![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiper#1, they can't get their facts straight between people who work the regular claims line. I have been told by different phone droids on different calls regarding claims that because I am on extended federal benefits I should make a minimum of either three OR four contacts a week to be eligible for benefits.
#2, hammering a clue home to their adjudicators apparently takes an extra special giant-sized cluehammer. I have received the same damn form twice now pertaining to a 'question' about my benefit eligibility for the period beginning 6/15, which was the Monday of last week. I filled this form out and had![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
solarbird fax it in, and had a devil of a time trying to make the woman I just spoke to understand that I HAD ALREADY FILLED OUT THIS FORM AND WHY DID I GET IT TWICE?!
She finally got the clue, though she couldn't tell me anything more constructive than that she'd tried to find the person who MIGHT have worked on my claim. Who, of course, had gone home for the day. No doubt while I was on hold for about SIX YEARS.
#3, the guy I spoke with yesterday told me that I would not be eligible for benefits for the week of 6/15-6/21 due to not having met the minimum number of contacts. BUT THEY SENT ME A CHECK, and now the stupid website claim thing says they have overpaid me by $142.
Which, I might add, contradicts the information from the woman I just spoke with, who says I was overpaid by $350 and change.
Aren't they GREAT, folks? Let's give 'em a BIG HAND!
#2, hammering a clue home to their adjudicators apparently takes an extra special giant-sized cluehammer. I have received the same damn form twice now pertaining to a 'question' about my benefit eligibility for the period beginning 6/15, which was the Monday of last week. I filled this form out and had
solarbird fax it in, and had a devil of a time trying to make the woman I just spoke to understand that I HAD ALREADY FILLED OUT THIS FORM AND WHY DID I GET IT TWICE?!She finally got the clue, though she couldn't tell me anything more constructive than that she'd tried to find the person who MIGHT have worked on my claim. Who, of course, had gone home for the day. No doubt while I was on hold for about SIX YEARS.
#3, the guy I spoke with yesterday told me that I would not be eligible for benefits for the week of 6/15-6/21 due to not having met the minimum number of contacts. BUT THEY SENT ME A CHECK, and now the stupid website claim thing says they have overpaid me by $142.
Which, I might add, contradicts the information from the woman I just spoke with, who says I was overpaid by $350 and change.
Aren't they GREAT, folks? Let's give 'em a BIG HAND!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-06-26 04:59 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-26 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-26 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-26 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-26 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-26 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-27 06:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-27 07:22 am (UTC)(Although I must admit that they are in fact neither the least passionate nor the least intelligent of toys, those honors being reserved respectively for the ever-equable weebles and the canonically airheaded whiffle ball; nevertheless, I believe that the principle of turning to that portion of the inanimate kingdom that lives its live squatting in a suffocating sea of sugar, corn, and preservatives, waiting endlessly for the day a kid opens the box, eats the food, opens the toy surprise package, and says, "What the heck is this?" is sound.)
Re:
Date: 2003-06-27 08:56 am (UTC)Hrmm. Then again, that WOULD be pretty surprising...
no subject
Date: 2003-06-27 04:37 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-27 08:17 pm (UTC)