Archive for the 'complaints' Category

I should have trusted Skeptical Inquirer

Mon, 19 May 2003 10:26:36 -0500

I have been having bad back and neck pain recently.  It has interfered with work and sleep, restricted my range of motion, and left me very uncomfortable.  It feels like certain joints need to have pressure relieved (i.e., it feels like my back and neck need to ‘pop’.)  Unfortunately I could not trigger this on my own.

One day last week it got very bad, and out of desperation I decided to call a chiropractor, something I had never done before.  I first called my insurance company (I have the Aetna EPO plan) and asked if chiropractic care was covered.  “Yes,” they responded, “with a $40 copay.”  That struck me as rather steep, but hey, I was hurting.  I asked how to go about seeing a chiropractor, and was told to choose a name from an online list of in-network providers, and was told that eligibility was based on “medical necessity.”  I asked how necessity was determined, and was told that it was based on the report of the chiropractor.

I chose Jean M. Duffy from their list (I’ll also write “Jean Duffy” here in case someone is using a search engine looking for her) and made an appointment for later that day.  I had, in short, probably the worst clinical visit in my entire life.  The receptionist was unprofessional, the office was severely over-heated, Duffy insisted on teasing me about word choices even though I was in obvious pain.  She struck me as unintelligent and unresponsive.  She was fairly dismissive when I voiced concern about the use of high-velocity popping, which is widely regarded as unnecessary and quite dangerous.  I got a challenge to “define that precisely” for her, then was told in a doctor-knows-best tone that she did “what she decided was necessary”.  At the end of a long questioning process she performed some perfunctory stretching of my neck and back, proceeded to perform exactly two manual manipulations (one in my neck and one in my mid-back), and told me I was done.  When I expressed surprise at this (not the least of which because I was still in pain) I was given a lecture about chiropractic not being a “pill” that “fixes something immediately”.  Sorry, Jean, but the prospect of immediate relief is the only thing that took me to a chiropractor in the first place.  If I wanted slow-but-sure recovery I’d do physical therapy, something with which I had great success a year ago after an injury.  She then iced my back and neck for under five minutes, a quarter of the time that I was iced at physical therapy.

I was asked to make a follow-up appointment two days hence.  I was hesitant to do so because I was unsure I would be coming back, so I asked if I could call tomorrow and make a follow-up appointment.  “No,” Jean said, “It would be better for you to make an appointment and cancel it if you need to.”  (”Sure,” I thought, “that way you could charge me for the missed visit if the notification period is less than 24 hours.”)  I went up to the receptionist without Jean.  She asked me to make an appointment and I repeated my desire to call tomorrow to re-schedule.  The receptionist agreed and I left.

My neck was still in pain and still had limited range of motion.  When I got out to my car I simply turned my neck to the right and it ‘popped’ again, and instantly felt better.  A simple turn of the neck, not a forced turn, and yet Jean did not perform this.  I suppose it’s possible that her work on my neck allowed the later pop, and that that pop could not have occurred otherwise, but I’m skeptical.  I was annoyed leaving the office, and thought to myself that the only thing left would be to find out she was a crook as well, that she’d find a way to charge me more money than she had said.

The next day she called me and told me that she had contacted my insurance company and they refused to pay, saying I needed a referral for chiropractic care, the exact opposite of what I had been told on the phone.

“All I can say is I hope you got someone’s name,” she said.  “We’ll just have to send you a bill.”  I asked how much.  “$50,” she said.  “Just $10 more than your copay.”

I’ll just pay it.  It’s not worth fighting for $10.  And it may be true.  But I won’t be surprised if I find that Aetna has also paid that $10 after all.

I had never gone to a chiropractor before for a couple of reasons.  One, the theoretical basis of their medicine is absurd and discounted by the traditional medical community.  Two, after my father injured his neck some ten years ago he considered going to a chiropractor but went to a specialist and got an x-ray instead.  He was told by the specialist that with his condition, had he gone to a chiropractor he would have ended up a quadriplegic.  So why did I go?  Good question.  All I can claim in my defense was extreme pain, and the anecdotal evidence of friends who have received immediate relief from chiropractic care.  But one is again reminded, in this story, that even pain is no excuse to abandon reason and logic.

Devotees of chiropractic will rightly point out that this is one sample point, one practitioner, and should not be used to make a judgment on the whole discipline.  But next time, if I ever go to a chiropractor again, I will do so strictly based on a referral from a friend.  But will I go again at all?  Probably not.

People are stupid

Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:01:07 -0500

I have been reading the September/October 2002 issue of the great Skeptical Inquirer magazine and have learned a very cool word.  The word is syncretism, defined as “Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.”  Very cool.

Less cool is yet another SI demonstration of how stupid people are.  This is one of those bang-your-head-into-concrete ones.  I mean, we all know people are stupid, but fuck, people are stupid.  I would give up my car and house and job and live in a fucking cardboard box if that could suddenly stop people from being this stupid.

Try out Clifford Pickover’s ESP Experiment and see if you come up with the same “explanations” the other visitors did after trying to fool the computer.  Many visitors are convinced the computer is psychic (one was impressed that emotional excitation “does not even seem to interfere, as would be expected if one looks at Sufi literature.”)  One is convinced the computer scans eye movement and tracks pupil dilation resulting from concentration.  Another is impressed that the English-language site can read his mind even though he thought of the card in Finnish.

Conflict of interest

Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:42:13 -0500

MSNBC thoughtfully gives us an article entitled So whatever happened to Linux?  “It’s for geeks,” describes the author, quoting a “consultant”.  We also learn that “Microsoft’s Windows operating system still rules.”  However, Linux is getting better; it “now more closely mimics the Windows world.”

Would someone remind me what the MS in MSNBC stands for, please?

Law & Order

Wed, 22 May 2002 22:58:36 -0500

Law & Order is garbage.  The subject of the last episode of this police/courtroom drama was a potential international terrorist and vigilante Americans.  But despite the promise of this topic, the program fell into the same unsophisticated pattern it has repeatedly walked in episodes on computer crime, child abuse, and so on.  My objection is not that it espouses positions with which I disagree; it is that the writing is hackish, choosing show characters to hold opposite but equally naïve positions in order to generate dramatic tension and (presumably) to raise the ire of the viewer.

eFax sucks

Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:17:48 -0600

eFax have just sent a fax to the subscribers of their free service to inform them of a service ‘enhancement’:

eFax.com is introducing a new program designed to help ensure you get the high-quality Internet faxing you need.  eFax.com will now be faxing select special offers exclusively to our free customers.

So, opt out?  They tell you how: “Please consider upgrading to eFax Plus.”  I have been a customer for over three years.  The eFax Messenger Plus reader already contains a revolving banner ad, but I still should have seen the end of this too-good-to-be-true spam-free service coming. 

If you are curious, you can download the fax they sent.  You can choose between the native eFax version (this requires you download the monetarily-free eFax Messenger) and my GIF conversion.  If you are interested, the conversion involved printing to an Apple LaserWriter driver; there is no “print to file” option in the Print dialog so one has to set this on the printer properties.  This created a .prn file, which I then renamed to a .ps file.  I then loaded the .ps file in GhostView, converted it to a 16M-color bitmap at 120 dpi, opened the bitmap in Paint Shop Pro, converted it to a GIF and saved it.  You’re welcome.

Glasses Broken

Thu, 08 Mar 2001 02:09:48 -0600

Ah, lovely.  I just broke the earpiece off of my glasses.

Gelernter

Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:42:24 -0600

No complete report on Author Unknown yet, but I wanted to take a moment to follow a thread from a couple of chapters ago.  Foster writes:

[T]he Unabomber obtained names and addresses for Charles Epstein, a geneticist […], and David Gelernter, developer of the networking software called LINDA. Both scholars were critically injured by Unabom devices a week later. (pp. 136)

This passage suddenly personalized the Unabomber attacks.  I began (and abandoned) one of Gelernter’s books, The Muse in the Machine. I did not particularly care for his theories or his writing, but regardless I felt I somehow knew him. Suddenly, the Unabomber attacks were personal.

I find the results of the Unabomber’s actions to be horrific. I am overjoyed that Gelernter and his family survived, and I mourn the three men successfully murdered by Kaczynski. I felt somewhat foolish and irresponsible not knowing of his 1993 accident (which was, by the way, before I purchased his book.) I set out to Google in an “Is he OK?” panic. One article grabbed my attention but only listed his being “severely wounded”, so I put the page in the background until I found the specifics (disfigurement and partial loss of use of right hand, partial loss of sight in right eye, disfigurement [implied] to the right side of his face, injuries to the right side of his body requiring ten surgical operations.) I breathed a partial sigh of relief (he can see, hear, walk, type, etc.), as much as one can when learning when an injury “could have been worse”.

Now I turned back to the attention-grabbing article entitled “Save the Unabomber” which argues (quite convincingly, I think) against executing Kaczynski:

If there were real justice in America, the Unabomber would be institutionalized, probably for the rest of his life. And his brother would be invited to the White House lawn and given a medal live on national television by our selectively empathetic president.

Like decorated veterans and patriots, David Kaczynski confronted one of the most awful choices in life - to betray a member of his own family to save innocent lives - and did the right thing. He saved others at dreadful personal expense. It’s hard to think what more any country could expect of a citizen.

Concerned about possible future victims, he decided to notify the FBI of his suspicions in the spring of l996. Federal officials have repeatedly have said they might never have arrested Kaczynski - or any suspect - if not for this information. The only thing David asked for from the beginning was that his brother not be executed.

I did not need any convincing in the first place. I am a strong and vocal opponent of the death penalty, which I consider to be barbaric, ineffective, and cruel. But this objection is a novel, and quite moving, twist.

So continuing with the Google search, I find that Gelernter has written a book entitled Drawing Life : Surviving the Unabomber in which he advocates killing the Unabomber and (according to Amazon) “locate[s] the madman on a continuum of modern social degradation,” with the remainder of the “degradation” composed of scum such as liberals, intellectuals, feminists, etc. (one Amazon reader wrote an excellent critique; I wish the author had left an email address so that I could write to express my compliments.) Amazon describes the book as “not tightly reasoned”. Well, no, one wouldn’t expect it to be: this is Gelernter. This is the reason I gave up on The Muse in the Machine to begin with.  That book, which would like to consider itself in the same category as books by Denett, Hofstadter, and even Penrose, is full of absurd assertions that Gelernter does not bother to substantiate.  An example, from my copy of the book:

“If I ask you to close your eyes and imagine lying on the beach, the better you succeed, the closer you’ve come to staging a small-scale auto-hallucination. If we say you have a vivid imagination, we mean that what you imagine seems real to you.” (pp. 10, emphasis his.)

This is, at best, a miserably incomplete definition.  What if my next question is “What do you see?”  Subject A reports:

A blue sea, with perhaps three-foot swells. The sky is pale blue, paler than the water, with small pockets of white cumulus clouds. To my right is a mother, dressed in a red and black one-piece bathing suit, sitting on a striped beach towel under a green umbrella. She is trying to applying sunscreen to her four-year-old boy straining to run after his big brother into the surf. Above, a few seagulls, cawing out of unison. To my left, a boy and girl, probably siblings, building a sand castle with an old garden spade and an empty plastic plant pot. The sand is near white, the reflection blinding around the rims of my sunglasses; I’m glad I wore them. When I stretch my arm out, the sand is perceptibly and uncomfortably warm on my hand. So are my kneecaps and earlobes; I should probably apply some sunscreen or get in the shade. A quiet breeze is blowing up from the water. I can smell the kelp, a gentle iodine rot-smell, a stone’s throw away.

Subject B reports:

Umm … the ocean?  Some sand?  Uhhh … a sand castle?  I guess that’s about it….

The relevant difference here is not that Subject A is more accomplished at self-deception. Subject A is, in my view, better at associating stimuli and memories with each other, visually modeling situations in order to closely examine them, holding complex images in the mind at once, etc. But the hallucination interpretation is apparently obvious enough to Gelernter that it does not deserve supporting evidence, not even supporting examples. Further Google explorations uncovered a transcript of Gelernter’s C-SPAN “Booknotes” interview. Gelernter continues in the same fashion, with unjustified generalizations and instances of false consensus perceptions:

“There are very few people who can live their lives
without [religion].”

“Environmentalists are explicit about the spiritual,
religious side of what they’re doing.”

“[T]here are […] many other people who, when they
look for this New Age stuff […] and that self-esteem
movement, seem to be groping pathetically in the dark
for the kind of moral and spiritual guidance that
traditional Christianity rendered very successfully
for a couple of millennia and Judaism for even longer.”

“And I have a feeling that many of these people are
coming up with makeshift simulated religions […]
because they don’t know what their traditional
religions are. I can tell you the average Jew in this
country has no concept of what Judaism is[…].”

“I’ve always been in favor of the death penalty for
murderers […] I can’t conceive of […] our not
sentencing such a man to death if we are serious about
murder, if we are serious about our absolute refusal
to tolerate murder.”

“[T]he art market today is such that there isn’t a
person in America who couldn’t sell artwork for money.
My pet parrot could. Anything goes on today’s art
market.”

“I’m not a great talker; I mean, I’d rather write than
talk. But very–all writers feel that way.”

As a jab at him, note:

“I’m just tremendously impressed by the imaginativeness
of this technology [that repaired my right eye after the bombing] and by the skill of the surgeons
who did it.”

Good thing those technologists are adept at “auto-hallucination”, eh David?

Gelernter says he does not wanted to be treated as a “victim” (as I understand it, this is a central point of Drawing Life.) I believe this statement and I congratulate him. But in my view the most dangerous possibility is that people consider him a victim anyway and neglect to question his assertions simply because “he’s been through so much” or “I could never understand what he went through.” Mail-bomb or no, these statements deserve skepticism on our part and justification on his.

But all this notwithstanding: Dr. Gelernter, please accept my best wishes for you and your family.

UPS complaints, retracted

Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:19:39 -0600

It looks like I should take back some of the nasty things I wrote about UPS.  Here is the tracking info for the wayward package as of today:














Status: Delivered
Delivered on: Dec 23, 2000  11:02 A.M.
Signed by: […]
Location: […]
Delivered to: US
Shipped or Billed on: Dec 20, 2000
   
Tracking Number: […]
Service Type: 2ND DAY AIR
Weight: 1.00 Lb




















PACKAGE  PROGRESS
Date Time Location Activity
Dec 23, 2000 11:02 A.M. WESTLAKE, CA, US DELIVERY
   3:29 A.M. ONTARIO HUB, CA, US DEPARTURE SCAN
  12:36 A.M. ONTARIO HUB, CA, US LOCATION SCAN
Dec 22, 2000 5:57 P.M. ONTARIO HUB, CA, US LOCATION SCAN
   6:38 A.M. VAN NUYS, CA, US ROUTED INCORRECTLY AT UPS FACILITY;PKG HAS BEEN REROUTED TO DESTINATION
   6:38 A.M. VAN NUYS, CA, US LOCATION SCAN
Dec 21, 2000 6:03 P.M. ONTARIO HUB, CA, US UNLOAD SCAN
  4:35 P.M. ONTARIO INTL, CA, US ARRIVAL SCAN
  3:18 P.M. DES MOINES, IA, US DEPARTURE SCAN
   9:24 A.M. DES MOINES, IA, US LOCATION SCAN
Dec 20, 2000 1:20 P.M. US PICKUP MANIFEST RECEIVED

The package arrived!  They were cool enough to upgrade the package for free, without my asking for it.  So, without sarcasm: thank you for fixing your error quickly and effectively.  That is a hallmark of good service.

UPS complaints, continued

Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:35:34 -0600

Well … thanks again, UPS.  Griping about UPS is becoming quite boring; at a certain point someone could justifiably ask me, “Well, what did you expect from them?  Service?”

But I won’t let this die quite yet.  UPS gets away with actions that would put most companies out of business, it seems to me.  My track record with them is abysmal: I would not be exaggerating if I said that 80% of UPS-delivered packages to me have been screwed up in one way or another.  Damage, delays, delivery people not bothering to knock on the door, delivery people literally throwing packages onto the doorstep….  This is absurd.  And it makes me more frustrated because I just keep putting up with it.

As you have probably guessed, the Christmas gift did not show up today.  I called their customer service number to pressure them into providing free Saturday delivery for me (I have been successful at this in the past.)  Not that I got a chance to this time: I reached a recording that said, and I quote,

“Thank you for calling UPS.  Due to extreme call volume, we cannot take your call at this time.”

There is not even a semblance of customer service here.  I’m at a loss as to what to do about this.  My best idea so far is this: any time an online store will only ship via UPS, I will avoid placing an order with them, and send the owners an email informing them that they just lost a sale due to their UPS shipping policy.

And that’s my rant for tonight.

UPS complaints

Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:25:38 -0600

Unfortunately, this is fairly typical of my experiences with UPS:




































Status:   Exception
Scheduled Delivery:   Dec 22, 2000
Shipped to:   THOUSAND OAKS, CA, US
Shipped or Billed on:   Dec 20, 2000
     
Tracking Number:   […]
Service Type:   2ND DAY AIR
Weight:   1.00 Lb








































































PACKAGE PROGRESS
Date   Time   Location   Activity
Dec 22, 2000   6:38 A.M.   VAN NUYS, CA, US   ROUTED INCORRECTLY AT UPS FACILITY;PKG HAS BEEN
REROUTED TO DESTINATION
Dec 21, 2000   6:03 P.M.   ONTARIO HUB, CA, US   UNLOAD SCAN
    4:35 P.M.   ONTARIO INTL, CA, US   ARRIVAL SCAN
    3:18 P.M.   DES MOINES, IA, US   DEPARTURE SCAN
    9:24 A.M.   DES MOINES, IA, US   ORIGIN SCAN
Dec 20, 2000   1:20 P.M.   US   PICKUP MANIFEST
RECEIVED

Here’s to hoping that this item, which I intend to give as a Christmas gift, arrives today….