Why Credit Card Companies are so Mean

[Neil]

Otherwise you are asking the country to subsidize your junk-food assisted suicide.

And the government should do exactly that.  Anything else is totalitarian crap.

[alfred russel]

Credit card debt is not a nonexistant problem--if you don't believe me do a search for "US consumer debt economic impact".

Obesity is not a nonexistant problem either - does that mean the US Congress should pass laws in a useless effort to force people to quit being fat by targetting people who sell them food?

Just because a problem exists does not mean that the government should go and "fix" it. They suck at fixing problems, and excel at creating new and more complicated ones.

It is not the job of congress to protect you from yourself.

What is going on right now is a bit of bait and switch.

So don't fall for it.

If Congress MUST get involved, let them spend some money educating people.

A few years ago there was an offer for a card with 5% back on restaurant purchases. I travel a lot and take people out for business--with 5% back I could make a decent amount off the card. They got me to sign up, and a couple months later I got a notice that they were changing the terms and I didn't get 5% back anymore.

Oh noes!

But I still have the card, though I haven't used it in years, but I guess if I ever get in financial distress they may get some interest payments out of me.

So what should Congress do to protect you from yourself?

Under your plan, the CC company would have canceled your card, right?

If you want the card canceled, why not just cancel it yourself?

It is deceptive marketing. This wasn't the only example something like this happened.

Deceptive marketing? What other kind of marketing is there?

I'm susceptible to the argument that people need to look out for themselves and we don't need predatory lending laws. Someone takes on credit card debt in excess of their annual income, at 30%? Someone takes a mortgage with monthly payments they can't make? In either case I have a tough time seeing the person taking on the debt as a victim. But what the real world is making abundantly clear is that a  lot of people will do those things, and when they do they have real world impacts that affect everyone in adverse ways.

[Valmy]

And the government should do exactly that.  Anything else is totalitarian crap.

Then the health care system would break down and not be sustainable.

The problem is you just removed a big reason alot of people have to care for their health: fear of health care costs.

It is the effect of government programs.  People are going to fuck with them so you have to attach strings to protect the integrity of the system.  It is the reason we put in Welfare Reform to try to cut back on abuse.

You never get something for nothing.  There is no such thing as 'Free Health Care'.

[Malthus]

The laws Congress should be concerned about as far as protecting consumers should mostly be limited to disclosure laws - making certain that business arrangements are made with full disclosure and in good faith. Those I can support.

While I would generally agree, I think a main concern (and not an unjustified one) is that consumers are not really capable of knowing what to make of the flood of information they get - particularly financial information concerning such things as credit cards, insurance, mortgages,  and investments - the really important financial transactions of everyday life that affect everyone. 

MORE disclosure may make the situation worse and not better, producing yet more details that the consumer is likely to neither read nor understand. While in perfect world where people had infinite time to read disclosure statements and the ability to master the often quite complex terms and conditions contained in them it would make total sense to have a perfectly free market combined with mandated disclosure, in reality such a system is likely to run up against the inability of the cosumer to undestand the choices he or she is presented with.

[Valmy]

Who gives a fuck about individual liberty! Big Brother will let you know what is healthy for you! After all, he is the one paying for it all!

x infinity.

If big brother gives you money he has power over you.

It is something to consider if the government is going to have compulsory universal health care.  Then they will have the right to regulate everybody's health.

Insurance companies do it by charging higher premiums to those who are overweight or smoke or whatever...but the government cannot do that.  So they will use the law.

[Malthus]

Who gives a fuck about individual liberty! Big Brother will let you know what is healthy for you! After all, he is the one paying for it all!

x infinity.

If big brother gives you money he has power over you.

It is something to consider if the government is going to have compulsory universal health care.  Then they will have the right to regulate everybody's health.

Insurance companies do it by charging higher premiums to those who are overweight or smoke or whatever...but the government cannot do that.  So they will use the law.

I so far have failed to notice the government of Canada sending Tim Hortons diners to re-education camps, in spite of socialized healthcare ... maybe that is still to come. 

[alfred russel]

It is deceptive marketing. This wasn't the only example something like this happened.

No, it is deceptive if they didnt actually provide you with the service or if they did not give you notice that the service would stop.  They did give you the service and they did send you a notice that it would no longer continue.  At that point you were able to make a choice.

I'm sure you are correct from a  legal point of view. The problem is that I strongly suspect that someone issuing the cards had the idea, "we'll give 5% cash back on this activity, watch the first few months of customer behavior, and reevaluate whether we want to continue that reward for the customer." So they give me the card, see a few catered lunches go through, and cancel my reward.

That is fine, but I'd rather have cards that are more steady, even if they offer lower rewards at the outset. Berkut complained about the nuisance of a canceled card: but what about the nuisance and hazard of getting a card at a low rate, having the rate jacked up by a change in terms?

[crazy canuck]

Regulating the sale of junk food actually makes more sense.

I think if you decide to use government backed health care you should be required to eat right.  Otherwise you are asking the country to subsidize your junk-food assisted suicide.

But I am not particularly interested in having the government regulate people who do NOT use government backed health care, because who cares what they eat?  But maybe there are no longer such people anymore.

That reasoning doesnt make much sense to me.  The Business of government is to legislate for the good of all its citizens.  If regulation junk food makes sense because it improves health then surely it would be immoral to protect some segments of society but not others.

In other words, why do you think the protection of society needs to boil down to an economic benefit to the government?

[alfred russel]

The laws Congress should be concerned about as far as protecting consumers should mostly be limited to disclosure laws - making certain that business arrangements are made with full disclosure and in good faith. Those I can support.

While I would generally agree, I think a main concern (and not an unjustified one) is that consumers are not really capable of knowing what to make of the flood of information they get - particularly financial information concerning such things as credit cards, insurance, mortgages,  and investments - the really important financial transactions of everyday life that affect everyone. 

MORE disclosure may make the situation worse and not better, producing yet more details that the consumer is likely to neither read nor understand. While in perfect world where people had infinite time to read disclosure statements and the ability to master the often quite complex terms and conditions contained in them it would make total sense to have a perfectly free market combined with mandated disclosure, in reality such a system is likely to run up against the inability of the cosumer to undestand the choices he or she is presented with.

This is a good point.

[Valmy]

I so far have failed to notice the government of Canada sending Tim Hortons diners to re-education camps, in spite of socialized healthcare ... maybe that is still to come. 

Well Canada does that by ruthlessly regulating health care costs, my understanding is that is only feasible because of the high prices down there.

I have my doubts we could do the same.  But I could be wrong.

[alfred russel]

Who gives a fuck about individual liberty! Big Brother will let you know what is healthy for you! After all, he is the one paying for it all!

x infinity.

If big brother gives you money he has power over you.

It is something to consider if the government is going to have compulsory universal health care.  Then they will have the right to regulate everybody's health.

Insurance companies do it by charging higher premiums to those who are overweight or smoke or whatever...but the government cannot do that.  So they will use the law.

What a terrible concept.

Why should junk food be regulated, when I can still hang glide, mountain climb, and watch TV all day?

Health care reform doesn't mean that the government has a vested interest in every health related aspect of your life, and thus gains a measure of control over it.

[Valmy]

That reasoning doesnt make much sense to me.  The Business of government is to legislate for the good of all its citizens.  If regulation junk food makes sense because it improves health then surely it would be immoral to protect some segments of society but not others.

In other words, why do you think the protection of society needs to boil down to an economic benefit to the government?

I am not that comfortable with limiting freedom.

I suppose what they might actually do is put a tax on unhealthy food (like they have enormous ones on cigarettes..but I think those are State Taxes and vary by State and not Federal ones) and use that to fund the health care system.  They are already talking about that for soft drinks.  In some way or another regulation of what we eat is coming.

[crazy canuck]

The problem is you just removed a big reason alot of people have to care for their health: fear of health care costs.

If the only reason Americans have for caring for their health is the "fear of health care costs" then you have big problems.  B.C. has one of the healthiest populations around and there is no fear of health costs.  I wonder why that is.

[Malthus]

The problem is you just removed a big reason alot of people have to care for their health: fear of health care costs.

If the only reason Americans have for caring for their health is the "fear of health care costs" then you have big problems.  B.C. has one of the healthiest populations around and there is no fear of health costs.  I wonder why that is.

CC makes a good point - Canucks aren't more overweight and unhealthy than Yanks, in spite of a lack of fear of health care costs.

[Valmy]

If the only reason Americans have for caring for their health is the "fear of health care costs" then you have big problems.  B.C. has one of the healthiest populations around and there is no fear of health costs.  I wonder why that is.

Intersting, you took my saying 'big reason' and changed to 'only reason' and then attacked that instead.  Congrats on BC and its healthiness.  I think our Pacific Northwest is similar.

Yes we do have big health care and health problems if you hadn't noticed.