If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   And just when you thought it was safe to go back loving the banks: Chase cancels payment protection plan of woman, leaving her $38,000 in debt. Get out the Guillotines Fark: After she paid $16,000 that they don't plan to refund   (latimes.com) divider line 94
    More: Sick, Chase Bank, trading cards, outstanding balance, obligations, JPMorgan Chase & Co., payments, credit cards  
•       •       •

3632 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Oct 2013 at 1:35 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-13 09:54:24 AM
Hey, she's 95 and has until May to die.  Odds are in her favor
 
2013-10-13 11:10:43 AM
Yeah if you have term insurance you really shouldn't plan on it being renewed continually.

That sounds like the dumbest estate planning ever.
 
2013-10-13 11:11:48 AM
I was never going to start loving the banks, so go screw this going back to loving them shiat your talking about.
 
2013-10-13 11:18:05 AM
Unethical as the bank's move seems, Chase is acting within its rights. The contract for Payment Protector states that the company can change the terms of the deal at any time.

And this is why we need government regulation of the financial industry. Otherwise they will screw you as hard and long as they can with endless needlessly complex legalese.
 
2013-10-13 11:45:32 AM
Subby loved banks?

stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2013-10-13 11:50:35 AM
I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.
 
2013-10-13 12:00:22 PM
Don't states have Grandfather laws concerning things such as this?
 
2013-10-13 12:00:41 PM

Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.


While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.
 
2013-10-13 12:03:56 PM

Sid_6.7: Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.

While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.


To play Devils Advocate, we don't refund those who buy lottery tickets and lose. Its about risk versus reward. Grandma took a risk and she lost out. Many people before her didn't. It happens. C'est la Vie!
 
2013-10-13 12:07:52 PM

cman: Sid_6.7: Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.

While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.

To play Devils Advocate, we don't refund those who buy lottery tickets and lose. Its about risk versus reward. Grandma took a risk and she lost out. Many people before her didn't. It happens. C'est la Vie!


Apparently you love playing Devil's Advocate with strawmen.
 
2013-10-13 12:14:09 PM

Sid_6.7: cman: Sid_6.7: Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.

While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.

To play Devils Advocate, we don't refund those who buy lottery tickets and lose. Its about risk versus reward. Grandma took a risk and she lost out. Many people before her didn't. It happens. C'est la Vie!

Apparently you love playing Devil's Advocate with strawmen.


Thats like the easiest cop-out.

Why? Because no one really knows what the fark a strawman argument is; so when someone throws out that ole word here on Fark, they get scared and act like little biatches because they don't want to admit they don't know what a strawman argument is
 
2013-10-13 12:25:21 PM

Eat More Possum: Hey, she's 95 and has until May to die.  Odds are in her favor


And it's her relatives who stand to win. They have almost a year to lure her to the top of the stairs and give her a mighty shove.
 
2013-10-13 12:38:45 PM

cman: Sid_6.7: cman: Sid_6.7: Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.

While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.

To play Devils Advocate, we don't refund those who buy lottery tickets and lose. Its about risk versus reward. Grandma took a risk and she lost out. Many people before her didn't. It happens. C'est la Vie!

Apparently you love playing Devil's Advocate with strawmen.

Thats like the easiest cop-out.

Why? Because no one really knows what the fark a strawman argument is; so when someone throws out that ole word here on Fark, they get scared and act like little biatches because they don't want to admit they don't know what a strawman argument is


Fine, if you need an explanation as to why your argument is crap, one of my majors was philosophy, so I can probably help you:

A straw man argument is, among other things, a rebuttal of a primary argument using a secondary argument that superficially resembles the primary argument, but is not congruous. That is the case here.

You are claiming that the woman in TFA has been engaging in the financial equivalent of playing the lottery. Lotteries are often accepted as effectively being a regressive tax, and a go-to example for fiscal irresponsibility. Thus, you are trying to paint the woman as having engaged in irresponsible behavior, gambling, and thus deserving of being screwed like she was. That is the inaccurate secondary argument you are engaging in.

But in fact she was purchasing a financial protection product, which no-more resembles gambling than the purchasing of homeowner's insurance. The actions of the bank, while legal, are duplicitous, and the woman was merely attempting to plan for her future and the future of her family. That is the primary argument, which you failed to address, because you were too busy criticizing her for something for was not actually doing.

Would you defend an insurance company if it suddenly cancelled the collective policies of entire states while a hurricane was bearing down on them, if it were legal by both contract and statute?
 
2013-10-13 12:42:13 PM

Sid_6.7: cman: Sid_6.7: cman: Sid_6.7: Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.

While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.

To play Devils Advocate, we don't refund those who buy lottery tickets and lose. Its about risk versus reward. Grandma took a risk and she lost out. Many people before her didn't. It happens. C'est la Vie!

Apparently you love playing Devil's Advocate with strawmen.

Thats like the easiest cop-out.

Why? Because no one really knows what the fark a strawman argument is; so when someone throws out that ole word here on Fark, they get scared and act like little biatches because they don't want to admit they don't know what a strawman argument is

Fine, if you need an explanation as to why your argument is crap, one of my majors was philosophy, so I can probably help you:

A straw man argument is, among other things, a rebuttal of a primary argument using a secondary argument that superficially resembles the primary argument, but is ...


Thank you for this detailed explanation

And, as I said, I was playing Devil's Advocate. If you checked my earlier post you would get an idea that I am leaning on her side in the "correct party" column.
 
2013-10-13 12:51:37 PM
Isn't this more like insurance? Seriously If it was a monthly fee that covered her for the month why would you expect it to cover her for life regardless? They stopped the program for everyone and not just her. So they didn't unfairly target her. Unless they sold to her as this as a program that will never end and you will be covered regardless of bank policies I'm really having trouble blaming the bank. And that is something that is rare (esp with chase). It might have been better of them to just stop offering the program to any new customers and then let the ones currently on it to continue. But they did at least give plenty of notice that they are discontinuing the program.
 
2013-10-13 12:57:21 PM
CHASE DEATH PANELS!

I hate these pieces of shiat, this is just the most recent example of why.
 
2013-10-13 01:25:00 PM

Sid_6.7: Unethical as the bank's move seems, Chase is acting within its rights. The contract for Payment Protector states that the company can change the terms of the deal at any time.

And this is why we need government regulation of the financial industry. Otherwise they will screw you as hard and long as they can with endless needlessly complex legalese.


But some old broad won like 900 billion million zillion dollars from McDonald's because she burned her cooch with coffee so we need tort reform to protect the job creators

/highly recommends the documentary "Hot Coffee", available on Netflix
//the section on "mandatory arbitration" will most directly apply here
 
2013-10-13 01:43:23 PM
"reserves the right to alter or close this contract without authorization of the customer."

This little piece of standard boilerplate legalese is why I hate doing business with just about everyone. Outside my CU, none of my contracts don't have this or something extremely similar. Seriously, how can it be a contract if one side is allowed to change the rules at any time after signing?
 
2013-10-13 01:44:08 PM
I can think of a lot of things that Chase and Jamie Dimon deserve to have happen to them, but I don't want to end up on some kind of watch list.

Still. I'm just saying. If they staked out that farker covered in honey over a crazy ant hill, I would watch that shiat on live tv with popcorn and a giant erection with a cheeseburger on the end of it.
 
2013-10-13 01:44:16 PM
I choose to hate banks rather than the people that can't control their spending or live within their means.
 
2013-10-13 01:48:24 PM

neongoats: I can think of a lot of things that Chase and Jamie Dimon deserve to have happen to them, but I don't want to end up on some kind of watch list.

Still. I'm just saying. If they staked out that farker covered in honey over a crazy ant hill, I would watch that shiat on live tv with popcorn and a giant erection with a cheeseburger on the end of it.


Bagel burger, I assume?
 
2013-10-13 01:50:45 PM

ajgeek: neongoats: I can think of a lot of things that Chase and Jamie Dimon deserve to have happen to them, but I don't want to end up on some kind of watch list.

Still. I'm just saying. If they staked out that farker covered in honey over a crazy ant hill, I would watch that shiat on live tv with popcorn and a giant erection with a cheeseburger on the end of it.

Bagel burger, I assume?


Nah, the tip of my dick is a flat surface, like a little table top. My foreskin is prehensile like an elephant trunk too. You should see the smoking tricks one can do.
 
2013-10-13 01:51:00 PM
Meh, I'm the last one to defend banks, but it was insurance and they're not offering it any more. It was bad insurance, at that. She should have put that money towards her credit card balances.

She can still get the satisfaction of sticking it to Chase if she does everything legally possible to make her estate $0.
 
2013-10-13 01:51:28 PM
So they offered her a protection plan and when she is getting to a point were the protection plan will kick in they cancel it. Dick move, but that is business. Sucks getting old or sick.
 
2013-10-13 01:59:42 PM

enik: I choose to hate banks rather than the people that can't control their spending or live within their means.


Grudgingly, THIS.

/ would like to know why she had credit card debt in the first place
// credit card debt is almost always bad; best to pay off the card completely every month....
 
2013-10-13 02:02:54 PM
You're 95.  If you have something of value and don't want to give it to Chase, gift it to your relatives already. Die broke.  Yes, Chase could theoretically come after your estate for 'hiding assets'. They're not going to do that for $30k.  If they did, the relatives would just show the judge this article.
 
2013-10-13 02:08:19 PM

Sid_6.7: While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.


No it isn't.  The bank did not specifically target a 95 year old women (the writer did).  It would be similiar to the life insurance company shutting down essentially canceling everyone's insurance protection.   The article is poorly written and the writer is a douchebag for intentionally misleading the reader.
 
2013-10-13 02:17:00 PM
Banks suck and this sucks and this woman is definitely having a rug pulled out from under her.

But people don't really get what debt is.  If you have a small amount of savings you want to leave to your family and $38,000 in credit card debt, you're in the red.  You don't have an estate.  You have a lack of estate.
 
2013-10-13 02:37:56 PM

Dafatone: Banks suck and this sucks and this woman is definitely having a rug pulled out from under her. But people don't really get what debt is.  If you have a small amount of savings you want to leave to your family and $38,000 in credit card debt, you're in the red.  You don't have an estate.  You have a lack of estate.


Credit card debt is unsecured, it's not like Chase will be getting any money from the estate.
 
2013-10-13 02:55:53 PM

HempHead: Dafatone: Banks suck and this sucks and this woman is definitely having a rug pulled out from under her. But people don't really get what debt is.  If you have a small amount of savings you want to leave to your family and $38,000 in credit card debt, you're in the red.  You don't have an estate.  You have a lack of estate.

Credit card debt is unsecured, it's not like Chase will be getting any money from the estate.


Unless Chase wants to toss a lien onto the estate for that amount, which would probably be pretty cost-effective for them.
 
2013-10-13 02:56:40 PM
/And if the old lady had nothing, Chase can pound sand.
 
2013-10-13 03:04:37 PM

cman: Sid_6.7: cman: Sid_6.7: Rincewind53: I'm sorry, but this is a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in action.  She isn't being scammed of 16,000 by Chase here; she paid a monthly fee in order to have a protection plan each year. Each year she had a potential chance of dying and the plan going into effect; she, however, outlived the plan, rather than the plan outliving her.

I understand that she  believed that the plan would last until she died, but the fact that paid into it over the years, and was protected by it over the years, does not somehow mean that all of her investment was for naught.

While this is technically correct, it's similar to a life insurance company cancelling your policy while you're on your death bed.

"But if you'd died at any other time, we'd have payed! Not our fault you're obviously dying in a slow, non-sudden fashion!"

Either the banks did a terrible job controlling their risks and were getting taken to the cleaners, or they did this on purpose to screw people out of money by cancelling the program after making as much as they could, actuarially speaking, before the real payout claims started rolling in.

To play Devils Advocate, we don't refund those who buy lottery tickets and lose. Its about risk versus reward. Grandma took a risk and she lost out. Many people before her didn't. It happens. C'est la Vie!

Apparently you love playing Devil's Advocate with strawmen.

Thats like the easiest cop-out.

Why? Because no one really knows what the fark a strawman argument is; so when someone throws out that ole word here on Fark, they get scared and act like little biatches because they don't want to admit they don't know what a strawman argument is


He's not wrong.
 
2013-10-13 03:11:52 PM
Insurance carriers cancel policies all the time. This is no different. Did I get ripped off because I've been paying for car insurance and haven't ever used it?
 
2013-10-13 03:11:56 PM
Generally speaking, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  And if you are going to try and take advantage of such a situation, you really want to read the fine print.  She wasn't trying to protect against an UNFORESEEN bad thing happening....she wanted to not pay her 38k debt.  She did the math and said, 'Well, I'll die eventually, and I'll only pay them ~18k instead of 38k'.  She found a loop-hole that would reduce the amount she needed to pay.

I can't fault anyone for acting in their own best interest.  Kudos to her.  But when you see an opportunity to save TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, it's worth the extra hour it takes to double check your plan.

She was buying insurance for a particular period of time.
And the agreement says the company doesn't have to keep renewing....and I'm sure customers have the same option of not renewing.

Had she experienced a qualifying event during the time she was covered - and THEN they didn't pay out, I'd be outraged too.  But that didn't happen.  They are cancelling a program (probably because other people have been pulling the same thing)

She paid a *monthly fee*.  From month to month.
And she was covered from month to month.
 
2013-10-13 03:27:22 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Eat More Possum: Hey, she's 95 and has until May to die.  Odds are in her favor

And it's her relatives who stand to win. They have almost a year to lure her to the top of the stairs and give her a mighty shove.


it's perrty selfish of her not dieing
 
2013-10-13 03:35:14 PM

Sid_6.7: Unethical as the bank's move seems, Chase is acting within its rights. The contract for Payment Protector states that the company can change the terms of the deal at any time.

And this is why we need government regulation of the financial industry. Otherwise they will screw you as hard and long as they can with endless needlessly complex legalese.


This.   The banks and big business refuse to play nice on their own so they must be forced to play by the rules.
 
2013-10-13 03:40:08 PM
thedroidyourelookingfor.files.wordpress.com

It's good to be the King Bank!
 
2013-10-13 03:45:15 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Generally speaking, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  And if you are going to try and take advantage of such a situation, you really want to read the fine print.  She wasn't trying to protect against an UNFORESEEN bad thing happening....she wanted to not pay her 38k debt.  She did the math and said, 'Well, I'll die eventually, and I'll only pay them ~18k instead of 38k'.  She found a loop-hole that would reduce the amount she needed to pay.

I can't fault anyone for acting in their own best interest.  Kudos to her.  But when you see an opportunity to save TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, it's worth the extra hour it takes to double check your plan.

She was buying insurance for a particular period of time.
And the agreement says the company doesn't have to keep renewing....and I'm sure customers have the same option of not renewing.

Had she experienced a qualifying event during the time she was covered - and THEN they didn't pay out, I'd be outraged too.  But that didn't happen.  They are cancelling a program (probably because other people have been pulling the same thing)

She paid a *monthly fee*.  From month to month.
And she was covered from month to month.


And had that plan not been a choice, she'd have put that money onto the balance instead, and reduced the amount of debt she'd be leaving behind. She's not twirling an evil mustache and sticking it to the banks; she's trying to reduce the burden on her family, and this plan was the better way to do it, since she couldn't have paid off the whole thing with that money anyway.

FTFA: In his mother's case, Emory Cross said, she could have paid off almost half her card balances with the fees she paid for Payment Protector. Instead, she chose the peace of mind of being insured against financial catastrophe.

Also in TFA, they did mention that she has no other viable insurance options against this debt due to her age. Chase could certainly have afforded to cancel their offering of this plan but grandfather in people over a certain age (say, 90, or 85 or something) so they'd continue to protect the people who legitimately can't find any other coverage, while sending younger clients to find coverage where they can. The PR alone would be worth what little they'd spend on payouts/cancellations. So there are definitely less douchey ways to have handled this.

/"you should have planned better" solves no problems at all
 
2013-10-13 04:04:03 PM
In certain jurisdictions, Chase's contract would be described as an "illusory contract." Basically, any contract with terms that allow the contract holder to diametrically alter its language is not a valid contract -it's the illusion of a contract. Whether or not the contract violated any state laws is an interesting question - some states have precedent regarding illusory contracts, other's do not.

/had a client's attorney threaten that my contract was illusory and thus violated various consumer protection laws
//my attorney responded that if he could manage to have jurisdiction moved to the state of Texas, then opposing counsel would have a valid point.
 
2013-10-13 04:04:41 PM

cman: Don't states have Grandfather laws concerning things such as this?


maybe but how old would her grandfather be?
 
2013-10-13 04:04:48 PM
They should at minimum take the fees plus interest and apply it to any outstanding balance.
 
2013-10-13 04:10:38 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Eat More Possum: Hey, she's 95 and has until May to die.  Odds are in her favor

And it's her relatives who stand to win. They have almost a year to lure her to the top of the stairs and give her a mighty shove.


Or, they can go ahead and sell her house and transfer all of the assets out of her name.

Then she can stop making credit card payments of any kind with a clear conscious.
 
2013-10-13 04:18:50 PM

Sid_6.7: Would you defend an insurance company if it suddenly cancelled the collective policies of entire states while a hurricane was bearing down on them, if it were legal by both contract and statute?


I would. The problem here is not what the insurance company is doing but what the law allows it to do. I do not like ex post facto value judgements. It is like changing the rules of the horse race after the gates have been opened. The insurance company should never be allowed to pull such tactics in the first place. The underlying problem is that people pay no attention to the law until it bites them in the ass. Well, too bad. Elections have consequences and if you do not like the consequences make other elections.
 
2013-10-13 04:19:06 PM
Contracts like this are fairly standard.  Banks change their contract terms regularly as regulations change and also as their risk exposure changes.  Of course any contract that says "We can change our terms at any time for any reason because fark you and oh by the way we can cancel it at any time because fark you ...may not be seen as a good long term investment.  You may just want to consider hedging that bet god knows the banks are counting on you being a sucker...like this lady.

Of course it seems shady that anyone can write into a contract that they can change the terms of the contract at any time.  Changes can be made to contracts...by anyone and of course you have the right to reject the contract and discontinue service...or make a counter offer.  The problem is likely that the bank won't accept counter offers and is acting more like darth vader...pray we don't alter the deal any further.  It is bargained in bad faith.
 
2013-10-13 04:33:56 PM
Yeah I have no sympathy for her. The payment protection plan was nothing more than a yearly insurance she was planning to abuse to get out of her debt and when her master plan fell through, she wants to cry foul.
 
2013-10-13 04:34:11 PM
These protection plans are usually a scam.
Even if they do pay out, they typically make it as difficult as hell...and take as long as they can.

Never worth it.
 
2013-10-13 05:02:28 PM
If you still do business with a bank, it's your own fault.
If you purchase risky investments and lose, it's your own fault.
If you fail to educate yourself and prepare properly for your old age or ultimate health issues, It's your own fault.

I hate to sound like a dick, and yes the banks are predatory, but grandma was a dumbass.  How about paying off your credit card balances instead of paying to have them paid if you die.

fark, if I had $38,000 in credit card debt I'd probably kill myself anyway.
 
2013-10-13 05:11:44 PM

jake_lex: But some old broad won like 900 billion million zillion dollars from McDonald's because she burned her cooch with coffee so we need tort reform to protect the job creators


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

First of all, the woman suffered third degree burns over about 6% of her body. That is significant. She required about two years of medical treatment after spending a week in the hospital getting skin grafts.

Second, McDonald's had a clear policy that required franchises to serve coffee at very high temperatures, around 180 °F, far hotter than most places, which served it around 140 °F at the time.

Third, McDonald's knew from prior reports and lawsuits that the temperatures at which it served its coffee were more than capable of causing severe burns, with hundreds of incidents reported to corporate between 1982 and 1992.

Fourth, she was only awarded $640,000, which was appealed, and then the case was confidentially settled out of court for a lesser amount, so she never received "millions".

Finally, she was found by the jury to be 20% responsible for her own injuries.

If you really enjoy sucking on the dick of corporate propaganda, and hate consumer rights, then by all means, keep tooting that tort reform horn. Rich people will thank you.
 
2013-10-13 05:35:07 PM

Sid_6.7: jake_lex: But some old broad won like 900 billion million zillion dollars from McDonald's because she burned her cooch with coffee so we need tort reform to protect the job creators

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

First of all, the woman suffered third degree burns over about 6% of her body. That is significant. She required about two years of medical treatment after spending a week in the hospital getting skin grafts.

Second, McDonald's had a clear policy that required franchises to serve coffee at very high temperatures, around 180 °F, far hotter than most places, which served it around 140 °F at the time.

Third, McDonald's knew from prior reports and lawsuits that the temperatures at which it served its coffee were more than capable of causing severe burns, with hundreds of incidents reported to corporate between 1982 and 1992.

Fourth, she was only awarded $640,000, which was appealed, and then the case was confidentially settled out of court for a lesser amount, so she never received "millions".

Finally, she was found by the jury to be 20% responsible for her own injuries.

If you really enjoy sucking on the dick of corporate propaganda, and hate consumer rights, then by all means, keep tooting that tort reform horn. Rich people will thank you.


She spilled coffee on her junk because she held it between her knees.  It was 100% her fault.

shiat happens. Most of the time it is your own damn fault - the person in question (the "victim") could have made choices that would have averted the bad situation.  Deal with it and take responsibility.  I don't care if McDonald's was serving their coffee at 211 degrees - unless they threw it on the woman, it isn't their fault.

Whiners should be executed.
 
2013-10-13 05:47:22 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: HempHead: Dafatone: Banks suck and this sucks and this woman is definitely having a rug pulled out from under her. But people don't really get what debt is.  If you have a small amount of savings you want to leave to your family and $38,000 in credit card debt, you're in the red.  You don't have an estate.  You have a lack of estate.

Credit card debt is unsecured, it's not like Chase will be getting any money from the estate.

Unless Chase wants to toss a lien onto the estate for that amount, which would probably be pretty cost-effective for them.




At which point they get in line behind those debtors with secured assets. Waste of time for Chase.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report