SPECIAL ALERT: Guess what I just found out? If you use a debit card for gas, GAS COMPANIES are holding $125 of your checking account up to 3 days until the transaction goes through! I bought $30 gas at Valero station yesterday, and STILL have a $125 hold on my account until the transaction goes through!
If you choose "debit" instead of "credit", and punch your PIN in, then it won't happen (they say).
I don't have a list of which gas stations are doing this, but Valero is definitely one of them.
So, how many NSF (Not Sufficient Funds) penalties is this going to cause across the U.S.??? I verified this with UFCW credit union.
UPDATE: I called Valero just now (800) 324-8464, and they say it's your financial institution's fault, and they are trying to pin it on Valero. So, your bank/credit union is blaming Valero, and Valero is blaming your bank/credit union. But the bottom line is, if you charge gas with a debit card, SOMEONE is now holding $125 until the transaction goes through.
CALL 570.693.0500, and you will hear a pre-recorded message from UFCW saying the gas companies are holding $125 of your account. I asked UFCW to release the hold on the $125, even though you say Valero is the one holding $125, and they kindly did. Which tells me Valero gas is probably the one lying, because if UFCW is doing the hold, they wouldn't have released the hold.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Did you ever get REJECTED at the pump for gas, but you KNOW you have money in your account? That's because you needed at least $125 in your account to get gas. I just found THAT out, too. I know some people that has happened to recently. Someone told me a few weeks ago, they knew they had at least $40 in their account, and couldn't get gas. Now we know why.
Now if politicians wanted to REALLY do something tangible for us, instead of screwing around with legislation about VAGINAS, etc...they would immediately write a law that all gas stations that hold $125 of your account MUST POST THIS ON THE PUMP!!! But of course, they never write practical legislation that actually helps us. A financial institution penalty on YOU is none of their concern, they all have healthy balances in their bank accounts and this would never happen to them. They might rush out some "bath salts" legislation in record time, instead, because a ZOMBIES on BATH SALTS might eat you. They managed to put BOTH the "zombies" AND "bath salts" together into one story right here (click). I'm going to title my next post: "ZOMBIES ON BATH SALTS", so I get a million hits. Our GOVERNMENT, MEDIA, BANKSTERS, BIG ENERGY COMPANIES, & MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - the ENTIRE 1% - are friggin' ZOMBIES ON BATH SALTS!!!
Let me tell you about a GOOD story connected to this. I found out this happened, because I was getting pool chemicals and the transaction got rejected. I said to the guy, "I KNOW I have the money". So my wife and I were pulling out of the parking lot and the guy comes running out shouting, "HEY, DAN!!!" My wife and I said, "I wonder what he wants?" The guy said, "Just take the chemicals and pay us when you can". I couldn't believe it. How often do you see a store do something that nice? That is SUPERIOR POOLS on MUNDY STREET in WILKES-BARRE.
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN YOUR BIG, FAT, BA-JILLIONAIRE FASCIST LYING ASS ON THE WAY OUT.........
Rush is "OUTRAGED", see below about "OUTRAGED CONSERVATIVES".
As Supreme Court Affirms Patchwork U.S. Healthcare System, Vermont Pushes Ahead with Single Payer
Set to be implemented by 2017, Vermont’s healthcare overhaul goes well beyond the new federal law. The Vermont Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted last month, will make Vermont the first state in the nation to offer single-payer healthcare. On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin hailed the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal Affordable Care Act, but he said Vermont would probably be least impacted by it. "We’ve had a long history of healthcare reform and a real priority of taking care of our citizens," says Robin Lunge, Vermont’s director of Health Care Reform. "We’re not interested in waiting for the nation to catch up with us."
Why single payer?
There is no reason to ask "why" health care is a complicated, unaffordable, and a seemingly insurmountable problem in the U.S. but not in Canada. We know "why."
Unlike other industrialized nations, the United States health-care system is centered-around for-profit insurance companies. Selling "insurance" so people can have access to health care is a money making opportunity. Withholding treatment for sickness and pain is a money making opportunity. Sickness and pain are money making opportunities. There is no need to look any further for a system completely lacking in compassion when we have the United States Health Care Insurance System biting us in the face.
Roundtable: Supreme Court Ruling Ensures Coverage for Millions, But Doubts Remain on Quality, Access
We host a roundtable discussion on the landmark Supreme Court healthcare ruling with three guests: Dr. Oliver Fein of Physicians for a National Health Program, who signed a statement Thursday saying the new law will not remedy the U.S. health crisis; Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive turned whistleblower and senior analyst on healthcare at the Center for Public Integrity; and Jodi Jacobson, the editor-in-chief of RH Reality Check, a website dedicated to covering reproductive healthcare.
Cable news (the usual suspects: FOX and CNN) gives FALSE REPORT that "obamacare" was struck down by the Supreme Court (they STINK as usual, that's why they're losing viewers in EPIC numbers):
CNN, Fox Botch Supreme Court Health Reform Decision, Falsely Report Individual Mandate Struck Down (Video). the cable news networks rushed to report on the high court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, but initially got the news wrong; UPDATE: CNN then issues a formal correction.
Comment by plunger: Actually he (Roberts) read his prepared remarks on two issues. He began with their main argument, which was the Individual Mandate's Constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. Because he read his opinion on that first - the CNN producer in the court room forwarded what was in fact accurate information, that Roberts struck down the first of TWO parts of the decision. He later went on to describe how the law as written was legal under the Government's authority to impose a tax. By then, the mistakes had already hit the airwaves, and the retractions commenced. The problem stemmed from having a producer in the room rather than an attorney who would have knows to phrase the initial half of the ruling as such.
The Repugs will tag Obama as a tax raiser who attempted to enact a law that was proven unconstitutional under the Commerce clause. Here's the problem...
The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made against Romney for having done the exact same thing years earlier. THAT is the description Romney is stuck with for his earlier plan, which Obama copied on a national basis, for the most part.
Whereas Romney could be claiming HUGE credit for having created the template that was so forward thinking and effective, it became the model to solve the national health care problem, he has instead painted himself into this absurd corner where he is left to vilify anyone who would enact a plan such as his - like him.
Karma's a bitch, and she has a sense of irony and humor. WELCOME TO THE THEATER OF THE ABSURD!
Special commentary by Big Dan on the "LONGER LINES" canard used by those against health care for all: Whenever I hear people say they're against this type or that type of health care which would cover all Americans, I always hear them say, "THE LINES WILL BE LONGER" as a point against it. This is based on SELFISHNESS. Saying "THE LINES WILL BE LONGER" is like saying, "I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE BUT ME. I HAVE HEALTH CARE, AND IF EVERYONE IS COVERED, I WILL HAVE TO WAIT LONGER." That's very selfish. You will have to wait longer, because everyone will be covered with health care. Also, that argument is an argument for MORE DOCTORS, not against a system that would cover everyone. Suppose I asked you, if there were more doctors and the lines wouldn't be longer, would you still be for universal coverage for all? What would you say? Would you be OK with that? Or would you somehow still be against it? Then don't say, "THE LINES WILL BE LONGER". Just say, "I'M SELFISH". I mentioned this "LONGER LINES" point to a random person, and they agreed with me that they've heard this talking point a million times.
(COMMENTARY UPDATE) Another SELFISH cliche besides "longer lines" is: IF WE GIVE HEALTH INSURANCE TO PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, THEN THEY WILL GET HEALTH INSURANCE WHEN THEY NEED IT. This is also grounded in SELFISHNESS. First of all, it's really grounded in the fact that the person is really saying "I" had to pay when "I" wasn't sick, but THIS GUY bought it right before he needed it! And that's not fair! I'm jealous! This is the same mentality as saying, "That government worker is getting paid $15/hr, and I get $7/hr. HE should make what I make"...instead of saying, "That government worker is getting paid $15/hr, I also want to get paid $15/hr." You are BRAINWASHED if your mind thinks in this manner. You have the mentality of dragging someone down to your level, instead of saying that YOU want to be UP on their level. And still concerning the "people will buy insurance right when they need it" canard #2, think of this: how can a person with a pre-existing condition EVER buy insurance without a pre-existing condition??? That is simply not possible! Once you have a pre-existing condition, WHENEVER you buy health insurance, whether it's today or 10 years from now or 20 years from now, or ONE MINUTE from now, you will be buying health insurance with a pre-existing condition. DUH! So cliche #2 MAKES NO SENSE TO BEGIN WITH!
Therefore, people who call rightwing radio stations like our local WILK and spout these anti-health care for all cliches are either: 1) ILLOGICAL IDIOTS 2) EXTREMELY SELFISH 3) SHILLS FOR THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES 4) ANY COMBINATION OF 1, 2, & 3.
Special commentary #2: I'm proud that I just found out my homemade picture for WILK comes up #2 in google images, when googling "WILK". WILK = FOX "NEWS" JR
Commentary on my WILK picture: I wanted to make a tic-tac-toe-type picture of rightwing media heads featuring WILK characters, both local and syndicated. Sean Hannity used to be on WILK, but I kept him there anyway. He was replaced by fake liberal Steve Corbett (think: Alan Colmes fake token liberal on FOX "news", it works! Don't knock the formula!). But I added some other non-WILK rightwing characters because they're all the same anyway, like Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, William Kristol, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage are, of course, syndicated on WILK. I put Drudge Report up there, because that's probably one of their "news" sources. They all have the same daily rightwing talking points. They happen to talk about what Rush Limbaugh is talking about. In fact, Rush Limbaugh does little promos of what he's going to talk about on his show later in the day, and they happen to talk about that very often. By coincidence, you know. The Laura Ingraham spot was actually Ann Coulter, but I plastered Ingraham over Coulter because Coulter has mysteriously faded out of the limelight. I added local "Webster" because he's just like them. I should put LA Tarone and the sports guy Joe Thomas and the traffic guy Rusty Fender on there, too. They are all, of course, Republicans. What's the difference between all of them, local and not local? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!! It's FOX "news" JR. All replacable talking head rightwing characters. Talking amongst themselves, preaching to the choir, just like their callers. Tune in there, if you want to hear guys quoting the Bible, saying rightwing cliches like, "People on welfare buy lobsters", etc...etc...and the 2 anti-health care for all cliches in my above commentary. They're all selfish creeps, and it's bad for your health listening to WILK. My next update to the picture, I would like to get Karl Rove on there, possibly replacing William Kristol or Michelle Malkin. They seem to be fading out of the limelight, like Ann Coulter. You have to keep these things current, you know.
Speaking of William Kristol...maybe I should keep him in that WILK picture:
FOX "news" has a panel of "experts" who all happen to be against health care for all...because there won't be enough doctors, if everyone gets health care! This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, the SELFISHNESS of people on the right! OK, let's let people without health insurance DIE, otherwise those of us with health insurance will not have enough doctors! This is REALLY the "longer lines" canard #1 from my above commentary! The GALL of these SELFISH CREEPS saying that we CAN'T cover everyone, because their won't be enough doctors for ME!!! WHAT...THE...F*CK??? Did the U.S. start taking SELFISH PILLS??? Don't we care anymore about the ENTIRE NATION? Don't we care anymore about anyone else BUT OURSELVES??? I AM ASHAMED OF THIS COUNTRY!!! SERIOUSLY!
Nd comments in this blog post, answered by my friend plunger: Collapse
Nd: So why has stock of commercial insurers like Wellpoint tanked the past two days since the decision?
plunger: The stocks of insurance companies (care destroyers) are down because they lost. The stocks of hospital companies (care providers) are up because they won. Did you miss the epic lobbying battle being waged by insurance companies against everyone else and for themselves? Hundreds of millions were spent in the insurance companies' own self interest to buy-off the media, Congress and the Supreme Court, and the investment failed. Obviously the result is that insurers can't continue to fuck us quite as badly as they have - under a system, a media and a Congressional regime that they clearly controlled.
If health insurance were a legitimate "business," they could actually be in a position to show not only profits, but LOSSES - like any other "business." Insurance is a RACKET. Insurance companies cannot lose money. Name the insurance company that went out of business because of mismanaged risk in their core portfolio. It can't happen. Hurricanes hit Florida, and the insurers are allowed to raise rates automatically to cover what would be a loss. Note that this only functions in one direction, and NEVER reverses. Costs for insurance always rise, as do profits.
The subsidy that conservatives rail against that we call "care" will be paid for in part by money previously stolen by and industry that is not legitimate as an actual "business." If it were, they wouldn't need to spend so much money that could have gone toward CARE, on lobbying. Every dime not spent on CARE makes Americans less healthy.
The world would be a better place without lobbying, without money in "politics,' and frankly, without politics, period.
CONSERVATIVES ARE OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!
Would you expect anything other than "OUTRAGE" from the right on the "obamacare" decision by their own conservative supreme court? Did you ever notice how people on the right always get so "OUTRAGED"? Sarah Palin is OUTRAGED. Michele Bachmann is OUTRAGED. Karl Rove is OUTRAGED. The word OUTRAGE seems to be an exclusive word reserved for those on the right. They are in a constant state of OUTRAGE:
SURPRISE SHOCKER!!! Conservatives are "OUTRAGED", what else is new:
John Roberts Outrages Conservatives In Health Care Ruling
Roberts' CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court has decided more 5-4 polarized decisions than any other in history.
The Supreme CORPS:
The 1% Behind The Curtain
