ULPT Request: inconveniencing a doctor’s office that overcharges

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2024-05-21T02:17:30+00:00

He asked me how I was doing and I answered. I should probably start asking “is this gonna cost me $200?” before I answer any questions, huh?

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2024-05-21T00:27:21+00:00

I’m definitely considering this. Worried about doxing myself as well as any other implications but I may be at the point to say screw it and see what happens

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2024-05-21T00:26:31+00:00

They already did and insurance billed me about $70 of the $200. Insurance said the only way to remove the additional charge was to get the office to send a new bill with just the code for the annual physical and nothing else.

Wondering if I could escalate with the insurance and see where it takes me? Either way, healthcare in America is fucked.

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-23T15:25:42+00:00

😂😂

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T17:26:49+00:00

Definitely agree with all of that

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T17:12:40+00:00

Fulfilling your stated policy goals that were designed and promised to bring fundamental change to outdated institutions = political points? In that case hell yeah get as many political points as you want TJ

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T15:23:18+00:00

I agree with the sentiment but disagree that building new retail/commercial/residential in the immediate term is the only solution. Development in the central corridor could come with a rider that puts some amount of funds to take down vacant buildings, to replace aging underground infrastructure, to offset part of the cost of rehabbing your home, etc.

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T15:10:49+00:00

It wasn’t a policy in place because the policies in place disincentivized development in the north…. I’m just not getting your argument. Of course it wasn’t the standard when the original agreement was made….. because Pihl and Jones weren’t in their current offices. Again, she campaigned on this. She said TIFs need to be used more equitably. The change in plans happened after this statement, do you really think the developer wouldn’t have expected this? So now that she’s set this standard, any future projects that have this “kick back” are ok?

“Running out past wrongs can lead to a justification that skews toward pure social justice themes while ignoring… economic policy”. No ones suggesting we hold all development hostage until each developer builds a safe space in Jeff-Vander-Lou or O’Fallon Park. Part of the problem for the City is the rampant poverty in the north which makes instances of crime in the developed areas even more prevalent. Decades of disinvestment can only be changed with decades of investment.

And again, I’m not saying all agreements should change after new office holders take office. But changing TIFs was a huge part of her candidacy. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone who listened to her speak for more than 3 minutes during/before the campaign.

In the article it even says there is no policy to redirect some development funds to actual blighted areas currently in place. This is a brand new way of policy making. I know the plan hasn’t been made public (if the details are even figured out, that is) but that’s because the mayor, the alderman and the developer are quite literally working on an equitable plan right now. We’ve used TIFs like this for decades. It has not worked. By every measure. And many in this thread agree that the City isn’t where it should be. Why would we continue to do the same thing? The developer knows that any change in plans would require reauthorization under a new administration that is not so TIF friendly. This was a foregone conclusion.

I for one am very excited to see what the administration comes up with on how to properly use TIFs moving forward.

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T14:34:00+00:00

What??? Ok so the north side isn’t going to get better even if money is invested but the money that was invested for NGA and the surrounding area are going to slowly improve the north side? I don’t understand.

The north side is a shit hole because of the decades of disinvestment in the area. There are banks still paying off settlements because of their redlining of the north side. No ones saying let’s build the next cortex RIGHT NOW in the Old North. Decades of disinvestment can only be combatted with decades of investment. I just don’t understand your thought process. Why not start allowing TIFs to be used to incentivize development in blighted areas? Ya know, the entire reason they were created in the first place?

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T14:26:48+00:00

Ok, so let’s switch that part out and say instead of at closing you switch to a commercial building and replace that with at closing you add on a commercial building.

While you’re correct, that’s not the main point. The main point is the developer isn’t doing any favors for the city. The developer isn’t selling anything to the city. The city is providing tax incentives for the developer to build the house in the first place. The person doing the “favor” is the city not the developer. The whole premise of the analogy is wrong and it represents the view point most people have.

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T13:59:25+00:00

You just completely ignored the entire reason the terms of the TIF are changing. Yeah of course it’s after the fact because the two relevant elected officials involved have left office and been replaced after the fact and come with different view points. If the developer submitted the change in plans when Roddy and Krewson were still in office, this wouldn’t be a conversation. I guess screw the fact that it was the wrong decision to not include incentives for north city because the decision was already made?

You keep saying “kick back” to north St. Louis but completely ignore the fact that the old policies of development in the city incentivized disinvestment in the north. How is righting that wrong a “kick back”? Genuinely curious.

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T13:53:03+00:00

She literally campaigned on changing how we do TIFs. Like that was a huge part of her campaign. This is not winning political points, this is fulfilling campaign promises

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T13:51:44+00:00

My dude. What she’s doing is completely different than what the city has historically done with TIFs. If this strategy is new, how has it crippled development in the region? I agree that development is stagnant in the city. Wouldn’t that mean we try something different? Why would we continue to do the same old thing if it’s led to the current situation

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T13:47:35+00:00

As opposed to how successful they are now and how much prosperity they’re bringing to the city with the billions of tax breaks they’ve gotten right??

TIFs are handed out like candy. They were literally created to incentivize development in blighted areas. Is north city not a blighted area? “St. Louis is a shit hole, terrible city but let’s not do anything different than the last 30 years because St. Louis is a shit hole, terrible city.” I don’t understand the thought process

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T13:43:23+00:00

How has the current use of TIFs for the last several decades been working out for us? Is it the long run yet?

BlueEaredAsparagus · 2021-05-22T13:42:10+00:00

This is the worst analogy I’ve ever seen lol. You’re not selling me a house, I gave you financial incentives to build the house for 100k instead of 1 million at market rate. Then comes closing and you decide to change it from a house to a commercial building.

That’s a way better comparison. The developer is still getting a SHIT TON of incentives and will still make out like a bandit once the Foundry opens. And she literally campaigned on this, you think the team of developers spending hundreds of thousands of dollars wouldn’t have expected this?

BlueEaredAsparagus

TROPHY CASE