Friend of mine has been getting calls from this number for 2 weeks now. Asking to verify medical information. My friend has filed complaints with FCC and AT&T and nothing.. then we researched that number and found this stuff has been going on since January of 2014.
This is clearly a scam.. My friend told them that he had contacted his medical insurance company about the calls, and the caller asked by whose authority did he do that? Talk about being arrogant assholes.. How dare the insured person call their insurance company to ask about this caller?!!!
The company will not ID itself.. if their number gets blocked, they will block out their Caller ID and continue to harass you.
My friend went on to notify them at the next call that he was recording the conversation for legal and training purposes, and when they found out he was recording them they asked by whose authority was he recording them?
They eventually hung up.
It is clear that this scam has been going on for 8 or more months and the FCC is doing NOTHING about it. NO law enforcement seems to be doing anything..
The number on the caller id, 6465246575 is spoofed, that is, its not the real number. The real number may be from India or any other outside country which is why our law enforcement cannot do anything about it,..
All we can do is tell you to NOT give out any information, do not answer their questions and HANG UP immediately if they call.
NOTIFY your Insurance company and your phone company of these calls. Epically if you have government insurance. THEY will get things going..
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Ban Googles "adsense" advertisments from the Internet.
Adsense ads. What a gimmick.
We have enough bandwidth being wasted by untold amounts of "spam", also known as unwanted advertisements, on the internet and now google has come up with this new idea (a few years ago), and then 'improves" on it.
Now its almost impossible to block these ads.
People pay big bucks just to have internet access. Those folks in major cities that have cable internet monopolies, pay extraordinary rates just to have internet. Then on top of that they are forced to have their limited bandwidth being wasted by unwanted advertisements and junk.
People who support these ads, say the ads are necessary to pay for the webpages that internet users go to. Bull crud.. Adsense was set up so that individuals could make MONEY from people seeing their advertisements. And Google would benefit from that.
With No way to opt out of all adsense advertisements, google is effectively stealing the bandwidth of people who pay for internet access.
At a time when big cable companies such as Comcast, Time Warner, Charter are now "throttling" down their speeds and feeds to people who spend a lot of time on the internet, the theft of this bandwidth is inexcusable.
By Throttling, I mean the ISP (Internet service provider, such as Comcast) decreases the amount and speed of data allowed to go to a particular customer, because they are being seen as bandwidth hogs, using more than the average user.
While its true that some people do use more, the fact that up to 30 percent of what they use can be unwanted advertisements should be cause to either have the throttling stopped, or to force google to provide for a way for a person to opt out completely, that is to make it so that a person does not get ANY of the adsense advertisements. It should also be a reason to cause the ISP's to not count the megabytes of unwanted adverts from being used against a user, for their total bandwidth usage in determining if the person is to have their feeds throttled by their ISP.
Recent articles show that over 50 percent of traffic on the internet is unwanted spam.. Porn, or advertisements, or other junk that most users would rather not even see.
Yet we the internet users are forced to pay for it. Enough is enough. Ban Adsense from the internet.
It is a nuisance
We have enough bandwidth being wasted by untold amounts of "spam", also known as unwanted advertisements, on the internet and now google has come up with this new idea (a few years ago), and then 'improves" on it.
Now its almost impossible to block these ads.
People pay big bucks just to have internet access. Those folks in major cities that have cable internet monopolies, pay extraordinary rates just to have internet. Then on top of that they are forced to have their limited bandwidth being wasted by unwanted advertisements and junk.
People who support these ads, say the ads are necessary to pay for the webpages that internet users go to. Bull crud.. Adsense was set up so that individuals could make MONEY from people seeing their advertisements. And Google would benefit from that.
With No way to opt out of all adsense advertisements, google is effectively stealing the bandwidth of people who pay for internet access.
At a time when big cable companies such as Comcast, Time Warner, Charter are now "throttling" down their speeds and feeds to people who spend a lot of time on the internet, the theft of this bandwidth is inexcusable.
By Throttling, I mean the ISP (Internet service provider, such as Comcast) decreases the amount and speed of data allowed to go to a particular customer, because they are being seen as bandwidth hogs, using more than the average user.
While its true that some people do use more, the fact that up to 30 percent of what they use can be unwanted advertisements should be cause to either have the throttling stopped, or to force google to provide for a way for a person to opt out completely, that is to make it so that a person does not get ANY of the adsense advertisements. It should also be a reason to cause the ISP's to not count the megabytes of unwanted adverts from being used against a user, for their total bandwidth usage in determining if the person is to have their feeds throttled by their ISP.
Recent articles show that over 50 percent of traffic on the internet is unwanted spam.. Porn, or advertisements, or other junk that most users would rather not even see.
Yet we the internet users are forced to pay for it. Enough is enough. Ban Adsense from the internet.
It is a nuisance
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The GBLT communities battle over the word "marriage".
This is not an issue over equal rights. This is a battle over perception, and government intervention.
As we look in the great universe of which we are a part of, we see a vast area devoid of any kind of life. In fact, in only one place in this universe have we found life - right here on this small rock called earth.
While we have detected possible signs of life in other areas of the universe, life itself can only be proven to exist on the Earth.
The purpose of life is to renew itself. Why this is needs no explanation.
Mankind has been creating unions between 2 people for thousands of years, long before governments as we know them, came into existence. These unions were between men and women, for the purpose of fulfilling the purpose of life.
In modern times, this has been called a marriage. Written history has shown us that marriages have been taking place for hundreds of years. All between a man and woman. No where in written history that I am aware of, is there any account of a GLBT marriage.
So for the vast majority of Humanity, the term Marriage means the union between a man and a woman to fulfill the purpose of life.
This controversy is not about equal rights for GLBT unions, as none of their rights have been violated. What is happening, is the majority of humanity is not giving the GLBT unions the same standing in law, as the common marriage. And that is what is behind the actions of the GLBT community.
No one will argue that GLB people have only existed in recent times. Historical records as well as histories passed down verbaly from generation to generation shows us that they have existed for thousands of years. And due to modern medicine, we have only in recent times, added a 4th category to this group - the transsexuals.
In the modern world, the majority of people think what the GLBT group does is wrong, but they also understand that these people are genetically programed to be who they are, and have no control over how they are. Therefore as perverse as they may seem to the majority of people, the people accept them as they are. In plain language, you did not program your own DNA, therefore you cannot be held accountable for the way you are, even if how you are seems wrong to the rest of the world.
Today we have a controversy because of perception by the 2 groups. The GLBT group already knows that most people do not accept them as equals because of their lifestyles. Many may feel that they are second class citizens because people will not accept them as equals.
The GBLT group wants to obtain equality in the union of 2 people. They want to give their partners the same status, as that a spouse holds in a traditional marriage. And to achieve this goal, they now want government to intercede on their behalf and declare that a marriage is the union of ANY 2 people, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation. And this is where the controversy between the 2 groups starts.
And since Government has intervened in the Marriage process by apparently requiring a government issued license to become married, the GBLT community wants government to finalize what is or is not a Marriage. The fact is, marriage has long been outside the purview of government, and in the USA, no power was transferred from the founding States to the National government giving it any authority over the subject.
The GBLT group claims that Government does have authority under the equal protection clauses of the nations founding charter, and the individual State charters, aka the Constitutions.
The majority of people, are willing to accept that the GBLT community exists, has rights, lives amongst us, and should have the ability to create a union of 2 people. However, to name that union the exact same as the union between a man and a woman is where they draw the line.
Many people in the majority, have offered to write and support laws that would give the GBLT people a set of union laws that would recognize their right to equal status in all matters that spouse would have in a traditional marriage. But because it would be called a union and not a marriage, the GBLT community find this to be unacceptable. Again we arrive at the "definition of the word marriage".
This is a no win situation for either side of the issue. The Majority will not accept the term marriage being re-defined to include a GBLT union. The GBLT will not accept anything less than marriage being defined to include them.
So where do we find the solution to this problem?
The government already makes laws, and defines words in those laws. The people also have a law making ability in the state where I live, Michigan. Proposition 2, was the act of the people defining what a marriage is.
To say that the people do not have the right to define a word, is to also say the governments cannot define words, and then the whole controversy is without merit or legal standing.
To say that by defining the word, government excludes one group another, is to say that they cannot do that with other words in existing laws that do in fact, already exclude one group from another.
In fact many of our defined words are just that - exclusions of the defined word. A defined word tells us what it means, and what it does not mean. And in some cases, what it does not mean is very similar to what it does mean.
And if we are going to try to apply the legal system to the word, then one must acknowledge the fact that government was never given the authority by the people to act on this subject. Therefore one could legally argue the government should recuse itself, that is remove itself from this controversy and say they have no authority to make a ruling on it.
It it therefore my conclusion, that since the GBLT community is unwilling to accept a set of laws for a union, this controversy will never be solved and there will always be one group at odds with the other.
As we look in the great universe of which we are a part of, we see a vast area devoid of any kind of life. In fact, in only one place in this universe have we found life - right here on this small rock called earth.
While we have detected possible signs of life in other areas of the universe, life itself can only be proven to exist on the Earth.
The purpose of life is to renew itself. Why this is needs no explanation.
Mankind has been creating unions between 2 people for thousands of years, long before governments as we know them, came into existence. These unions were between men and women, for the purpose of fulfilling the purpose of life.
In modern times, this has been called a marriage. Written history has shown us that marriages have been taking place for hundreds of years. All between a man and woman. No where in written history that I am aware of, is there any account of a GLBT marriage.
So for the vast majority of Humanity, the term Marriage means the union between a man and a woman to fulfill the purpose of life.
This controversy is not about equal rights for GLBT unions, as none of their rights have been violated. What is happening, is the majority of humanity is not giving the GLBT unions the same standing in law, as the common marriage. And that is what is behind the actions of the GLBT community.
No one will argue that GLB people have only existed in recent times. Historical records as well as histories passed down verbaly from generation to generation shows us that they have existed for thousands of years. And due to modern medicine, we have only in recent times, added a 4th category to this group - the transsexuals.
In the modern world, the majority of people think what the GLBT group does is wrong, but they also understand that these people are genetically programed to be who they are, and have no control over how they are. Therefore as perverse as they may seem to the majority of people, the people accept them as they are. In plain language, you did not program your own DNA, therefore you cannot be held accountable for the way you are, even if how you are seems wrong to the rest of the world.
Today we have a controversy because of perception by the 2 groups. The GLBT group already knows that most people do not accept them as equals because of their lifestyles. Many may feel that they are second class citizens because people will not accept them as equals.
The GBLT group wants to obtain equality in the union of 2 people. They want to give their partners the same status, as that a spouse holds in a traditional marriage. And to achieve this goal, they now want government to intercede on their behalf and declare that a marriage is the union of ANY 2 people, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation. And this is where the controversy between the 2 groups starts.
And since Government has intervened in the Marriage process by apparently requiring a government issued license to become married, the GBLT community wants government to finalize what is or is not a Marriage. The fact is, marriage has long been outside the purview of government, and in the USA, no power was transferred from the founding States to the National government giving it any authority over the subject.
The GBLT group claims that Government does have authority under the equal protection clauses of the nations founding charter, and the individual State charters, aka the Constitutions.
The majority of people, are willing to accept that the GBLT community exists, has rights, lives amongst us, and should have the ability to create a union of 2 people. However, to name that union the exact same as the union between a man and a woman is where they draw the line.
Many people in the majority, have offered to write and support laws that would give the GBLT people a set of union laws that would recognize their right to equal status in all matters that spouse would have in a traditional marriage. But because it would be called a union and not a marriage, the GBLT community find this to be unacceptable. Again we arrive at the "definition of the word marriage".
This is a no win situation for either side of the issue. The Majority will not accept the term marriage being re-defined to include a GBLT union. The GBLT will not accept anything less than marriage being defined to include them.
So where do we find the solution to this problem?
The government already makes laws, and defines words in those laws. The people also have a law making ability in the state where I live, Michigan. Proposition 2, was the act of the people defining what a marriage is.
To say that the people do not have the right to define a word, is to also say the governments cannot define words, and then the whole controversy is without merit or legal standing.
To say that by defining the word, government excludes one group another, is to say that they cannot do that with other words in existing laws that do in fact, already exclude one group from another.
In fact many of our defined words are just that - exclusions of the defined word. A defined word tells us what it means, and what it does not mean. And in some cases, what it does not mean is very similar to what it does mean.
And if we are going to try to apply the legal system to the word, then one must acknowledge the fact that government was never given the authority by the people to act on this subject. Therefore one could legally argue the government should recuse itself, that is remove itself from this controversy and say they have no authority to make a ruling on it.
It it therefore my conclusion, that since the GBLT community is unwilling to accept a set of laws for a union, this controversy will never be solved and there will always be one group at odds with the other.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Are Americans ignorant about health insurance?
I hang out in a chat program called PalTalk. And I am usually hanging out in the politics rooms.
We have been talking about insurance lately, and of course the big topic is health care.. But that too is a big subject that I will write about later..
There is a big difference between health care, and health insurance. And it amazes me what people think health insurance is for. As expected, the people in these chat rooms tend to take sides according to their preferred to political party. Democrats V Republicans. As an independent conservative, who is NOT a member of any party, I am amazed at the apparent ignorance, or misunderstanding of what insurance is for. Insurance is a business and it is there to make a profit.
Also because of these peoples apparent lack of understanding of how business works, contributes to their overall ignorance of insurance.
Insurance is not a "buy 1 get 2 free" program. It is not a "members only discount" program.
It is not a way for you go and get 800 dollars worth of medical care, and be required to pay for only 200 dollars worth of it, leaving the rest to be paid for by other people; that is a parasitical attitude that many of these people seem to have.
Insurance is for catastrophic situations. Not for paying for everyday needs or everyday occurrences, that you can pay for out of your own pocket, even if it might require you to go on a budget for a while.
So you go to the pharmacy and want to get a drug. You have a prescription. Out of pocket this item costs 80 dollars for a 7 day supply.
Too many of the chatters said they would use their insurance cards, because that way it would only cost them their co-pay, usually around 20 dollars. The insurance company would cover the rest.
Now if their weekly insurance costs (taken out of their paycheck) and IF their company also contributes to it, total costs do not cover the other 60 dollars, this person then is expecting someone else to pick up the tab for the other 60 dollars of cost. And that is a parasitical attitude. It is someone who is looking for a freebee, someone who does not want to have to pay for their own wants or needs.
These people do not understand how business works. The insurance company gets all of its money from premiums it charges to its customers. It has a cost of doing business, and that cost, comes out of those premiums. So if a person pays 100 dollars a month for insurance, and the cost of doing the paperwork and what not is 5 dollars for that month, the company has 95 to use to cover expenses (charges) made by the insured person.
When a person goes to the pharmacy, this creates paperwork that needs to be done by the insurance company. This paperwork is the over head, or cost of doing business. The insured person has to pay the cost of the drug plus the cost of the insurance companies paperwork (service fee), thus costing them more than if they just went to the pharmacy and paid for the drug out of pocket.
They go to the pharmacy and pay cash out pocket - cost 80 dollars plus tax.
They go to the pharmacy and use their insurance card, the cost is 85 dollars plus tax. And for each drug they get the 4 dollar service fee.
So again, lets say they need 5 different prescriptions. Each one costing the same 80 dollars. Their co pay is 20 dollars. They get all 5 prescriptions for 100 dollars plus tax right? WRONG. They get them for 340 dollars. 100 dollars paid directly out of pocket, and 240 dollars paid out of their pay checks (again, out of pocket, but not at the same time).
What is the real difference here? The real difference is when they pay for it, and the fact that they are paying a company (insurance company) for something they don't need to be paying for. They would save money by paying it themselves, completely.
But to those who think its ok to pay 100 dollars a month for insurance and get 800 dollars worth of services, I say its time to stop feeding the parasites. They are selfish.
And when government forces people like us to subside people like them, it makes us angry. And that is exactly what the Federal so called Affordable Care Act is all about. Forcing other people to subsidies parasites. And that, is just plain wrong.
We have been talking about insurance lately, and of course the big topic is health care.. But that too is a big subject that I will write about later..
There is a big difference between health care, and health insurance. And it amazes me what people think health insurance is for. As expected, the people in these chat rooms tend to take sides according to their preferred to political party. Democrats V Republicans. As an independent conservative, who is NOT a member of any party, I am amazed at the apparent ignorance, or misunderstanding of what insurance is for. Insurance is a business and it is there to make a profit.
Also because of these peoples apparent lack of understanding of how business works, contributes to their overall ignorance of insurance.
Insurance is not a "buy 1 get 2 free" program. It is not a "members only discount" program.
It is not a way for you go and get 800 dollars worth of medical care, and be required to pay for only 200 dollars worth of it, leaving the rest to be paid for by other people; that is a parasitical attitude that many of these people seem to have.
Insurance is for catastrophic situations. Not for paying for everyday needs or everyday occurrences, that you can pay for out of your own pocket, even if it might require you to go on a budget for a while.
So you go to the pharmacy and want to get a drug. You have a prescription. Out of pocket this item costs 80 dollars for a 7 day supply.
Too many of the chatters said they would use their insurance cards, because that way it would only cost them their co-pay, usually around 20 dollars. The insurance company would cover the rest.
Now if their weekly insurance costs (taken out of their paycheck) and IF their company also contributes to it, total costs do not cover the other 60 dollars, this person then is expecting someone else to pick up the tab for the other 60 dollars of cost. And that is a parasitical attitude. It is someone who is looking for a freebee, someone who does not want to have to pay for their own wants or needs.
These people do not understand how business works. The insurance company gets all of its money from premiums it charges to its customers. It has a cost of doing business, and that cost, comes out of those premiums. So if a person pays 100 dollars a month for insurance, and the cost of doing the paperwork and what not is 5 dollars for that month, the company has 95 to use to cover expenses (charges) made by the insured person.
When a person goes to the pharmacy, this creates paperwork that needs to be done by the insurance company. This paperwork is the over head, or cost of doing business. The insured person has to pay the cost of the drug plus the cost of the insurance companies paperwork (service fee), thus costing them more than if they just went to the pharmacy and paid for the drug out of pocket.
They go to the pharmacy and pay cash out pocket - cost 80 dollars plus tax.
They go to the pharmacy and use their insurance card, the cost is 85 dollars plus tax. And for each drug they get the 4 dollar service fee.
So again, lets say they need 5 different prescriptions. Each one costing the same 80 dollars. Their co pay is 20 dollars. They get all 5 prescriptions for 100 dollars plus tax right? WRONG. They get them for 340 dollars. 100 dollars paid directly out of pocket, and 240 dollars paid out of their pay checks (again, out of pocket, but not at the same time).
What is the real difference here? The real difference is when they pay for it, and the fact that they are paying a company (insurance company) for something they don't need to be paying for. They would save money by paying it themselves, completely.
But to those who think its ok to pay 100 dollars a month for insurance and get 800 dollars worth of services, I say its time to stop feeding the parasites. They are selfish.
And when government forces people like us to subside people like them, it makes us angry. And that is exactly what the Federal so called Affordable Care Act is all about. Forcing other people to subsidies parasites. And that, is just plain wrong.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
This is why our disabled people and veterans only get 1200 a month SS Disablity.
Why Has Illegal Alien With 7 Kids Gotten Food Stamps, Housing And Social Security For Decades?
Find out for yourself how much this parasite takes from your pocket every day.
This parasite, with 7 kids, gets food stamps, Housing, Social security, and all kinds of government programs, and has encouraged others to do the same criminal actions, when she knows by law she is not entitled to any of it.
THIS IS WHY our wounded warriors, our disabled people our Fellow americans who are in need, cannot get help. Because our government is too damm busy helping these criminals, instead of people like YOU AND I, who paid the Goddamm bills for this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)