|
|
|
redit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors
Senate Nears Action On Bankruptcy Curbs
By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A01
For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked a
second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively
sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.
Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had
nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed
for bankruptcy last June. That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were
tardy, triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest
rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her balance
over her credit limit, the credit card companies added more penalties.
"I was really trying hard to make minimum payments," said Hosseini, whose
financial problems began in the late 1990s when her husband left her and
their three children. "All of my salary was going to the credit card
companies, but there was no change in the balances because of that interest
and those penalties."
Punitive charges -- penalty fees and sharply higher interest rates after a
payment is late -- compound the problems of many financially strapped
consumers, sometimes making it impossible for them to dig their way out of
debt and pushing them into bankruptcy.
The Senate is to vote as soon as this week on a bill that would make it
harder for individuals to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. The Senate last
week voted down several amendments intended to curb excessive fees and other
practices that critics of the industry say are abusive. House leaders say
they will act soon after that, and President Bush has said he supports the
bill.
Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an individual has filed
for bankruptcy or is hauled into court by creditors, he or she has repaid an
amount equal to their original credit card debt plus double-digit interest,
but still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of penalties.
"How is it that the person who wants to do right ends up so worse off?"
Cleveland Municipal Judge Robert J. Triozzi said last fall when he ruled
against Discover in the company's breach-of-contract suit against another
struggling credit cardholder, Ruth M. Owens.
Owens tried for six years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card,
sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997
to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28, even though, like Hosseini, she
never used the card to buy anything more. Of that total, over-limit penalty
fees alone were $1,158.
Triozzi denied Discover's claim, calling its attempt to collect more money
from Owens "unconscionable."
The bankruptcy measure now being debated in Congress has been sought for
nearly eight years by the credit card industry. Twice in that time, versions
of it have passed both the House and Senate. Once, President Bill Clinton
refused to sign it, saying it was unfair, and once the House reversed its
vote after Democrats attached an amendment that would prevent individuals
such as anti-abortion protesters from using bankruptcy as a shield against
court-imposed fines.
Credit-card companies and most congressional Republicans say current law
needs to be changed to prevent abuse and make more people repay at least
part of their debt. Consumer-advocacy groups and many Democrats say people
who seek bankruptcy protection do so mostly because they have fallen on hard
times through illness, divorce or job loss. They also argue that current law
has strong provisions that judges can use to weed out those who abuse the
system.
Opponents also argue that the legislation is unfair because it ignores
loopholes that would allow rich debtors to shield millions of dollars during
bankruptcy through expensive homes and complex trusts, while ignoring the
need for more disclosure to cardholders about rates and fees and curbs on
what they say is irresponsible behavior by the credit card industry. The
Republican majority, along with a few Democrats, has voted down dozens of
proposed amendments to the bill, including one that would make it easier for
the elderly to protect their homes in bankruptcy and another that would
require credit card companies to tell customers how much extra interest they
would pay over time by making only minimum payments.
No one knows how many consumers get caught in the spiral of "negative
amortization," which is what regulators call it when a consumer makes
payments but balances continue to grow because of penalty costs. The problem
is widespread enough to worry federal bank regulators, who say nearly all
major credit card issuers engage in the practice.
Two years ago regulators adopted a policy that will require credit card
companies to set monthly minimum payments high enough to cover penalties and
interest and lower some of the customer's original debt, known as principal,
so that if a consumer makes no new charges and makes monthly minimum
payments, his or her balance will begin to decline.
Banks agreed to the new rules after, in the words of one top federal
regulator, "some arm-twisting." But bank executives persuaded regulators to
allow the higher minimum payments to be phased in over several years,
through 2006, arguing that many customers are so much in debt that even
slight increases too soon could push many into financial disaster.
Credit card companies declined to comment on specific cases or customers for
this article, but banking industry officials, speaking generally, said there
is a good reason for the fees they charge.
"It's to encourage people to pay their bills the way they said they would in
their contract, to encourage good financial management," said Nessa Feddis,
senior federal counsel for the American Bankers Association. "There has to
be some onus on the cardholder, some responsibility to manage their
finances."
High fees "may be extreme cases, but they are not the trend, not the norm,"
Feddis said.
"Banks are pretty flexible," she said. "If you are a good customer and have
an occasional mishap, they'll waive the fees, because there's so much
competition and it's too easy to go someplace else." Banks are also willing
to work out settlements with people in financial difficulty, she said,
because "there are still a lot of options even for people who've been in
trouble."
Many bankruptcy lawyers disagree. James S.K. "Ike" Shulman, Hosseini's
lawyer, said credit card companies hounded her and did not live up to
several promises to work with her to cut mounting fees.
Regulators say it is appropriate for lenders to charge higher-risk debtors a
higher interest rate, but that negative amortization and other practices go
too far, posing risks to the banking system by threatenin
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:45:25 +0000, Tam <tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors
Senate Nears Action On Bankruptcy Curbs
By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A01
For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked a
second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively
sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.
Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had
nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed
for bankruptcy last June. That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were
tardy, triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest
rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her balance
over her credit limit, the credit card companies added more penalties.
Now this is a damn good reason, to seek help from a financial
counsler who can guide someone through the maze of companies.
I know of many who have dealt with CCCs (Consumer Credit Counsling
Services) and while they are on the side of the companies, they DO get
interest reduced, or some debt is forgiven.
Going it alone is the most foolish of choices to make. But hey, ego
has a price!
|
| |
| |
Now this is a damn good reason, to seek help from a financial
counsler . . .
The imminent end to bankruptcy law as we know it in the USA means that
more than ever, debtors should consider they options under bankruptcy
law. The credit card issuers have bought and paid for an emasculation
of the Bankruptcy Code that will give credit card debt a higher
priority than child support!
Without bankruptcy or insolvency, forgiveness of credit card debt --
including interest and penalties -- is taxable. In bankruptcy it is
not.
|
| |
| |
Gene wrote:
Now this is a damn good reason, to seek help from a financial
counsler who can guide someone through the maze of companies.
I know of many who have dealt with CCCs (Consumer Credit Counsling
Services) and while they are on the side of the companies, they DO
get
interest reduced, or some debt is forgiven.
Going it alone is the most foolish of choices to make. But hey, ego
has a price!
That makes total sense. You should pay someone who works FOR the
credit card company to help you deal with them INSTEAD of depending on
something like common sense. [ Free, eh? Does the first payment go to
reducing the debt? If not, then it's profit for them -- clear and
simple ] Let's see what the Owens case and the earlier case showed
everyone :
Credit Card companies establish a "minimum monthly payment" amount.
Now, apparently that amount is random, and is wholly unrelated to
interest rates and penalty fees and amount of principal. Most SENSIBLE
people would expect that paying the "minimum monthly payment" amount
would LOWER their debt. Well, sensible has nothing to do with Credit
Card Companies.
There is something called "age of majority" when people are held to be
legally obliged to understand all reasonable realms of law which would
be generally applicable to their lifestyle. If a majority of 100
"normal" average people think that paying that minimum would lower
their debts, then the credit card company is clearly guilty of
breaching the contract. It goes to "meeting of the minds" in contract
law.
Paying the minimum is understood by NOBODY as a means to perpetually
INCREASE your debt, thus the judge in the Owens case found the demand
for additional payments from Owens to be "unconscionable".
Many people say "the consumer should be more educated" or "read the
contracts" and (most absurdly) "the consumer isn't forced to...".
Extortive contracts are not enforcable; just because it's in writing
doesn't make it inviolate nor even binding. These people MORE than
paid their obligation. The credit card companies don't actually get a
say in what the level of obligation is -- that's up to reasonable
standards. The general standard is the principal, plus interest (up to
usually 100%) and fees of up to 30%. So if you bought something for
$1000, then paying $2500 is MORE than fair compensation. If the
company wants $4000 or more, then they are way out of line. If they
want $3000 after a majority of payments were made in a timely manner at
min monthly levels as set by their company, then it's extortive at
worst, and deceptive at best.
|
| |
| |
On 7/3/05 8:48 am, in article
1110185317.792325.100760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "urillan"
<urillan@yahoo.com> wrote:
If they
want $3000 after a majority of payments were made in a timely manner at
min monthly levels as set by their company, then it's extortive at
worst, and deceptive at best.
The answer is the million-man march, each man carrying a chain saw, to visit
the homes of the CEOs of these crooked credit-card issuers.
What they are spewing out is worse than dope.
|
| |
| |
Why am I not suprized that the Washington Post ran an article about
"poor helpless" credit card "victims", but never said anything about
personal responsibility. I don't feel sorry for someone who lives
beyond their means then ends up with huge credit card bills, etc.
|
| |
| |
On 7/3/05 2:37 pm, in article
1110206249.014392.165110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
"scott_z500@my-deja.com" <scott_z500@my-deja.com> wrote:
I don't feel sorry for someone who lives beyond their
means then ends up with huge credit card bills, etc.
Almost all those who file bankruptcy do so because of (1) illness
(uninsured) medical bills, (2) job loss, (3) divorce, (4) catastrophe
(uninsured auto crash, fire, etc.)
Credit card debt normally becomes unpayable because the money budgeted for
that is collected by debt collectors for the hospital. Then the late fees
and over-limit fees (OFTEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE LATE FEES) escalate the
debt, doubling and tripling it.
You have your head in the sand.
Bankruptcy as it has been known since 1870 is about to come to an end: it
will be available only to the very rich and to corporations who will still
be able to steal your pension and get away with it.
Lots of people think like you. Just as lots of people think that those who
get abortions are sinful and should die. Until their daughter (1) gets raped
and pregnant, and the rapist steals her car and wrecks it, and (2) she loses
her ability to work, can't pay her bills, and (3) has to file bankruptcy.
Social workers and psychologists see this every day of the week.
As the dollar collapses and peoples' savings are wiped out, it's hard to
feel sorry for them when they voted on the issues of (1) abortion, (2) gay
marriage and (3) deadbeats "stealing" from rich banks. Instead of on issues
that count.
|
| |
| |
In article <BE522074.5C9F1%biwah@hotmail.com>,
Biwah <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/05 2:37 pm, in article
1110206249.014392.165110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
"scott_z500@my-deja.com" <scott_z500@my-deja.com> wrote:
Almost all those who file bankruptcy do so because of (1) illness
(uninsured) medical bills, (2) job loss, (3) divorce, (4) catastrophe
(uninsured auto crash, fire, etc.)
Credit card debt normally becomes unpayable because the money budgeted for
that is collected by debt collectors for the hospital. Then the late fees
and over-limit fees (OFTEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE LATE FEES) escalate the
debt, doubling and tripling it.
You have your head in the sand.
Bankruptcy as it has been known since 1870 is about to come to an end: it
will be available only to the very rich and to corporations who will still
be able to steal your pension and get away with it.
Lots of people think like you. Just as lots of people think that those who
get abortions are sinful and should die. Until their daughter (1) gets raped
and pregnant, and the rapist steals her car and wrecks it, and (2) she loses
her ability to work, can't pay her bills, and (3) has to file bankruptcy.
Social workers and psychologists see this every day of the week.
As the dollar collapses and peoples' savings are wiped out, it's hard to
feel sorry for them when they voted on the issues of (1) abortion, (2) gay
marriage and (3) deadbeats "stealing" from rich banks. Instead of on issues
that count.
Arguing with Scott over this issue is like farting in the wind; a waste,
you know?
|
| |
| |
On 7/3/05 2:37 pm, in article
1110206249.014392.165110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
"scott_z500@my-deja.com" <scott_z500@my-deja.com> wrote:
Almost all those who file bankruptcy do so because of (1) illness
(uninsured) medical bills, (2) job loss, (3) divorce, (4) catastrophe
(uninsured auto crash, fire, etc.)
And uh... so?
Last time I checked, credit card companies weren't in the business of
providing medical/unemployment/auto/fire insurance. You pay other companies
and providers for those services. Those services don't come with your credit
card (if they did, the process of qualifying for a credit card would be far
more onerous) so why should people be able to use bankruptcy as way of
forcing a credit company to provide de facto bailouts for these disasters
when you never paid them for that service?
|
| |
| |
Why am I not suprized that the Washington Post ran an article about
"poor helpless" credit card "victims", but never said anything about
personal responsibility. I don't feel sorry for someone who lives
beyond their means then ends up with huge credit card bills, etc.
Only the most uninformed, and those paid for their ignorance, are
complaining about credit card abuse. The majority of bankruptcy cases
present with a divorce, illness, loss of employment, or a combination of
those things. I'm also seeing more and more elderly folks.
These people don't abuse credit cards, they have a serious financial
problem, rely upon available credit, their situation doesn't improve or gets
worse, and they finally can't service their debts. It'll be a sad when the
nation turn its back on them in favor of putting a few more dollars in
Capital One's account. Even more sad when you consider that these banks
already have effective remedies for fraudulent credit card use.
I don't feel sorry for banks that lend so much unsecured money to such risky
debtors, charge premium interest rates (and "fees") to offset their
recklessness, then complain to Congress when their debtors predictably
default. I do appreciate their marketing campaign, though. They've managed
to turn themselves into the victims.
|
| |
| |
On 7/3/05 3:54 pm, in article
9P_Wd.342761$w62.194989@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "SpammersDie"
<xx@xx.xx> wrote:
Last time I checked, credit card companies weren't in the business of
providing medical/unemployment/auto/fire insurance.
That's no reason why credit card companies should have a higher priority for
their claims than child support. Or why credit card companies should be
immune to having their claims discharged in bankruptcy when car loans, among
other things, indeed every other debt except alimony, child support and some
tort claims and taxes can be discharged.
You are changing the subject. Or you simply don't know what you are talking
about. Bankruptcy has been with us since Biblical times, and in the fashion
we now have it, more or less, since 1776.
The banks bribed Congress with $40 million to get this law passed. That is
why it is despicable. It's bribery, nothing less.
I look forward to seeing YOU selling The Big Issue, homeless and hungry. Ha
ha ha.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:54:45 GMT, "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
And uh... so?
Last time I checked, credit card companies weren't in the business of
providing medical/unemployment/auto/fire insurance. You pay other companies
and providers for those services. Those services don't come with your credit
card (if they did, the process of qualifying for a credit card would be far
more onerous) so why should people be able to use bankruptcy as way of
forcing a credit company to provide de facto bailouts for these disasters
when you never paid them for that service?
And when the new bankruptcy law is passed, we'll see lower fees and
lower penalty interest rates from the CC companies, right?
|
| |
| |
In article <BE505785.5BDD4%tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca>,
Tam <tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors
Senate Nears Action On Bankruptcy Curbs
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court awards Citibank $381,000,000 taxpayer
dollars in its suit against the U.S. government over the Savings & Loan
bailout (you know, the crooked financial disaster that occurred during
W's father's term, costing the country almost $150,000,000,000 so far).
Sheesh. No wonder we can't afford Social Security or Public Broadcasting.
<http://tinyurl.com/5qv49>
Citi sued US for 908.5 million taxpayer dollars, but won only the
eensy-weensy amount shown above. What's that, a couple of bux for
everyone in the country? Not too bad, huh?
Isn't that great? Now there's an expenditure George Bush II would
happily raise taxes to pay, especially if he can raise them on the
middle class or poor.
And hey, there's lots more such payouts waiting in the wings. How about
we just GIVE a percentage of all our income to the banks. Sort of an
offering, you know? Like in church. We can tithe to the bank of our
choice.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:42:42 GMT, bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
In article <BE505785.5BDD4%tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca>,
Tam <tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court awards Citibank $381,000,000 taxpayer
dollars in its suit against the U.S. government over the Savings & Loan
bailout (you know, the crooked financial disaster that occurred during
W's father's term, costing the country almost $150,000,000,000 so far).
Maybe you should try reading some history before you spout nonsense.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-england.html
|
| |
| |
On 7 Mar 2005 00:48:37 -0800, "urillan" <urillan@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is something called "age of majority" when people are held to be
legally obliged to understand all reasonable realms of law which would
be generally applicable to their lifestyle. If a majority of 100
"normal" average people think that paying that minimum would lower
their debts, then the credit card company is clearly guilty of
breaching the contract. It goes to "meeting of the minds" in contract
law.
Paying the minimum is understood by NOBODY as a means to perpetually
INCREASE your debt, thus the judge in the Owens case found the demand
for additional payments from Owens to be "unconscionable".
Ever heard of a "negative amortization" loan? They're commonly used by
people who are buying a more expensive home than they can (currently)
afford.
Anyone with a brain understands such things.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
(See http://tinyurl.com/6efhd)
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:15:00 +0000, Biwah <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/05 2:37 pm, in article
1110206249.014392.165110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
"scott_z500@my-deja.com" <scott_z500@my-deja.com> wrote:
Almost all those who file bankruptcy do so because of (1) illness
(uninsured) medical bills, (2) job loss, (3) divorce, (4) catastrophe
(uninsured auto crash, fire, etc.)
Was that supposed to be some sort of rebuttal?
YES, there are legitimate reasons to file bankruptcy. Living beyond
your means and burying yourself in credit card debt is not one of
them.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
(See http://tinyurl.com/6efhd)
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:02:13 -0500, The Etobian <pdcorcoran@msn.com>
wrote:
And when the new bankruptcy law is passed, we'll see lower fees and
lower penalty interest rates from the CC companies, right?
It's hard to get lower than the $0 I currently pay...
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
(See http://tinyurl.com/6efhd)
|
| |
| |
In article <4tko40tn9jhvm1qb06ovdq7put5ieocfd0@4ax.com>,
Gene <Gene@nowhere.com.> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:42:42 GMT, bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
Maybe you should try reading some history before you spout nonsense.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-england.html
Right. The day the Cato Institute serves up valid American economic
"history" lessons is the day white extremists provide accurate lessons
on the Holocaust.
Anyone who's interested in wading through that wordy, bizarrely
tortuous, decidedly fringe screed should try this first: go to the URL
above and search for the word "junk". Next, try a search for the word
"bond".
You will find no mention of either word.
|
| |
| |
On 8/3/05 3:17 pm, in article jfgr21lt0rfufsob42dimr7gko69lm7h4l@4ax.com,
"Scott en Aztln" <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
And when the new bankruptcy law is passed, we'll see lower fees and
lower penalty interest rates from the CC companies, right?
It's hard to get lower than the $0 I currently pay...
You didn't get hit crossing the street legally by an presumably uninsured
hit-and-run joy rider, lose your job, have no money to pay your medical
bills much less your credit card bills.
|
| |
| |
On 8/3/05 3:13 pm, in article m3gr21dpgvv2d2nll0ngv1mu5hj9dpahsh@4ax.com,
"Scott en Aztln" <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
Ever heard of a "negative amortization" loan? They're commonly used by
people who are buying a more expensive home than they can (currently)
afford.
Anyone with a brain understands such things.
Non sequitur.
Troll.
|
| |
| |
On 8/3/05 11:31 am, in article 4tko40tn9jhvm1qb06ovdq7put5ieocfd0@4ax.com,
"Gene" <Gene@nowhere.com.> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:42:42 GMT, bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
Maybe you should try reading some history before you spout nonsense.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-england.html
Anything Cato says is, of course, agenda-riddled rubbish.
Still, a search on the Free Supreme Court web site
http://www.lexisone.com
shows no case remotely similar to what is being claimed. And the Supreme
Court doesn't "award" anyone anything. With minor exceptions (states can sue
each other in the Supreme Court as court of first instance; the Supreme
Court can, if it wants, issue an order but normally would not deign to do
it) it decides issues of law and lower courts decide cases based on that.
What credit card issuers will find to their chagrin is that when -- even
after having paid two or three times the borrowed amount in interest and
fees, and being hit with some family tragedy cardholders can't go bankrupt
-- they still "can't pay, won't pay".
And at least with a bankruptcy discharge behind them, debtors became credit
card customers again -- usually at first for the bottom-feeding outfits like
Providian.
Now the poor and destitute will just have to use cash. Or a family member's
debit card on which they are signatory.
The Credit card crooks have, unsurprisingly, shot themselves in both feet
this time with their $40 million bribe of Congress.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:02:13 -0500, The Etobian <pdcorcoran@msn.com>
wrote:
It's hard to get lower than the $0 I currently pay...
That which is full becomes empty, and that which is empty becomes full.
|
| |
| |
In article <BE537B6F.5CE69%tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca>,
Tam <tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Still, a search on the Free Supreme Court web site
http://www.lexisone.com
shows no case remotely similar to what is being claimed
Yes. Well, that's probably because the SCOTUS declined to hear the case,
effectively giving Citigroup the win. Here's a quote from the Reuters
story (at this url: <http://tinyurl.com/5qv49>):
"The justices let stand a ruling that upheld $381 million in damages
awarded against the government while denying an additional $527.5
million sought by Glendale Federal Bank, which is now part of Citigroup
Inc. (NYSE:C).
"The high court rejected without any comment separate appeals by
Glendale and by the government over the damages that had been awarded.
"The dispute stemmed from efforts in the 1980s by federal bank
regulators to encourage investors and healthy thrifts to take over
failing savings and loans by allowing them to circumvent normal capital
requirements.
"When Congress ended this so-called supervisory goodwill in 1989 as part
of its nearly $150 billion rescue of the industry, a number of merged
thrifts found themselves technically insolvent, some failed and they
later brought a number of lawsuits against the government."
There is no question that a massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to
corporate interests is underway NOW at the same time that the individual
borrowers are being squeezed out of their last dime by the scurrilous
removal of bankruptcy protections.
All the more shameful when the lending industry's record-breaking
profits (**$30,000,000,000** NET last year) are taken into account.
With a high FICO score and sterling credit history, I should probably
share Scott's draconian opinions on this issue. But all I see ahead
under current and pending legislation is financial hell for most
victims...uh, I mean, "citizens" and accelerated destruction of the
middle class in this country.
|
| |
| |
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
With a high FICO score and sterling credit history, I should probably
share Scott's draconian opinions on this issue.
Dunno about that. I meet these qualifications, yet somehow manage not
to buy into that "blame the victim" mentality.
|
| |
| |
Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors
Senate Nears Action On Bankruptcy Curbs
By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A01
For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked
a
second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively
sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.
I refuse to feel sorry for anybody with 25,000 in Credit Card debt.
I can help them by converting that debt to mortgage debt, but beyond that,
they have to sleep in the bed they made.
|
| |
| |
"Jeff Strickland" wrote
I refuse to feel sorry for anybody with 25,000 in Credit Card debt.
Some people might be very envious of that - if it's all at 0% !!
|
| |
| |
I refuse to feel sorry for anybody with 25,000 in Credit Card debt.
Nobody cares whether you feel sorry for anybody. Whether or not that
person has suffered from disease, accident, bereavement or anything
else.
The point of bankruptcy law, that everybody seems to have forgotten, is
to enable people to get back to productive work, paying taxes.
If they can't keep creditors at bay, then they will not work. They will
(1) abscond or go abroad, (2) stay at home, working part-time for cash
to buy food, (3) live under a phony name, (4) become criminals, (5)
die.
Society has an interest. So do the credit card issuers, but they seem
to have lost the plot. They will come to regret their $40 million bribe
of the Congress that others have written about.
What you or I think matters not a whit, although I have known people
who were scammed into "investing" in Lloyd's of London and used
bankruptcy to get out of being a "negative millionaire" as The New
Yorker Magazine called them. Many people owe money only to scammers who
have hired such clever lawyers that the scammers win in the courts.
Credit cards are a minor issue compared to hospitals, which charge
ininsured sick people and parents of sick children 2 or 3 times what
they charge insured people. I have insurance -- and although I rarely
go to a doctor in the USA, my daughter did recently. The insurance
company didn't pay, but the bill was 1/2 of what it would have been if
we'd been uninsured because the doctor was a PPO, whatever that is.
Imagine if the bill had been $1 million and not $142.
Funny how people vote "on principle" and how they lose their
"principles" when something bad happens to them or a loved one. It's
easy to oppose: abortion, divorce, bankruptcy, drugs, homosexuality ...
steadfastly ... until the issue gets close to you.
Here's a fun site:
http://www.godhatesfags.com
Wonder what the disbarred lawyer-reverend there, Matthew Shepard,
thinks of bankruptcy.
|
| |
| |
I refuse to feel sorry for anybody with 25,000 in Credit Card debt.
Nobody cares whether you feel sorry for anybody. Whether or not that
person has suffered from disease, accident, bereavement or anything
else.
The point of bankruptcy law, that everybody seems to have forgotten, is
to enable people to get back to productive work, paying taxes.
If they can't keep creditors at bay, then they will not work. They will
(1) abscond or go abroad, (2) stay at home, working part-time for cash
to buy food, (3) live under a phony name, (4) become criminals, (5)
die.
Society has an interest. So do the credit card issuers, but they seem
to have lost the plot. They will come to regret their $40 million bribe
of the Congress that others have written about.
What you or I think matters not a whit, although I have known people
who were scammed into "investing" in Lloyd's of London and used
bankruptcy to get out of being a "negative millionaire" as The New
Yorker Magazine called them. Many people owe money only to scammers who
have hired such clever lawyers that the scammers win in the courts.
Well, if you make your investments iwht your credit cards, yoiu deserve all
that you get. You are making a risky investment all the more risky, and the
downside is very bad indeed.
Credit cards are a minor issue compared to hospitals, which charge
ininsured sick people and parents of sick children 2 or 3 times what
they charge insured people. I have insurance -- and although I rarely
go to a doctor in the USA, my daughter did recently. The insurance
company didn't pay, but the bill was 1/2 of what it would have been if
we'd been uninsured because the doctor was a PPO, whatever that is.
Imagine if the bill had been $1 million and not $142.
This is 1.) beside the point, and 2.) not true.
There was a story just this week where an insured family was billed over
$3500 for a special t-shirt and a back brace. The total cost by the hospital
to purchase the items was around $700, but the patient was billed $3500.
Why? Because he had insurance and the hospital knew that the insurance
company would not dispute the charges.
A PPO, Preferred Provider Organization, is a network of hostipals, doctors,
and insurers that have teamed up to control costs. It is essentially an HMO,
Health Maintenance Organization, but is a little more liberal in that the
patient has more choices.
Funny how people vote "on principle" and how they lose their
"principles" when something bad happens to them or a loved one. It's
easy to oppose: abortion, divorce, bankruptcy, drugs, homosexuality ...
steadfastly ... until the issue gets close to you.
Please try to stick to one issue at a time, and do not try ot presume how
people will behave to completely unrelated events.
|
| |
| |
Why argue about who or what is to blame for excessive credit card debt? It
is a statistics game for credit card companies...just like Vegas. The house
always has the advantage. You are paying for your own "default insurance"
in the form of high interest rates. If you suddenly cannot make one credit
card payment, all the others "cut their losses" by reducing your credit line
and jacking up your interest rate even though you faithfully paid on their
card. Soon you find yourself not able to make any of their minimum
payments. Let's see... should I pay the mortgage or the credit card
companies this month?
But I am just a statistic, so go ahead and kick me and call me
irresponsible. I'll see you when you are in my shoes, Mister 0%. You are
not so far away from where I used to be. You better have AFLAC, no family,
and a savings account with at least a $5K balance at all times.
--
I refuse to feel sorry for anybody with 25,000 in Credit Card debt.
Well, if you make your investments iwht your credit cards, yoiu deserve
all
that you get. You are making a risky investment all the more risky, and
the
downside is very bad indeed.
This is 1.) beside the point, and 2.) not true.
There was a story just this week where an insured family was billed over
$3500 for a special t-shirt and a back brace. The total cost by the
hospital
to purchase the items was around $700, but the patient was billed $3500.
Why? Because he had insurance and the hospital knew that the insurance
company would not dispute the charges.
A PPO, Preferred Provider Organization, is a network of hostipals,
doctors,
and insurers that have teamed up to control costs. It is essentially an
HMO,
Health Maintenance Organization, but is a little more liberal in that the
patient has more choices.
Please try to stick to one issue at a time, and do not try ot presume how
people will behave to completely unrelated events.
|
| |
| |
On 8/3/05 10:05 pm, in article At2dnbzYYK4ovLPfRVn-pg@ez2.net, "Jeff
Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
There was a story just this week where an insured family was billed over
$3500 for a special t-shirt and a back brace. The total cost by the hospital
to purchase the items was around $700, but the patient was billed $3500.
Why? Because he had insurance and the hospital knew that the insurance
company would not dispute the charges.
Gotta laugh when people post stories without a URL or other reference.
I just Googled on Web and News for
<insured family billed 3500 t-shirt back brace>
If there were any truth to the urban legend there would have been a hit.
The facts -- the peer-reviewed studies -- show that insured people pay far
less than uninsured for ER and other hospital care.
|
| |
| |
On 8/3/05 10:05 pm, in article At2dnbzYYK4ovLPfRVn-pg@ez2.net, "Jeff
Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
Gotta laugh when people post stories without a URL or other reference.
I just Googled on Web and News for
<insured family billed 3500 t-shirt back brace>
If there were any truth to the urban legend there would have been a hit.
Even if there wasnt truth in it there would have been a hit :-)
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
| |
| |
| |
