Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Steve N, Sep 22, 2023.
Lol nobody is exempt.
When it comes to your credit score, and what it says about your ability to take on new debt, it's exactly the same.
Why? That doesn't help anyone in terms of economy of scale. Also, why is that always the response? 'You just do it personally'. Why? that's the stupidest economic way to deal with this issue.
All debt should be treated the same. If we allow debt to be discharged via bankruptcy, then all debt should be allowed to be discharged via bankruptcy. If debt is part of your credit score (and it should be), then All debt should be considered on your credit score. If that isn't desired, then make them all unable to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I honestly don't care which way you pick, just be consistent across the board, either way.
Oh you just want others to lend their money interest free and then pat youself on the back and ask them to thank you for making others do it.
There is not one kind of debt it all just contributes to you ability to pay it back. I could take out a huge unsecured personal loan right now with my credit score while someone else would have to have collateral. The debt amount is the same and an intrical measure if ability to carry more debt. Whether you can discharge it at a bankruprcy is not a concern and the faxt student loans can be discharged in a bankruptcy. Why don't we make it easier to sue the college and them pay some or all. Or how about THEY lend the money for their student loans a.nd bear the risk.
I agree with this.
ROFLMAO how cn you avoid who pays for it you do realize someone else will hage to cover the cost if the debt discharge it doesn't just go away it is for services and products already rendered.
I posted the governments own numbers on the failure of putting all those 30 million who did not have insurance on the government insurance ndnhow it is costing the taxpayers three times what was promised and it is just ignored.
If you get behind in your rent your landlord can put it on your credit report as far as I know. When you apply for a loan you have to list it just as you would how much is your mortgage payment. It is factor in your ability to pay back the money you want to borrow.
How can we have a stable credit market if borrowers do not have to tell a lender how much they make and how much they already owe? Are you willing to loan your money to someone without knowing that?
That is about halfway what the new REPAYE thing is doing. Basically if you make enough to pay it off with interest, that is what you do. Otherwise if your payment doesn't cover the interest, then the government takes what you pay them and eats the interest which will keep your balances from swelling up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars off tens of thousands in loans like a lot of older borrowers experienced.
Except one is a choice and one isn’t.
One lets you know the cost beforehand and the other doesn’t.
One isn’t allowed to conspire with providers to maximize profits while the other one can
And my favorite! If you don’t buy one you can continue to live where the other one you might not.
But other than that, sure! Great points as always
Sadly, I'm sure you think that's a zinger
They started long before that Blues
The problem with this is these are individual healthcare plans. Most insurance are in groups or pools. Pooled insurance was for high-risk persons who could not obtain group health insurance.
The landlord will more than likely convict you if you are more than one month behind.
Second, all lenders look at your debt-to-income ratio. This includes whether you rent or own, all debts you are paying including payments not reported on the credit report, and even credit references.
They (the upper class) are "exempt" in this context because they have enough money that it doesn't make a quantatative difference in their lives, unlike the middle class who were very hurt by the cost increases.
The cost increases were because of coverage increases.
Again, selective at best. I remember when the ACA was first implemented. What we were told by Obama and the Dems we would receive in terms of cost, access, etc was NOT what most of us got stuck with. The cost increases were mostly because of Medicaid expansion and lack of younger, healthier people wanting to sign up and pay in, leaving mostly only the very sick and those with expensive chronic conditions to find it a money-saver. It definitely helped the lower economic class and those in the middle class with chronic expensive care needs who could no longer be dropped by insurance companies. But it screwed over the much larger majority of the middle class to do it.
Which had to be brought to Obamacare standards along with the failed insurance I already cited. Obamacare failed on ALL cost fronts as was predicted.
For things people didn't need and those increases along side the higher deductibles and out of pocket caps. To the point many people who purchase their own like small business owners and contractors had to simply give up their insurance.
YES and ALL your debt should be considered by a lender so they have an ACCURATE debt-income ratio. When the government steps in and says nope the lender can only know about some of the debt then that will have harmful ramifications throughout the entire economy.
The large majority of the middle class get insurance through their job, just like they did before.
That colleges don't give out student loans is telling. Either they don't have confidence in the job markets for some of their ridiculous courses or they don't have confidence in the students. But if they did give out student loans I'm sure the people admitted would be far different that what's being admitted today.
And how about the forgotten people? Those would be the folks who had their full time jobs go to part time or got laid off completely. And it wasn't just businesses that were doing that, it was school districts and city and county governments as well.
I'm talking about all health care spending, the cost of the American health care system. Relative health care costs are essentially the same today as when the ACA passed, which has never happened over a decade-plus period of time before.
At most a benchmark silver plan costs 8.5% of income. So if it costs over $1,300/month that implies income of ~$190,000/year, which I assume goes pretty far in Kentucky.
In reality, it outperformed all predictions. It cost less than predicted, saved more in Medicare than predicted, and slowed overall health care cost growth than expected.
You are still missing the point entirely.
is this what passes for your arguments these days?
debt is debt. I owe money, that's a debt. No need to sugarcoat it or complicate it.
Separate names with a comma.