Are Credit Rating services a De Facto discrimination on the poor and unfortunate?

Aside from this being a non sequitur, how exactly can a hospital attorney nail one to the wall ? I will grant you that your credit rating can take a hit from a hospital bill, but beyond that what can a hospital attorney do ?

 

Not in our area. The hospital business office collections manager does the suits. It doesn't take a high-powered attorney. You went to the hospital or you didn't. If you did, you are presumed to owe them the money unless you can refute specific charges. Most folks who show up admit they went, but most folks don't bother showing up. The courts churn through these cases as fast as the judge can scrawl.

 

You left some out.

5. You can be innocent and have your credit score go down, just by being married:

“You have probably caught that Visa credit card commercial in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband.
The punch line is that she could have won all that stuff she rung up on the plastic. But the reality behind such behavior is hardly a laughing matter.” (Rene a. Guzman, San Antonio Express-News Jan. 12, 2005 12:00 AM)

“The Federal Reserve's rule told credit card companies that they no longer can consider household income when assessing the creditworthiness of an individual who applies for his or her own card. Under the rule, only an individual's own salary or other income -- rather than combined household income -- can be considered.”

Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...cards-household-income-1282.php#ixzz3WiwAm9JK

The poor certainly should not get married, and especially not get a mortgage with a spouse, because they can become a “consumer” (slave) for purposes of debt collection on household debts (they have no right to know about or stop from happening), all thanks to the Democrat inhuman vampire monsters:

“U.S. Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, and Louise Slaughter, D-NY, both among the principal authors of the CARD Act, said the rule ‘goes beyond the intent’ of the law and ‘represents a serious risk for women in abusive domestic partnerships.’" Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...cards-household-income-1282.php#ixzz3Wivmh5r8

In addition, around that time, the FED in cryptic fashion testified before Congress that banks relied upon such credit card slavery to loan to small business. So in essence poor slaves are subsidizing business.

 

An unpaid medical bill that has gone to collection will ding your credit rating for a maximum of 7 years, not your entire life. Negotiating a payment plan with the creditor will prevent this. The new FICO scoring method gives unpaid medical debt less weight than other types of debt in determining your score. Your ability to receive said services (insurance, housing, etc) hinges on your ability to pay your bills on time, and your overall fiscal responsibility, which is reflected in your FICO score.

Your personal responsibility is also reflected there, and may be of interest to a potential employer. So, if your potential employer wants to run a credit check on you as a condition of employment, you can decline the job. If, based on your qualifications, you are VALUABLE enough to him, he will hire you anyway.

It's important to point out that none of these are made unavailable due to a poor FICO, they only reduce your options.

 

But you were using YOUR example, and then concluding that poor people could never have done that, and thus concluding that credit ratings are unfair. Of course a poor person couldn't come up with $5000, but there are a myriad of ways that a poor person could establish a credit rating, and that doesn't have to entail having such a large amount of money upfront. I get the feeling that if you were trying to argue that credit ratings are not unfair, that somehow you would have known to make the distinction between you investing $5000 into a pre paid account, and what is the bare minimum that a poor person would have to do to establish a modest credit history. Since the $5000 figure speciously implies unfairness because a poor person could never do that, you decided to let the incorrect implication stand. I don't see that as a mistake. I see it as a purposeful exaggeration because it supports the argument you were putting forth..

As I said before, If you want to complain about how the current credit rating is determined, then take that up with them, its not my gig, or simply avoid seeking credit altogether. If you want to say that credit ratings should not exist, I would rightfully call you short sighted.

 

"It is perfectly possible to be brought unconscious and unknowingly into a hospital and wake up owing outrageous amounts of money..."

Reading is fundamental.

 

Then you owe the money. It is not just possible, it is reality.

 

Excellent argument for socialized medicine.

 

There are lots of arguments for it. There isn't any way to pay for it.

 

Why?

Being brought unconscious and unknowingly into debt was the purpose of my post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=475723&p=1066645665#post1066645665


Why do you bring them unconscious and unknowingly into debt, if they are not paying the rich for it? We could just efficiently end such debt slavery by redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine.

 

credit insurance may be a worthwhile, capital investment.

in my opinion, the Only thing wrong with EBT cards, is that they cannot be used with financial planners.

 

?yOU DONT READ MUCH HUH? They wait, let you forget, move etc. Then they send subpoena to old address. YOu miss court date. You owe, and if you don't pay, you get into CRIMINAL TROUBLE.

They use unscrupulous techniques.

 

some on the left are advocating for equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed.

 

A person CANNOT get into criminal trouble for lack of payment of a hospital bill. There is no such thing as debtors prison. You have made this criminality aspect up in your head. A lawyer can get a civil judgement and that is the extent of it. In fact, the ability to fight a charge in court is for the protection of the patient, without the court date, the civil judgment is already rendered via ones credit report. Since you thought these people are subject to criminality, you should be relieved to learn that isn't in play.

I read plenty thank you. Do you ?

 

Lawyer gets wife to forge your signature on the deal, and the judge that takes your failure to comply with the deal you do not know about never attempts to contact you before garnishment; then the other judge says, “they got their money,” while smiling and ordering anger management for threating to gut a lawyer like a fish.

 

you can lose your license, under our current regime.

 

I say this is 100% unequivocally false. Prove that you can lose your license due to a medical bill. "Name that tune".

It wouldn't surprise me if some state were to have some constitutionally tenuous ability to take away someones drivers license due to non payment of child support because that's not a civil judgment, but for a medical bill ?.....no way. I look forward to seeing your supporting evidence for this claim. If that ability were to exist, I would agree that is wrong.

 

A reasonable person wants to live so it is is a reasonable conclusion that they would consent to medical treatment if awake, therefore there is implied consent. The same responsible person would know that they would be billed for services they receive. Go to medical school and give away your services for free if you so desire.

 

Illogical, if they have implied consent to debt there could also be implied consent to socialized medicine.

What rights do you have to not be brought unconscious and unknowingly into debt or socialism?

The law that caused this end to debt slavery was an accident against the intent of the Vamps:

“The Federal Reserve's rule told credit card companies that they no longer can consider household income when assessing the creditworthiness of an individual who applies for his or her own card. Under the rule, only an individual's own salary or other income -- rather than combined household income -- can be considered.” http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=475723&p=1066645665#post1066645665

The innocent manager of the household, by law forbidden to manage how much debt it has without divorce, does not have a chance to prevent being blackballed by the credit-reporting overseers.

Your gubermint supports debt slavery, and blackballing of the innocent by overseers, and higher interest rates to those their industry ruins and drives into poverty. Why should you have rights to be free of a slave revolt and forced redistribution or higher tax rates and socialism?

We should just assume you have implied consent to forced redistribution or higher tax rates and socialism, because you assumed others gave implied consent to debt.

 

Yes.

There is an excellent article on this very subject in the October issue of Discover magazine. It's by Cathy O'Neil, author of a new book entitled Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (published by Crown Publishers). Based on the article, I'm looking forward to reading the book...

 

The problem mentioned appears to be unrelated to the Federal Reserve rule. The wife spending money on her personal credit card doesn't affect the credit score of the husband using his own personal credit card to my knowledge because the two lines of credit are independent from each other. She can only qualify based upon her income and he can only qualify on his income because household income can't be used by either person.

Household money management is a responsibility of both the husband and the wife. It appears that the problem identified is related to failure to properly manage the household income and that can happen regardless of the income of the household.

Not sure why people like to blame Democrats or Republicans for the problems because both share responsibility. Some focus on a single law based upon partisanship when, in truth, it's numerous laws that ultimately create the problems.

Personally I believe it's far more important to focus on what to do to fix the problems as opposed to the blame-game related to where the problems originated. Of course, in all of this, we must also pay attention to both the responsibilities of the individual/household and the financial institutions that also have responsibilities.

Of course this is based upon my Libertarian ideology where "liberty and responsibility" are co-dependent upon each other. We should never have the "liberty" to act "irresponsibly" and this principle holds true regardless of whether we apply this to the person or to enterprise. .

 

Sorry, that is not true, I was space saving and left out the other part:

“Amendment Allows Consumers Who Are 21 or Older to Rely on Accessible Income for Credit Card Applications

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) updated existing regulations to make it easier for spouses or partners who do not work outside of the home to qualify for credit cards. Today’s amendment, first proposed by the Bureau in October 2012, allows credit card issuers to consider income that a stay-at-home applicant, who is 21 or older, shares with a spouse or partner when evaluating the applicant for a new account or increased credit limit.

“Stay-at-home spouses or partners who have access to resources that allow them to make payments on a credit card can now get their own cards,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s final rule is an example of the Bureau’s commitment to working with consumers and financial institutions in order to ensure responsible access to credit for American families.”

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) became law in 2009. The CARD Act requires that card issuers evaluate a consumer’s ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing a credit limit. Under current CARD Act regulations, a card issuer generally may only consider the individual card applicant’s independent income or assets.” http://www.consumerfinance.gov/news...ome-spouses-and-partners-to-get-credit-cards/

 

Trying to fix a problem (2005):

Neither Feeney or Kosmas responded to this:

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

I only do that Dem thing depending upon mood, I have quite often attacked the Republican Vampire usurers too, and Tea Party, who said, “debt in a marriage,” is a State matter and the State did not respond just like Republican Feeney and all Republicans since.

A Libertarian also opposed to any law said, "the FED does not set DTI."

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm) http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com...ns-to-subprime-borrowers-and-other-new-rules/

 

Take your house, your car, every possession, and garnish your wages...and if you are not working, get you incarcerated and make you pay by work release for prisoners.

 

That has to be a State I never lived in. I do know of someone who was put in jail back in the 70’s for failure to pay debts, but that county in Georgia was dry in the 60s. I am pretty sure they can’t touch the house in most States.

They will garnish everything above and beyond a judge’s order, if they so desire, meaning that if you owe $30,000 and put $35,000 in the bank they will not let you have the $5000, regardless of what the judge’s order says; you have never seen the judge because you have no right to face your accusers, and because the agreement to pay was forged with the help of a lawyer. Maybe you will have to attending anger management for the six credit cards you did not know your income was paying for, after you threaten to gut a lawyer like a fish. They will take Veteran’s benefits and Social Security, all of it, recall the house payment on the 9th that you paid on the 3rd, and was said to be paid on the 5th, along with any other bills paid, and their legal department will laugh at you until the consumer financial protection bureau contacts them, then they will give you a check for all they took while the teller stares at the monitor for 15 minutes confused as to why you have a check from the bank given you by the specially for you bank manager when her screen is telling her to take it. Remember to take a breath.

I was thinking of how unfair it must seem to the poor.

Imagine you walk into a fast food place for #3 the spicy chicken sandwich, and the guy in front of you gets the #3, and pays $5, you walk up and they charge you $6 because they don’t like you. Maybe you walk up and they say they can sell you the #2 nuggets but not the #3, or cannot sell to you at all because someone does not like you. You also could walk in with the spouse and they will sell you the #1 salad, but not the #3, because the spouse has without your consent used your income to buy the #4 double patty with cheese and bacon, therefore your household income will not support you buying the #3.

What law was passed for unequal protections?

You may never have been given the opportunity to face your accusers in court, you might be innocent, nor did they have to take you to court for an industry to blackball you or discriminate against you such that you are denied a product or it cost you more.

You could use this argument against him:

Since the unconscious and unknowing have implied consent to medical treatment and debt, therefore, you consciously give implied consent to forced socialized medicine and debt.

Any laws that force your hospital to act or indigent care aside, if you wish to help the unconscious and unknowing you must be willing to pay for it.

You cannot apply force and expect to never have an equal and opposite reaction.