• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Credit Card Reform Rant.

if i don't know/understand something, i will ask and often do. just because i raise questions about 'status quo' it does not mean ignorance. obviously competition 'should' yeld the equilibrium between price and services but judging from how things are working out these days that might be a utopian assumption. for example- why are the health insurers fighting the 'government option' so hard? because it is a competition. a 'non-profit' insurance does not change anything in medical field- doctors make the same money, market drives development in medications, hospintals function just like they did before (or go bankrupt like they often do)- the only 'change' is that the insurer himself is not making the profit on just being the middleman, it is a 'no-value-added' industry. that kind of change is what i mean as 'social improvement', not rewarding lack of responsibility in society.
 
if i don't know/understand something, i will ask and often do. just because i raise questions about 'status quo' it does not mean ignorance. obviously competition 'should' yeld the equilibrium between price and services but judging from how things are working out these days that might be a utopian assumption. for example- why are the health insurers fighting the 'government option' so hard? because it is a competition. a 'non-profit' insurance does not change anything in medical field- doctors make the same money, market drives development in medications, hospintals function just like they did before (or go bankrupt like they often do)- the only 'change' is that the insurer himself is not making the profit on just being the middleman, it is a 'no-value-added' industry. that kind of change is what i mean as 'social improvement', not rewarding lack of responsibility in society.

The fact government officials can look the American people in the eye and actually say the government plan "increases competition" is simply disturbing. If you want "free" health care, just say so. You want those who can afford it to pay for those who cannot. It's a democracy, if people want it that way then so be it. Don't bull $hit me around with out right lies though (speaking to the officials).

Let's say there are three lemonade stands on the corner. When there was just one, the owner was enjoying a lucrative 25 cent profit on each 50 cent glass he sold. With each new stand, competitiveness demanding greater efficiency brought the price down to 30 cents per cup.

Then the government sets up a lemonade stand and not only gives you free lemonade, it takes some of the lemonade from the ****ing stands right next to it. Yeah, that's competition; like a Siberian tiger entered into a cock fighting ring.
 
Last edited:
if i don't know/understand something, i will ask and often do. just because i raise questions about 'status quo' it does not mean ignorance. obviously competition 'should' yeld the equilibrium between price and services but judging from how things are working out these days that might be a utopian assumption. for example- why are the health insurers fighting the 'government option' so hard? because it is a competition. a 'non-profit' insurance does not change anything in medical field- doctors make the same money, market drives development in medications, hospintals function just like they did before (or go bankrupt like they often do)- the only 'change' is that the insurer himself is not making the profit on just being the middleman, it is a 'no-value-added' industry. that kind of change is what i mean as 'social improvement', not rewarding lack of responsibility in society.

It is not competition. A public healthcare offering, will become insolvent because of all the inefficiencies and will start drawing money from tax payer funds. Which to some (including Barney Frank) is an unlimited money bin. :rolleyes: So of course the government run health care option can offer lower insurance premiums....because it's subsidized by taxpayer money. :eek:
Guess who's gonna pay!!!

If someone wants the government dictating their own health care destiny, that is there business...but I refuse to pay for it.

Basically what it boils down to are the bureaucrats wanting the economically responsible footing the bill for folks who can't, or for the most part, don't want to buy their own health insurance.

A "public option" will never be viable. It will never be competitive. Adverse selection will make this become a very quick reality.

Tthis seemingly small step will pave the way to fully socialized healthcare.

Where you and I are subsidizing folks who choose to smoke, choose to not wear helmets when they are on their motorcyles, choose to skydive and for folks who are too lazy to go to the gym and exercise.

No sir.
 
there is no proof that 'public option' will be subsidized in any way, just like there is no proof that insurance companies are actually 'competing'. you are getting worked up based on assumptions of 'worst case scenario'. and where did i say i wanted free health care? that would be socialized, all i want is 'fair', not getting charged amount 'x' when in fact everyone in that industry gets 'discounts' but the consumer. you are aware of the 'discounts' right? you understand that the amount you get charged is quite 'arbitrary'?
 
It is not competition. A public healthcare offering, will become insolvent because of all the inefficiencies and will start drawing money from tax payer funds. Which to some (including Barney Frank) is an unlimited money bin. :rolleyes: QUOTE]

this is what is going on now in the 'private' sector- no need to look for 'waste' in the 'government sector'.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091026/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare_waste

frankly i totally agree on charging people more for their premiums if they choose to live unhealthy lifestyles. the other day i heard i guy bitching about healthcare and how he had 17 (!!!!!!!) surgeries caused by his overweight (500+) physique. you can bet i gave him my opinion and he did not like it a bit.
 
there is no proof that 'public option' will be subsidized in any way,
:tongue:

What proof do you need? Everything started by the government gets run into the ground, Fannie, Freddie, the USPS, etc, etc.

When that happens, what the hell do you think they are going to use to prop it up? DING DING DING tax payer money!

just like there is no proof that insurance companies are actually 'competing'. you are getting worked up based on assumptions of 'worst case scenario'. and where did i say i wanted free health care? that would be socialized, all i want is 'fair', not getting charged amount 'x' when in fact everyone in that industry gets 'discounts' but the consumer. you are aware of the 'discounts' right? you understand that the amount you get charged is quite 'arbitrary'?

Lol...aren't they still in business?

When purchasing my current policy I applied online and received several quotes from different carriers. I suggest you do the same- shop around like an informed consumer.

FYI - I used to work in the insurance industry. I know exactly how it works...and I also know that there are far more people who don't want to pay for it than there are people who can't afford it.

I mean, what is this? We've become a country of whiney babies with no logic and no inclination to protect ourselves.

I'm not sure why people don't understand that the more they accept from their government, the more freedom they give away.
 
:tongue:

What proof do you need? Everything started by the government gets run into the ground, Fannie, Freddie, the USPS, etc, etc.

When that happens, what the hell do you think they are going to use to prop it up? DING DING DING tax payer money!



Lol...aren't they still in business?

When purchasing my current policy I applied online and received several quotes from different carriers. I suggest you do the same- shop around like an informed consumer.

FYI - I used to work in the insurance industry. I know exactly how it works...and I also know that there are far more people who don't want to pay for it than there are people who can't afford it.

I mean, what is this? We've become a country of whiney babies with no logic and no inclination to protect ourselves.

I'm not sure why people don't understand that the more they accept from their government, the more freedom they give away.

so far you are the one that accepts everything while i question it.
 
:tongue:

FYI - I used to work in the insurance industry. I know exactly how it works...QUOTE]

i guess this explains the unbiased view.
THEM being in business is exactly what i am questioning- lack of competition, they charge whatever they want, giving 'discounts' off their profits to those who 'qualify'. and once again, you don't read what i am saying- it is not the cost of the 'premium' but the cost of the service- the $25 aspirin pills etc that get then 'discounted' to $10 to make you feel better about getting screwed.
while you may worked for insurance i doubt you actually had to really deal with the way they do business- ask anyone working in hospital billing (like a friend of mine) or providing healthcare (like my fiancee) or someone that has to deal with repeated procedures (like myself due to a 'gift' from a drunk driver) and you will see that the 'cost' has nothing to do with premiums you pay. and once you reach a certain age, no 'insurance shopping' will save you from huge premiums anyway.
while i may not agree completely with government's involvement, there is NOTHING ELSE that will force the insurance to play fair, they will not drop their profits voluntarily. if you can't see THAT then you are arguing just for the sake of argument.


edit: and please, don't patronize me, i've been more than polite unless you want to change that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You want em to play fair? Drop the state limits on them that the goverment has imposed. Then you have 1800 INS compnies competing with each other. That's choice and competition. However this administration won't allow that. Why? Because it's not about choice and competition, it's about power and control.

This whole ordeal is an easy fix, tort reform and drop the border limitations. Instant healthcare reform. Unfortunatly it's not about healthcare reform, it never was, it's about this administrations socializing this country as quickly as possible. Remember " never let a good crisis go to waste"

google that qoute
 
excellent point- they should drop the state border limits- that has been mentioned several times already and i hope it will happen.

sorry about the diversion to 'health care', just the mention of 'existing competition' yelding results went along with the 'competition between the banks' when they all raise the rates in perfect agreement.
 
Gouging good customers, and eliminating credit availability for the less creditworthy- the folks who need/want it the most.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/17/news/companies/credit_card_rules/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If you haven't heard, big changes are soon coming for the credit card business.

The CARD Act, which was signed into law last May, will finally go into effect Monday, meaning big changes for the millions of card-carrying Americans across the country.

Among other things, it will eliminate some of the more egregious practices of the past like so-called "double-cycle billing", arbitrary rate increases and hefty fees for exceeding your credit limit.

But while the new law also promises consumers more transparency about their credit card bill, cardholders still need to watch out for a whole new series of traps and tricks.

Higher fees: For starters, consumers could suddenly find themselves socked with a variety of new fees and charges.

Banks and other card issuers have already been aggressively implementing new fees or raising existing ones to help make up for any potential revenue lost as a result of the CARD Act.

Last May, for example, Discover Financial Services (DFS, Fortune 500) announced it would start charging a 2% fee on all purchases made outside the United States.

And whereas 3% was once the standard charge for rolling over a balance from one credit card to another, issuers like JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) are now assessing customers a 5% fee, according to Bill Hardekopf, CEO of the card rating site LowCards.com.

But with the new law setting no restrictions on the types of fees issuers can implement, consumers should pay particularly close attention to the "Terms and Conditions" section of their statement so they know exactly what they are being charged for, warn experts.

"Fees are the one source of revenue that will become more and more important," said Hardekopf.

Tougher to get a card: As Congress moved closer to passing the law last spring, banking industry advocates cautioned that shaking up the status quo would mean that credit would be more difficult to come by for consumers.

So far, that seems to be playing out as predicted.

The amount of credit made available to consumers by credit card companies plunged by $252 billion, or 7%, between March and September of last year, according to IRA Bank Monitor.

Credit is poised to tighten even further. As part of the CARD Act, credit card companies will be severely restricted in how they market cards to college students, potentially shrinking an important part of their business.

But issuers are also expected to implement much more severe underwriting practices. Some may demand, for example, details on an applicant's income or proof of other savings.

Consumers with poor or even a mediocre credit history, as a result, may find it much more difficult to get a card or have their credit limit extended after the new law takes effect on Feb. 22, said Joseph Ridout of the advocacy group Consumer Action.

"I think it is fair to assume that credit card companies are going to scrutinize their potential customers a lot more closely than they did in the past," he said.

Fewer rewards: Consumers may also be increasingly unable to enjoy the fruits of their spending as a result of the new law.

It wasn't that long ago where a cardholder could easily earn credit towards a free airline ticket or cash back for every dollar spent. But issuers are now quietly becoming more stingy with their rewards in an effort to save money.

American Express (AXP, Fortune 500), for example, recently told its co-branded card customers they would not be able to accrue reward points on their purchases if they were late with a payment. Only by paying a $29 fee could they recoup those points.

To avoid missing out, experts suggest that consumers carefully read any notices they get from their credit card company about changes to their loyalty or rewards program.

"Rewards can be another way of penalizing people too," notes Nick Bourke, manager of the Pew Safe Credit Cards Project.

Rising rates: One of the biggest victories for consumers in the new law are a series of limits on how and when credit card companies can set interest rates.

Whereas in the past, banks could raise your annual percentage rate just for missing a payment on your cell phone bill or without giving a consumer much advance notice, such practices will soon be outlawed. Issuers now have to alert you at least 45 days in advance before raising your rate under the CARD Act.

The new law won't shield consumers from rate hikes altogether, though.

In recent months, banks have moved consumers over to so-called variable rate cards, whose rates fluctuate based on the direction of the prime rate. And with that rate at historic lows, experts said consumers should be prepared for at least a moderate increase in their APR at some point.

The new law also does not include any sort of interest rate cap banks and issuers can charge customers that are late on their payment by two months or more.

Credit card companies may remain reluctant to impose any usurious rates ahead of a review of penalty rates and fees by the Federal Reserve scheduled for later this year and given the public discontent for banks these days.

But that doesn't mean the days of big rate hikes are gone for good, Bourke said -- especially for consumers who are overwhelmed by debt. So experts suggest consumers should take extra care to stay current on their bills.

"The [CARD] Act doesn't absolve anyone from having to pay back their bills or take people out of harm's way if they run into trouble," said Bourke.
 
Last edited:
The only card I have that has instituted an annual fee (so far?) is my Citibank card, and they refund the fee if you spend more than $2400/yr on the card. Nonetheless, since none of my other cards are charging a fee, I'm "opting out" of the fee and closing my account. Speak with your wallet. :wink:
 
Back
Top