Bailey. 

If that's your approach, then fine, as far as it goes, but that's not how the system is currently set up, and it's not really equipped to be modified that way without some larger, more drastic changes.  We're not talking about "helping the poor" anymore, we're talking about strict wealth reallocation across the board.   

Okay, fair argument. Then can you explain to me why Ariana Grande got paid twice as much as Beyonce for performing at Coachella, then? Beyonce worked much harder and for longer to get to where she's at. So why is the younger person who hasn't done nearly the legwork Beyonce has getting paid more? It's something to think about.

I have no idea; we'd have to ask the promoters.  But "how much harder/longer" Queen Bae worked is not part of the equation.   It's most likely "How can we get more rich celebrity assholes to play ungodly amounts of green for massages and VIP whatever -the-fuck, and post that shit on Instachat".   I'm guessing that much like Guns'n'Roses does that more effectively right this moment than Iron Maiden, so Arianna v. Bae Bae.   

I think it's very easy as a man to lean back and just point at the infrastructure and how much value is placed on them as an argument for why men and women in athletic careers get paid differently. Except it's been that way since the dawn of Man - men are seen as more valuable than women. That doesn't mean that's the way it should be, or that it's fair. You're just conditioned to accept it as the way it is. I think a lot of men could open their minds a bit more (this isn't directed to anyone specifically here, but in general, men are not very good at accepting that women are equal and deserve equal treatment and equal pay for equal work). Just because it's sport and the leagues make different money is not a slam-dunk argument against paying female athletes more imo. I think it's valid to an extent, just logistically speaking that's how it works, but it doesn't make it fair.

Let me correct you:  NOT AT ALL saying that "men are more valuable than women".  It's not at all about gender for me.   And this isn't conditioning; none of what I'm saying is to argue that there are not cases where the women SHOULD be paid MORE than men.   I have no idea if it's accurate, but there's an argument that The Lady Gaga should have been paid more (or at least as much) as Bradley Cooper for "A Star Is Born".  Bree Larson > Ben Affleck/Henry Cavill > Gal Gadot (if you're using box office).   

These are bad examples, though, and to this extent, Harmony is right, though I think Megan is going about it the wrong way.   Megan Rapinoe is not "earning a wage" the way a janitor or an accountant is.  She's a revenue generator, an investment if you will.   So celebrities are the wrong example to use here.    No one should read ANYTHING I wrote and think anything but:  if there are two attorneys in an office, both have a book of business, and both win their cases, they should be paid the same, whether they are man or woman.  PERIOD.   What I'm saying, though, is that GENDER ALONE isn't a reason to pay ALL people the same, it's just a reason NOT to pay the SAME people the same.  Do you see the distinction?

[gmillerdrake]

Female athletes are calling attention to the bigger issue.  Equal pay for women nationally could add more than $500 billion to the U.S. economy and cut poverty in half in homes with working women.  It isn't a small thing to be asking.

According to our research, if change continues at the same slow pace as it has done for the past fifty years, it will take 40 years—or until 2059—for women to finally reach pay parity.

For women of color, the rate of change is even slower:  Hispanic women will have to wait until 2224 and Black women will wait until 2119 for equal pay.

Source:
https://iwpr.org/issue/employment-education-economic-change/pay-equity-discrimination/

My 'issue' isn't with the argument for fair pay or the LGTBQ and 'social justice' angle that the National Team has taken. My issue is directly related to Rapinoe and her disposition. She's a self entitled, egotistical whiny brat who is doing more harm than good IMO. The angle that she's decided to play here has 'turned off' folks like myself to the sport that she desperately wants people to care about merely by the way she goes about saying and doing things.

[Harmony]

I honestly don't care if people want to shoot the messenger.  I'm more interested in the message.

[TioJorge]

Except if the messenger is doing harm to the message, that's an issue.

People want to talk shit about semantics, but words and how you convey a message matters. A great deal, in fact.

I can either tell you, "Get your shit together, you lazy fuck", or I can say "I know it may be difficult, and I sympathize, but take a moment to take a look at your life and analyze what you can change in yourself to make your life better as well as yourself". Both convey relatively the same meaning, but one is aggressive and destructive, the other is calm and helpful. It's an extreme example of course, but the messenger can destroy the message if they're not careful with the social perception. You should absolutely care if people shoo the messenger if you care about the message, because killing the messenger kills the message to the vast majority. That's kind of the point of a messenger. To convey, not simply deliver.

[Harmony]

In a month, no one will be talking about Rapinoe.  The issue will still remain.  Just like it did before anyone ever heard of Rapinoe.

[Stadler]

I honestly don't care if people want to shoot the messenger.  I'm more interested in the message.

And I'm with you, I really am.  I have two daughters that I want to be eevrything they dream of.   But - stealing words from TioJorge - I think she's potentially doing harm to the message by over-simplifying it and obfuscating it. 

[pg1067]

Surprised no one has yet said "When some asshole posts a semi-political comment in this thread that totally derails it for 2 pages." 

 

[TioJorge]

In a month, no one will be talking about Rapinoe.  The issue will still remain.  Just like it did before anyone ever heard of Rapinoe.

That's a pretty steadfast statement to say about an issue that's gone on for decades and decades. A single messenger can ruin the message for another decade. I'm not saying she's that bad, but she's almost that bad. You're right in saying the issue will still remain but you kind of argued against yourself in saying it...yes, the issue will remain. It might not remain with the right messenger, that's kind of my point. The right messenger with the right words and frame of mind can set aside differences that would otherwise remain or even create even larger fissures with the wrong one. I'd argue that Rapinoe is creating boundaries, not erasing them.

I'm just throwing in my two cents and speaking more to the psychological and sociological aspect of delivering a message that backs an issue of importance. I don't have to actually know the future to say for certain there will be another Rapinoe. I was just saying that you should care about how a message is conveyed. Also if I were a betting man, I'd say the people that are against equal pay for women (of which there are many, sadly), will absolutely bring up Rapinoe to combat the very illogical reasons behind not having equal pay. There's a reason why sexism and racism still exists: because for as many outspoken goodhearted people, there are just as many ignorant people who will only come out of the woodworks when an issue is large and spoken of publicly.

Surprised no one has yet said "When some asshole posts a semi-political comment in this thread that totally derails it for 2 pages." 

 

In other news, the sky is blue.  That's the way the game goes!

[pg1067]

It's mildly irritating when you're drawing a soda from a machine and there's a glitch (for lack of a better term) in the soda water that causes the whole damn thing to foam up hard and you either have to dump it out and start over or wait forever for the foam to subside.

[Phoenix87x]

When you bill a claim to your health insurance and then it says approved and my out of pocket cost is the original full cost of the bill. 
 So it got approved for $0.00 dollars paid by plan. Thanks for nothing.

[Lethean]

Welll..... if you have a high deductible, that sucks.  But even so, maybe you can take a little comfort in knowing that if you didn't have health insurance, the "full cost" of the bill would probably have been higher?

[Hyperplex]

Client who canceled our meeting at midnight the night before got back in touch to reschedule next week. I informed her our people are available after 1pm the day she suggested. Her response:

We can do 9am??

Reading comprehension is a skill!

[JayOctavarium]

Right?


I had someone call to chew me out about something (that turned out to be nothing). I then did all the researched, looked into what he said was wrong, found that he was mistaken, then sent a polite email detailing what I had found, basically he mistook one thing for another.

He sees the email, and calls me to argue about it. It was obvious that either didnt read it at all, or lacks that particular skill...

[Chino]

When you bill a claim to your health insurance and then it says approved and my out of pocket cost is the original full cost of the bill. 
 So it got approved for $0.00 dollars paid by plan. Thanks for nothing.

I currently have a bill with a radiology lab for $1.94 for something that my insurance didn't cover in its entirety. The only way they'll accept payment is through the mail. I have to either fill out a form with my CC info on it, which I refuse to put in the mail, or I can send a check. I don't even own a checkbook, and I'm not going to pay the $22 Webster wants for one just so I can cut a check for $1.94.   

The lab calls me about once a week. They've said if I don't pay next month, it will be going to a debt collector. I told them to go for it. The lab has wasted way more than $1.94 just paying its employees to call and tell me I have an outstanding balance. I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for a business like that not having a way for its customers to pay electronically. They have $1M body scanners, but I can't pay through a CC over the phone or on a secure website? Please.

[cramx3]

You don't have a check book?  I know I hardly ever use mine but I certainly use it enough to justify having one for situations like that, although at 2 bucks essentially, yea send the debt collector  cause that's just a waste of time for all of them so have fun with it

[KevShmev]

Client who canceled our meeting at midnight the night before got back in touch to reschedule next week. I informed her our people are available after 1pm the day she suggested. Her response:

We can do 9am??

Reading comprehension is a skill!

Tell me about it.

I love getting a hold of a new shipper to pick up a pallet we are going to LTL (meaning we ship via carriers like Fedex, UPS, etc.), and when I ask what time can we pick up while also stating we need at least a 2-hour window, I often get something like, "can you pick up at 1 pm?"  What part of "we need at least a 2-hour window?" did you not understand??

[pg1067]

When you bill a claim to your health insurance and then it says approved and my out of pocket cost is the original full cost of the bill. 
 So it got approved for $0.00 dollars paid by plan. Thanks for nothing.

I currently have a bill with a radiology lab for $1.94 for something that my insurance didn't cover in its entirety. The only way they'll accept payment is through the mail. I have to either fill out a form with my CC info on it, which I refuse to put in the mail, or I can send a check. I don't even own a checkbook, and I'm not going to pay the $22 Webster wants for one just so I can cut a check for $1.94.   

The lab calls me about once a week. They've said if I don't pay next month, it will be going to a debt collector. I told them to go for it. The lab has wasted way more than $1.94 just paying its employees to call and tell me I have an outstanding balance. I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for a business like that not having a way for its customers to pay electronically. They have $1M body scanners, but I can't pay through a CC over the phone or on a secure website? Please.

By the same token, what kind of rinky-dink bank does not give you a batch of checks when you open the account and also doesn't have online bill pay?

[Cool Chris]

Yeah can't you use online bill pay with your bank? I do that as head of my HOA to get around the two signatures requirement on paper checks.

[Stadler]

When you bill a claim to your health insurance and then it says approved and my out of pocket cost is the original full cost of the bill. 
 So it got approved for $0.00 dollars paid by plan. Thanks for nothing.

I currently have a bill with a radiology lab for $1.94 for something that my insurance didn't cover in its entirety. The only way they'll accept payment is through the mail. I have to either fill out a form with my CC info on it, which I refuse to put in the mail, or I can send a check. I don't even own a checkbook, and I'm not going to pay the $22 Webster wants for one just so I can cut a check for $1.94.   

The lab calls me about once a week. They've said if I don't pay next month, it will be going to a debt collector. I told them to go for it. The lab has wasted way more than $1.94 just paying its employees to call and tell me I have an outstanding balance. I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for a business like that not having a way for its customers to pay electronically. They have $1M body scanners, but I can't pay through a CC over the phone or on a secure website? Please.

You have two and a half options.   One is to get a money order from the post office ($1.75) and send that instead of a check.   Two, generally medical accounts don't get reported on your credit by the medical provider.  Collections companies DO report to the credit agencies, but they are obligated under law to give you notice (it depends on the state, I forget what Connecticut is, even though I live here, but it's at least 30 days; the letter will tell you).   So you can take your chances and when you get the letter from the collections company, call them and see if they will take your credit card payment over the phone and NOT report it to the credit agencies (even a close/paid collection account will hurt your score).  If they tell you they are reporting it anyway - a dick move, because they don't have to, and most don't if you pay it - then your half option is to go to the post office, and do option 1 and send it to the provider.   They might hem and haw ("we've sent it to collections!") but in my experience more often than not they'll accept the payment and notify the collections company that it's been paid.