March 01, 2005

• Total sell-out of individual citizens to corporate interests. Big surprise, coming from the current batch of politiclowns.
• Sir, you are speaking to a deadbeat!
• What ever happened to government of, by and for the people? Sacrificed on the corporate alter long, long ago. . . We live in a corporate fiefdom where we endure lives as endentured servants to corporate america. . .
• Those clowns in Congress have done it again. What a bunch of clowns!
• Well, get in touch with them and let them know you disappreove.
• I vote that they should have to wear big red noses when Congress is in session. And Dick Cheney should have a big frown painted on his face at all times.
• I vote that they should be forced to wear horns and forked tails while carrying pitchforks so their constituents know who those douchebags really serve. . . .
• E-mailing my congresswoman now. Also, fuck this shit.
• "The War on Poverty is over. The poor lost."
• I'd like to wait for F8 to show up, so I can rail against a conservative for this. This is what happens when the people in the government get the message that the business of government is business. It is not. It is to provide a collective avenue for the protection of its citizens, and that protection includes financial protection. This comes out of the same ideology that tells us that privatization is the way to go with regard to Social Security, and that Right To Work is the way to deal with labor. Us liberals need to stop favoring gun control and start favoring public militias that are armed and rioting against those fools and plutocrats that would see Americans toil away in debt slavery. (And no, I'm not a Marxist, thanks).
• Not all conservatives agree with this legislation, js. Port arms, for now? I would take this opportunity to remind everyone that (a) credit card debt is financial cyanide, and (b) only you can make the decision to take, or not take, that cyanide. Exercise some fiscal responsbility, and shred the credit card applications unopened. Bait only works if you bite.
• I'm confused, and not up to reading all the PDF links to find out - what exactly does this legislation propose to change?
• In a nutshell, as I understand it, it proposes to make changes to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy that currently allow a person to free themselves of *all* debt to instead be required to pay credit card debts over time, much like Chapter 11 and/or 13 bankruptcies require. I'm not sure if the leg proposes that Chapter 7 bankruptcies be altered to require *all* creditors be paid back, but it definitely mentions credit card companies. The idea being, most chapter 7's are people who have run up huge credit card debts, and then use the bankruptcy to effectively negate them. What is not mentioned is that the penalty for doing a chapter 7 is basically seven full years of NO credit whatsoever, which sounds kind of weak but is actually a HUGE deal. Don't know if the legislation proposes removing that penalty from Chapter 7 in exchange for retaining/restructuring the debt.
• Yes, credit card irresponsibility is a problem, but how about the recent study which found that half of all U.S. bankruptcies are due to unpaid medical bills. Catastrophic illnesses and accidents send people spiraling into debt from which they can't recover, especially as they're already under the weather. And most of those filing bankruptcy DO have health insurance, btw. My point being, it's not all about some jerk maxing out his credit cards on gold-plated cigarette holders and junk food. Though I'm sure there are those who'd like to paint it that way. (Not necessarily you, Fes...I know you were responding to a previous post.)
• Honestly, I don't know why the laws needed changing. The way they are now provides a one-time "out" for people in over their heads. Plus, even with the current system, many people still loose (lose?) their houses & vehicles, and in chapter 7, possessions (sold to pay debts). My husband & I filed for a chapter 13 last July (we didn't qualify for a 7, and besides, we wanted to keep the truck), whereupon we learned a bit about the bankruptcy process. First, we had to pay $750 of the $1,200 lawyer's fee up front (many lawyers require the *entire* fee up front). Then, if you make too much money, you won't qualify for a 7. If you do qualify for a 7, you can only file once in a lifetime. I believe the same is true for a 13, but not sure. In both a 7 and a 13, the filer must list *all* possessions (including pets!), and for a 7, if the worth is deemed too small, nothing is taken. For a 13, if the worth is deemed too small, the unsecured debt is "wiped out", as our bankruptcy lawyer put it. We now pay $500 a month for the truck, trustee fees, and lawyer fees. From start to finish, we had to have several meetings with our lawyer, fill out buttloads of paperwork, and go to court. Not a fun process, especially court, where lots of very personal questions are asked in front of a lot of people. To me the current system seems fair - it doesn't favor individuals over companies, nor the other way around. Filing for bankruptcy gives people a one-time chance to undo all they did in their stupid years, with the understanding that from the point of filing on, life must be lived more responsibly. I've only read a little about the proposed changes, but what I've seen I don't like. Right now, people are more burdened with debt than ever before, and taking away their one out will have drastically negative effects on our society as a whole.
• No, I agree with you, TenaciousPettle, I think the idea of the gold-plated credit card abuser, like that of the welfare queen before it, is a nice ripe target but in reality an infinitesimal incidence. The penalties for filing a 7 are just, imo, too severe for it to be used with impunity. And the catastrophic illness aspect rings true. It seems very interesting, that all these things are so interrelated - bankruptcy laws and credit cards to catastrophic illness and health insurance. It's almost Unified Field Theory-esque, and I'm not ashamed to say that I don't have a clue as to what the root problem might be or how to fix it. Other than stay healthy, get the best health insurance you can (long term care, especially!) and eschew credit card debt.
• ...National Health?
• I don't know about the Unified Root Cause either, but both the debt/debtor sick/insurance dichotomies seem to put the individual in a weak position on one side, the corporations in a strong position on the other. Conspiracy theorists would say this legislation is aimed at making that arrangement harder to dislodge--giving the debt holders more power, the indebted less recourse. Is there a conspiracy theorist in the house?
• ...yet without profits, whither R&D? And is putting the same government that has proposed these bankrupcty laws in charge of health care a wise idea? Honestly, I just don't know.
• Well, not THIS same government, obviously.
• Corporations will always have the upper hand, in that they are able to influence legislators far more easily and effectively than individuals. It should come as no surprise that, in the legislative battle of you and I versus the Company, you and I are going to get our asses handed to us. At the same token, the Company does not have the right to vote. We (theoretically) have the upper hand. The problem being, of course, that 40% of individuals exercise that right, while 100% of companies exercise theirs. This government, the last government - they are all comprised of the same people, or at least the same TYPE of people, with the same weaknesses for money and power. Those who do not crave money or power do not find themselves in politics, they become cabinet makers and poets.
• So idealism is dead, and nobody's ever in it to try to do good for people anymore, eh? I thought maybe two politicians, or one, might still be good people who go there to help. Foolish, I know, but it's the romantic in me. :) I agree that corps. always have more money and power, but in the past there have been mechanisms by which the little guy could rise up and effect change. Civil liberties and a government that cared about them, unions, etc. I see stuff like this as trying to remove the possibility of change, the old orwellian boot-in-the-face again and again, for all eternity. Whoa, I guess Idealism IS dead...
• Bait only works if you bite. Or if you're starving.
• That's fucking insane, minda! I filed here in Canada, and all that was required was two brief meetings with a bankruptcy trustee, signing eight documents, and a $90 payment to start the process. No court appearance, and the bankruptcy will be discharged in 9 months. I'll still have the cloud of bankruptcy no-credit doom over my head for 7 years, but in my case, I'm relatively little affected. Remember me posting about the bogus tax bill of $9000 they were trying to claw out of me? Gone. Now I pay my taxes for 2005 on monthly installment, based on a percentage of my income. Not required, but a good idea. I also have two counselling sessions to attend, but these are essentially me agreeing with my trustee that credit cards are a soul-sucking plague and payday loans a giant rip for maybe 15 minutes. On the way to my first session, I checked my mail, then read it in the waiting area before my appointment. They'd sent me a re-assessment of my taxes; $917. Heh. Too late, you bastards. You declare what you have, but they aren't creepy about it (pets!?) and you are allowed that which you require to make a living. I did not have to sell or give up anything at all. Now I send them $165 a month and a monthly accounting of my income and expenses until the total fee of $1665 is paid, and that's it.I'll still have my student loans to pay, but not during the bankruptcy period - roughly a year. Man, they are screwing you over bad. That really sucks, and now it's getting suckier :(
• moneyjane, we weren't too happy about the fee, but since it did such a huge amount of good in our lives we didn't complain too much. We owed right around $6,000 in unsecured debt, but we were paying so much every month (damn finance charges & interest rates were astronomical) we weren't able to do things like buy new clothes or go grocery shopping regularly. We couldn't make all the payments each month, either, so I'd have to choose which bills to pay and which ones would be put off, which meant MORE finance charges & interest. You're in Canada, aren't you? I need to look into the particulars of moving there. You guys actually do good things, while Americans can only talk and dream about them.
• minda I was in the exact same position financially, except I had about $43,000 in total debt, with about half in student loans, and was paying $700 a month for about a year to a credit counselling place as I tried to go the consolidation route first. Expensive city where I need to be to earn my living, plus running a business with zero capital made it impossible. Bills and healthy food were what I often ended up cutting from the budget. I'm so glad I filed. I feel like I'm a person again.
• Moneyjane -- are student loans dischargeable in Canada? Here in the US, student loans can't be discharged unless "substantial hardship" can be proven.

• I would take this opportunity to remind everyone that (a) credit card debt is financial cyanide, and (b) only you can make the decision to take, or not take, that cyanide. Exercise some fiscal responsbility, and shred the credit card applications unopened. Bait only works if you bite.

  And I would reply that the same applied to companies offerring credit. But it doesn't. That's what stinks to high heaven about this; companies have made a fortune pushing easy credit, even to people who are bad credit risks, in the good times. Now those people are in danger of defaulting, said companies have bought a new law to change the rules of the game. It's blatant corruption, and it makes a mockery of your legislature, and the idea of responsibility for ones' own actions. Why worry about running your business well, when you can just buy laws to ensure profit?
• (a) credit card debt is financial cyanide, and (b) only you can make the decision to take, or not take, that cyanide. I agree 100%, but would like to add that the credit card companies are the ones who took a chance, or made a business decision. Potecting business from deadbeats is not a bad idea, but why only some? Shouldn't the same legislation include any business that could be prone to loss from the same sorts? What about say housepainters, shoe salesmen, or (fill in the blank)? What's good for one should be good for all, no?
• Moneyjane -- are student loans dischargeable in Canada? They sure the hell aren't - and you have to pay them sooner or later, no matter what - a woman in my city had collection agencies on her ass even though she'd been in an accident and was now quadrapalegic. If that isn't substantial hardship, I don't know what is. Pricks.
• She's just easier to catch now.
• Tracicle! You've been very bad! and that was funny.
• ...yet without profits, whither R&D? And is putting the same government that has proposed these bankrupcty laws in charge of health care a wise idea? Honestly, I just don't know. A great deal of research is already government and non-profit supported, through grants and universities. Also, National Health Care would have little effect on pharmaceuticals (who give most of the rest of the funding, even for non-drug research like epidemiology), unless they were separately capped on prices. I can't think of any private, for-profit hospitals or health insurance companies doing research, and I'm currently at a major research university, and used to work in medical research (albeit Canadian, but I was in charge of pulling articles, got aware of where they were coming from - still mostly universities). The current American system is very inefficient - Americans pay a higher proportion of their GDP than any other OECD country, and the US government itself already spends close to the median [Reference] (I don't know is that includes grants for research, or just programs like medicare and medicaid). The difference in price is not largely research - studies have found much more spent on administration than in single payer systems. With a switch to a single payer, it is very likely that the US could offer more coverage, and still have money left over to support research at current levels. Pharmaceutical costs and research is a separate issue - drugs outside of hospitals are not covered by all national health care systems, notably not in Canada; companies are still private. When most people talk National health care they are talking about hospitalisation and doctor visits. People still face very bad times with serious illness in Canada (loss of employment, high drug costs, though there are some subsidies programs for the highest costs, like AIDS), but at least they don't face hospital bills in the 10s of 1000's. /health-care derail, brought back to relevance by the last sentance
• Oh, great, a loophole for the wealthy.

• And is putting the same government that has proposed these bankrupcty laws in charge of health care a wise idea?

  Well, a glance at the available objective data on health care would tell you that Americans spend more money for health care and get worse results than most developed nations with public health systems. Now admittedly, given the level of corruption and incompetance US citizens appear to accept from their government, it may get badly ballsed up.
• Like I say, I honestly do not know. Though I am a firm believer in the free market, health care seems at once both far too important to leave to the sometimes-callous vagaries of supply and demand and at the same time far too regulated for the market to operate effectively to create competition and lower prices (not even to mention the idea of health care purveyors keeping their customers sick to ensure continued revenue, ack...) It is my belief that the profit motive in American medicine has allowed this country to be a source for medical innovation and invention, and I would like to see that continue. But I do not like to hear the far-too-common tale of people with no or minimal health insurance having to sacrifice all they've worked for their entire lives to deal with a single catastrophic incident, or families bankrupted by a parent whose Alzheimer's requires constant care. When it comes to buying toothpaste, let the market decide the price. But the health of nation's citizenry, like it's defense or safety, is just too serious an issue to leave to a cobbled-together hodgepodge of insurance companies, providers, myriad government agencies and programs, and employers.
• It is my belief that the profit motive in American medicine has allowed this country to be a source for medical innovation and invention, and I would like to see that continue. I'll agree with that. Profitability really drives R&D. I'd also argue that at least 80% of medical innovations and inventions over the last decade have done nearly nothing to improve public health significantly (and I think that's a conservative figure). Take those maybe-they'll-kill-you-maybe-they-won't anti-inflammatories that keep making the news. I've never seen a single study that proves that any of them are more effective than Tylenol or Advil. And the costs of R&D drives up drug prices. Also, look at social security -- administrative costs are far smaller than those for any private investment. SS would be in fine shape right now if the gubmint would stop taking the funds and not paying them back. So it's possible that a government-based health care system could work well and efficiently, if it's properly implemented.
• But, like Social Security, a government-based health care system would be just as subject to political footballing as Social Security is (hence my previous question: do we want these mutts in charge of fixing and running our health care?) The only potential solution that comes to mind would be that of an independent, non-governmental oversight apparatus, through which funds would flow but over whom Congress would have no direct influence (something like Fannie Mae, perhaps?)
• Well, either that or the funds would have to be locked up by federal law to prevent the government from leaching them with a hollow promise of repayment. There are precedents for this. IIRC, the funds for highway repair and improvement in Tennessee are locked up that way -- legally declared sacrosanct and untouchable for any reason other than road work. Personally, I think the same thing should happen to SS as well.
• If would have to be more on the SS model - you can't effectively budget for health care (I mean, you can, sure, but what happens if, say, that avian flu shows up? or a natural disaster causes a spike in injury). It would have to have a constant flow of dollars coming in and going out, like SS, with the ability to hold a reserve or requisition additional funds to meet spikes in demand. It's that last part (the reserve) in SS that gets Congress' mouth watering. Honestly, I don't think that a modern Congress would create a true lockbox for health care, anymore than they would wean themselves off SS surplusses.
• I suffer from a chronic disease (type I diabetes) for which I think the free market stifles R&D, at least as far as research toward a cure. There's tons of development of new and better ways to treat and manage diabetes, better sweeteners, faster blood glucose monitors, more attractive insulin pens, etc--but try getting funding for something that might CURE the disease, and it's not easy. The cynic in me says the reason for this is that curing a disease in this case is not profitable--you make much more money selling test strips and insulin for life than you would selling a one time fix. The economic interest is to treat, not cure. On the other hand, in countries with National Health systems, the interest goes the other way. Treating diabetes and other chronic diseases costs loads of money every year, straining resources. Therefore it's in their interest to do the research and development toward a cure, thus easing the burder on the system and, as a neat side product, HELPING PEOPLE. I've always believed that the cure for diabetes, if it comes, will come from overseas, just for this reason. However, there are such things as philanthropists. For instance the Lee Iacocca foundation is raising money for research into a promising type I cure but has to do it privately, as the American Diabetes Assoc. and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and the federal government perversely will not consider funding. Lee has an interest b/c his wife died of type I complications. They need $11mil for clinical trials, a drop in the federal bucket, but no dice. Meanwhile, private R&D is going toward building a better erection, cuz that's where the money is. Incidentally, if you'd like to help me enjoy a banana split in my lifetime without going into a coma, you can find more info here and donate here. Tell all your diabetic friends.
• I don't think it's just diabetes, TP. What diseases have actually been cured lately? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that's been truly 'cured' since the discovery of pennicillin. Lots of treatments...a few good immunizations...but no real cures.
• rocket88: Polio was eradicated post-pennicillin. But, again, not a privately funded initiative. Conctraceptives were a major public health win, but the first contraceptive pill was developed out of philanthropic funding. So yes, I'd be kind of interested to know which significant health issues have been made to go away by big pharma and private healthcare generally, especially ones that weren't, eg, developed at a publicly funded university and then sold to said companies. It's commonly alleged drug companies (publicly owned ones, any way) spend far more on advertising and marketing than on R&D.
• I hate to contribute to the derail, but I have to say rodgerd has brought an interesting point up: pharma companies spend far too much on advertising. They also spend too much valuable time researching better E.D. pills, anti-depressants, upset-tummy medicine, etc. If all that time, care, and money went into researching cures, we'd be one hell of a healthy nation right now. As it is, we're expected to choke down all kinds of chemicals with our food, then when it makes us sick, fix it with another chemical which will bring about side-effects for which we need to take yet another chemical to relieve. The whole thing is ridiculous, in my opinion. Anyway, I read a Wired article (can't find it now, of course) about Cuba's pharmaceutical industry, and how they're working on cures instead of hair-regrowth chemicals, and how, because of their system of government, they don't care about patents or the dollar sign on the bottom line. Very informative article, and I'll admit, it made me a bit jealous.
• Benjamin Franklin never patented any of his inventions, though the stove/etc. would have made him rich. He wanted them available for the Public Good. I just hope that, like contraception, once a good treatment/cure for diabetes is out there the pharma corps will jump all over it in a mad dash to make as much money as possible before the cow dries up--thus making the treatment more readily and cheaply available. But like I say, I figure the cure will come from elsewhere. BTW, the diabetes research referenced above is very interesting--it posits the possibility of a cure without stem cells, etc., which would be gold for the current admin if they didn't care about money...
• Bottom line is that while the profit motive and the goal of optimum public health may overlap here and there, they're fundamentally different things. Apparently the U.S. is more interested in profits than public health.
• George is ready to sign the bill 6 months until it goes into effect
• fuckers.
• Heh, just caught a snippet of this on CNN while waiting in line at the bank just now: they were showing an interview of some executive with a national US department store chain [I missed that bit of info]. When asked if the new bankruptcy reforms would equal a savings passed on to consumers [i.e., lowered consumer product prices], the executive coolly replied that, "No, prices will remain unchanged. Rather, we will be making our 21% interest credit card more widely and easily available to consumers." [not an exact quote, but to the best as I heard it] They also had a brief, and disheartening, piece on a single mother who between jobs, lost medical coverage for herself and her son for a period of 72 hours. Sadly, her son experienced a serious seizure during this brief moment of non-coverage. The ensuing hospital bill grew to a staggering amount that was impossible for this woman to cope with, and forced her to declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Under the new law, such a case would not be elgible for protection. sounds like an effective solution to me!
• sounds like an effective solution to me! Only if you're the patient and not the credit card company. If you're the CC co., it's the best possible solution! Keep deadbeats like this "working mother" from stiffing you on your "outrageously usurious interest rates"™ Incidentally, usury is a sin. The OT puts it right up there with buttfucking as a straight-to-Sheol-Express ticket. Not that anyone cares.
• *removes blended-fabric shirt*
• Ok, wait a minute! My impression in that one of the biggest reasons for bankruptcy is people using their credit cards beyond what they can pay down. These are (apparently) grown up folks who read the terms of their lenders' policies, knew what the interest rates were, and CHOOSE to max out their cards, relying on luck to get them out of a bad spot. And, if that's allowed, the lenders will raise the interest rates of those who use there cards wisely. They are in the business of making money! If they weren't, none of us would have credit cards. If that's abhorant to you, maybe you should go back to paying cash for everything you buy. If I CHOSE to buy something on credit, I'd bloody hell have to take responsibilty for having done so. So, yes, there are situations like the "72 hour emergency" which should have some consideration in the law, but, in general, caveat emptor!
• path: that's the impression that supporters of this bill want you to have. However, according to recent research, at least half if not more of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical emergencies--EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION HAD HEALTH INSURANCE. If we wanted to be progressive we could treat the causes of bankruptcy rather than punishing the symptoms, but hey...punishment is more fun.
• And, if that's allowed, the lenders will raise the interest rates of those who use there cards wisely If you believe they're going to lower rates b/c of this, I wish I had your innocence and idealism.
• TenaciousP: Well said... The "72 hour emergency" example illustrates the dangers posed by these new "reforms." There are no provisions for such a case; the new laws apply a "means test" to the party in question. If you meet or exceed your state's median income, then you're going to be stuck paying out your debt. In the case of this single mother [while although unemployed for 72 hours, she exceeded her state's median income margin]. Say that your state's median income level is $28K. This unfortunate medical incident occurs and leaves you with medical bills totaling $300K+. Now, how do you expect an individual with income at or near the median income level to pay that off without putting their livelihood in jeopardy? I think the coming years will be very telling with respect to the state of medical care in the US [and another notch in the downfall of America IMO] caveat emptor! To a degree, yes. But this is overlooking a systematic problem within the credit card industry: the marketing of credit cards. I tend to view the CC industry similarly to the tobacco industry in the recent decade. The way CC companies target teens and college students, many of whom are not financially mature and able to make wise decisions as such. Look at the fastest rising group of credit card debt, it's coming straight from those ramen-eating youngsters who fall easy prey to dangled lures. [Hell, how else are you going to afford all those fancy cell phones, laptops, branded-engineered jeans and late-night feasts??] There should be mandatory credit card management courses in all elementary schools. [I would say high school, but from my latest observations, many high schoolers are already charging their meal at Mc Donalds]
• you're mad because I charged the hookers, aren't you. No, no. I can tell. ;)
• Judge takes Congress to task in bankruptcy case
• A Morally Bankrupt Bankruptcy Law
• There's no excuse for that kind of legislation, with the exception of ignorance or evil.
• Why do you hate the troops, petebest and homunculus? Why??