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 14
    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 (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-13 12:00:41 PM
5 votes:

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 11:50:35 AM
4 votes:
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 11:18:05 AM
3 votes:
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 01:43:23 PM
2 votes:
"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 12:51:37 PM
2 votes:
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 09:30:41 PM
1 votes:

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 03:11:56 PM
1 votes:
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 03:11:52 PM
1 votes:
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 02:08:19 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:54 PM
1 votes:
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 01:44:16 PM
1 votes:
I choose to hate banks rather than the people that can't control their spending or live within their means.
2013-10-13 12:38:45 PM
1 votes:

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 12:03:56 PM
1 votes:

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 11:10:43 AM
1 votes:
Yeah if you have term insurance you really shouldn't plan on it being renewed continually.

That sounds like the dumbest estate planning ever.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report