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  
•       •       •

3633 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Oct 2013 at 1:35 PM (1 year 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 05:49:39 PM  
Why does a 95 year old woman have 38k in credit card debt to begin with? If you haven't learned how to manage your money by then I don't have much sympathy for you. I'd bet a months pay she was keeping her cards near maxed thinking she would eventually die and not have to pay them off.

I have my checking with Bank of America, until recently it was through their military branch, but they did away with that and switched it over to a standard checking account. I lost several benefits that went along with that type of account. Free checks, $5,000 in accidental death coverage, free overdraft protection and a couple other things. Big deal, shiat happens.

She carried an insurance policy and never needed to cash in on it, that's how insurance works.
 
2013-10-13 06:01:23 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!


And really, that's what life insurance is. You're betting that you will die. They're betting that you won't.
 
2013-10-13 06:03:50 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.


Cue the "Axel F" chiptune:

img408.imageshack.us

http://profx.ytmnd.com/
 
2013-10-13 06:04:24 PM  

OptionC: 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.


Where she held the coffee is irrelevant, well 80% irrelevant. The jury decided that she was only 20% to blame for that.

The whole point of the suit was that the coffee was well above the temperature coffee is normally served at, like 40-50 degrees hotter. If I pour coffee straight out of my coffee pot at home onto my skin, it may hurt, but it wouldn't cause any serious damage, at lest not to the extent that would require skin grafts and weeks in the hospital.
 
2013-10-13 06:09:19 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Why does a 95 year old woman have 38k in credit card debt to begin with? If you haven't learned how to manage your money by then I don't have much sympathy for you. I'd bet a months pay she was keeping her cards near maxed thinking she would eventually die and not have to pay them off.

I have my checking with Bank of America, until recently it was through their military branch, but they did away with that and switched it over to a standard checking account. I lost several benefits that went along with that type of account. Free checks, $5,000 in accidental death coverage, free overdraft protection and a couple other things. Big deal, shiat happens.

She carried an insurance policy and never needed to cash in on it, that's how insurance works.


Have you looked into banking with USAA?  Providing financial services for military personnel and veterans is their schtick.
 
2013-10-13 06:16:24 PM  

ReapTheChaos: I'd bet a months pay she was keeping her cards near maxed thinking she would eventually die and not have to pay them off.


Ummmm, yeah. She's going to die and not pay the remaining balance. What alternate plan do you have for her to follow?
 
2013-10-13 06:34:48 PM  

jake_lex: 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


Netflix sells porn?

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-10-13 07:01:50 PM  

Parthenogenetic: ReapTheChaos: Why does a 95 year old woman have 38k in credit card debt to begin with? If you haven't learned how to manage your money by then I don't have much sympathy for you. I'd bet a months pay she was keeping her cards near maxed thinking she would eventually die and not have to pay them off.

I have my checking with Bank of America, until recently it was through their military branch, but they did away with that and switched it over to a standard checking account. I lost several benefits that went along with that type of account. Free checks, $5,000 in accidental death coverage, free overdraft protection and a couple other things. Big deal, shiat happens.

She carried an insurance policy and never needed to cash in on it, that's how insurance works.

Have you looked into banking with USAA?  Providing financial services for military personnel and veterans is their schtick.


If they had a branch in my city I might, but they don't. Call me old fashioned but I like to be able to go into my bank and speak with a real person if I need to.
 
2013-10-13 07:07:28 PM  

jaytkay: ReapTheChaos: I'd bet a months pay she was keeping her cards near maxed thinking she would eventually die and not have to pay them off.

Ummmm, yeah. She's going to die and not pay the remaining balance. What alternate plan do you have for her to follow?


I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but when a person dies any debts they owe have to be paid out of their estate. If she's 38k in credit card debt with one bank, I'm guessing she doesn't have much to leave behind when she passes so her heirs will be giving the bulk of her estate to her creditors.
 
2013-10-13 07:10:39 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Subby loved banks?

[stream1.gifsoup.com image 320x240]


No, subby was going for a Jaws II allusion.  Though that's not quite the best one: subby would cry more for the shark.
 
2013-10-13 07:19:11 PM  

ReapTheChaos: I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make


You said you would bet she planned to die with credit card debt and thus not pay it, as if she that would not work.

It will work. She will die and not pay the debt.

Whether subtracting $38k from her estate matters to anybody else does not affect that.
 
kab
2013-10-13 07:55:09 PM  
When was it ever safe, subby?

Banks aren't your friend.
 
2013-10-13 07:55:10 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Why does a 95 year old woman have 38k in credit card debt to begin with? If you haven't learned how to manage your money by then I don't have much sympathy for you.


She spent it on the Little Old Lady Equivalent of Hookers and Blow: QVC and the Home Shopping Network
 
2013-10-13 07:56:35 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: 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....


It's also banks taking advantage of people like this. They revel in it.
 
2013-10-13 08:06:50 PM  

jaytkay: ReapTheChaos: I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make

You said you would bet she planned to die with credit card debt and thus not pay it, as if she that would not work.

It will work. She will die and not pay the debt.

Whether subtracting $38k from her estate matters to anybody else does not affect that.


I don't know how old you are, but when people get up in age they start thinking about what their loved ones are going to have to do when they die. They don't want to leave behind a bunch of debt that their loved ones are going to have to pay off with their estate. I want my house and all my possessions to go to my kids, if they choose to sell it, that's fine but I don't want them to be forced to sell it because I also left behind 50k in unsecured debt for them to take care of.

If I had a credit card with a 40k limit and I knew it didn't have to be paid back when I died, I would be a fool to not max out that credit card knowing that at 95, my days are pretty much numbered anyway. You don't have to be a financial wizard to know that for an additional 1% in interest, that's a damn good investment.
 
2013-10-13 08:15:58 PM  
When paying big money for things you do not understand, or investing, etc, one should always find an expert to help.

Even if it means paying an independent expert who is toldu front you are only consulting.

There is no shortage of financial advisors to perform this service.

Barring that, while taking advantage of the ignorant IS wrong, the way term life policies are is nothing new and not even particularly unclear.

This should be a lesson as to why we need a strong consumer advocate bureau as well as things like social security and medicare/medicaid.
 
2013-10-13 08:21:17 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.


He was being sarcastic i think.

Iirc 'hot coffee' has the same message you are laying down in your post.
 
2013-10-13 08:38:39 PM  
She's taking advantage of the system and when the bank loses close to 40K when she dies guess how the bank have to make that back?
 
2013-10-13 09:30:41 PM  

WordyGrrl: She spent it on the Little Old Lady Equivalent of Hookers and Blow: QVC and the Home Shopping Network

nursing home housing costs and life-prolonging medications
 
2013-10-13 09:33:59 PM  
Were the terms of the service "if you die while subscribed to our service, your outstanding debt will be paid off", or were they "any debt you incur while subscribed to our service will be paid off upon your death"?
 
2013-10-13 09:48:38 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.


"We are altering the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further."
 
2013-10-13 09:58:12 PM  
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.

Sorry, but no reasonable person would believe Chase is able to simply ignore this contract without due cause. A reasonable person would believe Chase has protected itself for the outstanding debts on those cards for all enrolled in the program, and attempts to close the program would continue to provide coverage for those already enrolled, effectively grandfathered in. Simply having clauses in contracts does not mean those clauses have any capacity to be enforceable. Payment protection which occurs in the case of death is meant to be a lifelong agreement. Being a cesspool for ethics does not mean a reasonable person would regard all contracts with banks with the utmost suspicion.
 
2013-10-13 11:08:06 PM  
Who ever thought it was safe to "go back" to banks?

Banks provide some certain services which are useful in some certain situations.These days that does not include checking or savings or business accounts for mom 'n pop kinds of shops.

Guys! Seriously! Join a farking credit union already! If you really need a bank then use Ally or something else similar!

I'm appalled to discover anyone I know has a checking account with BOFA or Chase (doubly so if they ever complain about service or fees). Why would you do that?
 
2013-10-13 11:46:59 PM  

casual disregard: Seriously! Join a farking credit union already!


I tell all my friends about credit unions and they don't get it.

Fewer fees and lower fees. Lower interest rates on loans and higher rates on deposits.

The horror!
 
2013-10-13 11:53:04 PM  

casual disregard: Who ever thought it was safe to "go back" to banks?

Banks provide some certain services which are useful in some certain situations.These days that does not include checking or savings or business accounts for mom 'n pop kinds of shops.

Guys! Seriously! Join a farking credit union already! If you really need a bank then use Ally or something else similar!

I'm appalled to discover anyone I know has a checking account with BOFA or Chase (doubly so if they ever complain about service or fees). Why would you do that?


Chase was my best mortgage offer. Lower fees and rate, guaranteed loan upon job loss to cover six months, and 1% cash back for direct pay.

Beyond that using one place with lots of branches is convenient.

Otherwise I agree.
 
2013-10-14 01:24:05 AM  
Anyone banking with Chase deserves what they get.  Same with Bank of America.  It's no secret they'll fark you over for a few extra shekels.
 
2013-10-14 01:40:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: Beyond that using one place with lots of branches is convenient.


This is true, but I've come to find that since switching it hasn't hurt me once. Most credit unions won't charge ATM fees from any other credit union, and even have partner branches where you can bank in person, for free. And in the Smartphone era, it's easy when traveling to hit up my CU's website and find a nearby ATM. Once or twice, I've found that it's easier to walk into a supermarket, buy a bottle of soda or pack of gum, and use my PIN to get $100 cash back on the order.

I guess my point is, anyone who is still using a bank for their general checking/savings accounts, don't let this be the only thing stopping you. When it comes to loans, go for the best terms (although I would pay a little more to avoid Chase in particular).
 
2013-10-14 03:07:55 AM  
I'm wondering why the bank even allowed her to charge that much.
 
2013-10-14 08:18:24 AM  

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.


Exactly. Let's be honest, she was trying to get out of paying back her debt.  Chase set up the program to make money, not to do anyone a favor.  If a bank offers you any kind of 'deal' you can be certain it is not designed to work in your favor.
 
2013-10-14 09:43:03 AM  

Gig103: Smackledorfer: Beyond that using one place with lots of branches is convenient.

This is true, but I've come to find that since switching it hasn't hurt me once. Most credit unions won't charge ATM fees from any other credit union, and even have partner branches where you can bank in person, for free. And in the Smartphone era, it's easy when traveling to hit up my CU's website and find a nearby ATM. Once or twice, I've found that it's easier to walk into a supermarket, buy a bottle of soda or pack of gum, and use my PIN to get $100 cash back on the order.

I guess my point is, anyone who is still using a bank for their general checking/savings accounts, don't let this be the only thing stopping you. When it comes to loans, go for the best terms (although I would pay a little more to avoid Chase in particular).


I've been with the same federal credit union since '91, haven't paid a fee for anything and their partner network is huge. Done that "buy a soda and ask for cash back" at the supermarket trick a few times, on the rare occasions I needed actual cash. But honestly, I haven't needed to walk into an actual bank branch for many years. Everything's online now.  For real, credit unions are the way to go!
 
2013-10-14 10:02:27 AM  

Sid_6.7: You are claiming that the woman in TFA has been engaging in the financial equivalent of playing the lottery.


Sure, where you pay $1 and hope to win let's say $38,000

Sid_6.7: But in fact she was purchasing a financial protection product


Sure, where she pays 1% of her balance and if she dies, receives $38,000 debt relief.

Sid_6.7: Lotteries are often accepted as effectively being a regressive tax, and a go-to example for fiscal irresponsibility.


But a lady who gets herself so far into debt that she's actually paying money akin to betting she'll die before she can ever pay it off is what you feel is responsible?

Sid_6.7: the woman was merely attempting to plan for her future and the future of her family.


Hilarious.  You think racking up $38,000 in debt is financial planning.

Sid_6.7: The actions of the bank, while legal, are duplicitous


No, they weren't.  Every month that lady paid a fee.  That fee covered her for a month.  If she died in that month, that means Chase would forgive her $38,000 in debt.  Just because she paid last month doesn't mean Chase MUST let her keep paying next month.  You have the stupidest understanding of business, perhaps ever.
 
2013-10-14 10:14:09 AM  
Scammer tries to steal thousands of dollars and bank changes policy to prevent scammers for succeeding.

Not sure what the problem is.
 
2013-10-14 10:16:36 AM  

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.


Yes, the bank screwed her by letting her a sign a contact of her own free will.

Just like McDonalds screws those kids by giving them a job when they don't negotiate higher pay.
 
2013-10-14 10:17:48 AM  

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.


This, and the fact that she was clearly buying big ticket items for her kids/family with the expectation of never paying for them.
 
2013-10-14 10:19:59 AM  

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.


Paid*


And no, this is nothing like the situation you described. She paid monthly for a monthly protection plan. Life insurance is clearly a long range play, while the intent of this credit card plan was short term.

"credit cardholders could insure themselves against job loss, illness or disability, with card payments deferred for up to two years."
 
2013-10-14 10:23:18 AM  

Sid_6.7: But in fact she was purchasing a financial protection product, which no-more resembles gambling than the purchasing of homeowner's insurance.


All insurance is gambling. If you're too stupid or uneducated to know that, then you're not worth listening to.
 
2013-10-14 10:24:53 AM  

ajgeek: "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?


The better question is why would you sign such a document?
 
2013-10-14 10:30:23 AM  

The Bananadragon: "you should have planned better" solves no problems at all


Why would it be anyone else's responsibility to clean up after your problems? Tough shiat.
 
2013-10-14 02:59:20 PM  

Sid_6.7: valent 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 irresp


This is an interesting argument (and also thanks, I didn't know what a strawman was and my googles do nothing). However, once we reduce the financial protection product, or any insurance for that matter, we find ourselves comparing one type of gambling with another. The insurance provider is gambling that the client won't die. The client is (morbidly) betting that they will. Of course, only one of those parties have actuaries.

Also, the house always wins.
 
2013-10-14 03:09:31 PM  

Bullseyed: This, and the fact that she was clearly buying big ticket items for her kids/family with the expectation of never paying for them.


I'm okay with that. Chase screws enough people that they deserved a little retribution. But they saw it coming :(
 
2013-10-14 03:12:49 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: The client is (morbidly) betting that they will.


Hedging one's bets is not a morbid thing.
 
2013-10-14 04:19:44 PM  

Smackledorfer: BetterMetalSnake: The client is (morbidly) betting that they will.

Hedging one's bets is not a morbid thing.


It depends on how one phrases/perceives it. In this case, I intentionally made it sound kind of morbid in the style of "I can't wait to die!"

Of course, I am no authority on the meaning of morbidity, so there's that.
 
2013-10-14 11:26:02 PM  

Bullseyed: Sid_6.7: But in fact she was purchasing a financial protection product, which no-more resembles gambling than the purchasing of homeowner's insurance.

All insurance is gambling. If you're too stupid or uneducated to know that, then you're not worth listening to.


It's only gambling until you've paid more in premiums than the value of any claim you could make. Then you're just letting the house win.
 
2013-10-14 11:28:20 PM  
My FSM, if you can't shiat out $40K then you fail so hard at life that you should be put to death anyway.
 
Displayed 44 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report