Wash Post: Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors

Gotta laugh when people post stories without a URL or other reference. I just Googled on Web and News for

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.

Even if there wasnt truth in it there would have been a hit :-)

Only 5k? That isn't nearly enough. If you think you can get by with only 5k in the bank, then you are destined to suffer BK. When you grow up, you will find that it takes at least 100k, and this is just the start.

You seem to paint the credit card companies as the Bad Guys here. This is a fatal mistake on your part. Nobody is standing in the check out line behind you holding a kinfe to your back forcing you to buy that 70" Plasma TV with Surround Sound.

That was the excuse I gave my wife.

Absolutely right. Anybody who does not have net worth of several millions is not worth thinking about. Let him die.

God has selected those who will have money and those who will have power and those who will have wisdom and those who will have beauty and those who will have grace. The others should accept their station in life, and die quietly.

Nobody is forcing anybody to take on debt. They should die. Before dying, they should muffle the screams of their starving children.

Nobody is forcing anybody to commit a crime. China has the right idea. We should bring back the death penalty for all felonies and major misdemeanors. A bullet in the back of the neck, immediately after trial, is appropriate.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take drugs. Singapore and Malaysia have the right idea: the penalty for drugs should be hanging.

Liberals and commies should die. We want a one-party Christian Republican State, a free democracy where everybody chooses to be saved and everybody chooses the status quo and all the little people pay all the taxes. And, when their time comes, die quietly, without demanding expensive medical care, which should be reserved for those who can afford to pay.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh.

The rest is just trolling, so I snipped it. I hope you don't mind ...

I don't know if anyone else saw this but I did remember reading a newspaper article where a woman was brought to court because of a credit card debt that she owed. The judge found out that the fees were so exhorbitant that he dismissed the whole case - meaning the woman didn't have to pay anything.

I'm just wondering if this will start some kind of trend?

Rose

Grant Basics 101!

Well of course they do "Pay" less...But that doesn't reduce the "Costs" of the treatment.

Ruth M. Owens. Story picked up by the wire services and published in all the papers (well, perhaps not the Washington Times and the other pro-Bush papers, at least not without a different slant):

Mentioned in LA Times editorial: Municipal Court Judge Triozzi's bio & photo are here: The judgment is not online, but one could presumably order a copy by ringing the clerk at (216) 664-4870 Discover might appeal (out of spite if nothing else), and there's no telling what will happen then. Without seeing the judgment I can't comment on its strength.

Not likely.

Discover was born of Sears, Roebuck, the firm heavily sanctioned for violation of bankruptcy law again and again:

Class action: Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 231 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2000)

And a typical bankruptcy court sanction: Willhite v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Bankr. N.D. Cal. 6/28/1988 Discover was among the firms that so generously bribed Congress to pass the legislation ending bankruptcy as we know it.

Having known many families distressed through no fault of their own, I can only be amused at the knowledge that so many of these people who should out viciously that "pacta sunt servanda" will, themselves, one day be wishing they hadn't. Nearly 1,500,000 bankruptcy cases are filed annually. That is

1/2 of 1% of the US population. Over a lifetime of 80 years, that's what percentage of the population???

Jeff- for the record you were wrong on both assumptions you made about me based on my message. Chances are you are wrong about other things as well.

He's just a troll. One of them that falls in "Angry Troll" category.

Ignore 'em.

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in news:- snipped-for-privacy@ez2.net:

Anyone who charges rates that high is a shark, period. Some are legal, others not. The first kind, i.e. the credit card companies, will at least not send someone around to break your legs when you can't pay, which is a mercy, but that is the beginning and end of the difference between them.

Rates higher than a certain level create a disproportionate probability that those who fall behind will never catch up. The Ancient Romans at one time had a law prohibiting loan interest above ten percent. Historians amongst us may note that they varied that limit a little over the years, but I'd say they had the right idea. That was probably about the right number too. If a limit like that meant the death of the credit card history it would be no great loss.

If the credit card companies want it to be harder to claim bankruptcy, then I say turn about is fair play, so bring back the usury laws and let them have no more than ten percent from their customers. See how they like that!

Actually, the guys who buy credit card issuers' bad debts for pennies on the dollar are known to threaten rough stuff. They don't seem to worry about violating the laws relating to bill collecting activities and the hours they can call. And apparently because they now own the debt they aren't bound by them.

sufaud wrote in news:BE5A2C00.5ED75% snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com:

Apparently less difference than I thought, then.

Absolutely. It has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's like saying "ever heard of secured options"? It's like understanding how electricity works, it's nice to know, but has nothing to do with standard credit agreements.

As anyone with a brain knows, any attempt to purchase into a "negative amortization loan" must be mutually conveyed. Thus, by LAW in all states, it's to be empirically stipulated (by all contractual parties) that the specified amount being paid is insufficient to EVER bring down the payment.

At best, one would only enter such an agreement where the interest rate is expected to fall, thus you KNOW and ACCEPT the risks.

Standard credit agreements are, however, understood to specify minimums which would not result in greater debt. Credit isn't gambling. If you follow their instructions, then you should be both mutually benefitted, not suffer personal, perputual financial injury to the parasitic benefit of the other party without any recognizable meritorious personal advantage.

Anyone with a brain understands such things, as the judge obviously agreed with that summation. It's about reasonable person, not about esoteric financial tools.

Both assumptions? I made no assumptins at all. YOU said that a person needs

5k in the bank. I said that the figure needs to be much higher. YOU suggested that a person with credit problems got that way because of the actions of credit card issuers, I suggest they got that way because of their own irresponsibility.

If one buys a house or a car , then looses a job, they have serious problems that came about mostly NOT due to irresponsibility. But when one buys a Giant Screen on a Visa card, that is not something that should be taken lightly. Most BKs come from simple over extension of credit, or over use of the credit that has been extended. Sometimes, the BK arises out of out of control medical expenses, and when this happens, I would agree that the credit cards should be forgiven, or stretched out so the burden is easier.

Credit card debt is easy to get, it should be difficult to get out of or credit costs for the rest of us will continue to rise.

Angry? I'm not angry.

I just think that credit is a matter of responsibility. I use my credit properly and have to pay for those that use theirs irresponsibly.

Everybody is bitching about the high cost of credit but they think that BK should be easy to get. BK means that the credit company has to write off the loss, but we all know that the mitigate the loss with high rates. Remember, credit card debt is unsecured, so the credit companies can't come get the stuff that was purchased on credit if the purchaser fails to make the payments. That means that the rest of us have to pay higher rates to cover the losses.

The fact is, hospitals charge insurance companies much more than the supplies cost them. This is because they (the hospitals) get stiffed by uninsured patients and the insured patients cover the losses.

Uninsured patients have higher costs that insured patients IF one only looks at that the patient pays. If one considers what the insurance compaines pay on behalf of the insured patients, it would be seen that insured patients get billed more because there is a payor standing by with an open checkbook.

How do you know so much about the causes of most bankruptcies?