how-to block ads
Saint Clair Shores, MI
|reply to IowaCowboy |
Re: Privacy laws
said by IowaCowboy:As far as HIPAA goes, it's a 2 way street. I have kids that are in college and I pay for their medical coverage. However, though the BILLS come to me, I'm still limited on what I have access to even if access has been approved by said child. They have no problems coming after you for unpaid bills about that person but won't discuss what the bill is for. I still have a few bills outstanding because of this very issue and I refuse to pay anything that the insurance didn't pay unless they tell me what it's for. The EOB doesn't tell you much if anything at all.
I'd rather see a law requiring companies to keep customer data private. Like they do with medical records with HIPAA.
I would also like to see the phone companies banned from charging me a fee for the privilege of a private number.
As far as the UL number, I agree. I should not have to pay to keep my number unlisted and if they put my number in the phone book, I should get a discount since they are collecting advertising dollars from the businesses who run adds in the yellow pages. Just sayin.
Well...Gosh, they have to charge you for UL because that's a number that can't resale and make money on.
On a side slightly off-topic note...I ordered a Verizon line two years ago online and specified UL, they gave me the expected number I would get assigned.
Turn on date came and went, so had to call them to order it. Looked like it wasn't treated as a whole new order with different number, but a reorder of my previous order. OK...No problem with that.
Three days later I get a telemarketer selling a cruse line, he asked for me by name. Point is...my name and number was sent immediately to a telemarketing list. I guess my UL request got lost in the "reorder" process.
To add insult to injury, they wanted a fee to change my new (and very published) number to a newer unlisted one. Got it changed at no charge.
A May, 2009 response to my inquiry about charging for ULs in California. (I am still seeing the change--I guess the bill died).
This is in response to your letter regarding Senate Bill 437 by Senator Pavley, regarding charge for unlisted phone numbers. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
This bill would prevent a phone company from charging customers to not list their phone number in the telephone directory. Some people feel that this is an issue of privacy and that they should not be forced to pay for the service. The phone companies feel that this is an issue of rate setting and if they cannot charge for this service, they will be forced to increase charges for basic or other standard phone services such as call waiting.
The bill presents a difficult choice between privacy, phone service charges and rate regulation. Senator Pavley presented the bill before the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on May 5, 2009, but chose not to have a vote on the measure at that time. It will be eligible to be taken up again in January of 2010.
Thank you for informng me of your views. You can be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind when the bill is presented again in this or future legislative sessions.
Senator First District