Are You More Or Less "Free" In A Society That

[Madeline]

Essentially REQUIRES an individual to have good credit to do/have practically anything.

Aka, an abode, whether rent or own, a car, access to loans (well, this one more understandable), and many other things that decades ago was not necessary.

HUH? Credit is not a right of any kind. It should be equitable in it's rules of access but earned not deserved until you earn it.

No bank looks at your credit report in detail; they all make decisions about your loan application based on your credit score. Since only the credit reporting agencies know how they compute scores, and we have no idea how they weight factors, etc., it is all very mysterious and very much beyond our control (apart from doing such things as borrowing money and repaying it).

 

[MarcATL]

These CON$ seem to be allergic to straying away from their programmed meme...ALL Corporation is Good...ALL Gubmunt is bad. So much so that they will NEVER, not ONCE, even admit to anything and I mean ANYTHING that even remotely shakes that belief.

Hence they will refuse to answer and/or beat around the bush questions such as the OP that points out that their belief is severely flawed if not flat out wrong.

 

[Charles_Main]

If that's true, then IYO, is is entirely fair for insurance companies to uprate or deny coverage to applicants with poor credit ratings? BTW, there is little if any evidence that people with poor credit ratings drive badly or burn down their homes more often.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Hell no I do not see any connection between someones Credit Score and increased Liability for an insurance company covering them. Therefor I see no legitimate reason for them to charge people with poor credit Higher Premiums.

They all do, here in Ohio. As best I can tell, credit underwriting has become a common practice in all 50 states. It allows them to reduce their risk of the unpaid premium -- and has no bearing on their risk of claims. I think it should be illegal. So does MarcATL.

You aren't being asked to join some sort of communist uprising; merely to question whether some new business practices of Ginormous Corporations Inc. might not be predatory?

The idea that they have risk when people fail to pay their premiums is a joke. If you fail to pay your Premium your Insurance company will simply not pay when you need them. So where is the increased risk?

Of course the Insurance industry conducts predatory practices. I have never said our current system is perfect. I have always simply maintained that this Health care bill fails to fix most of the problems and adds demand to a broken system, and will increase all of our costs and cost the tax payers much more than we were told.

Please try not to confuse opposition to this particular bill, as a blanket endorsement of the status Quo.

 

[Madeline]

Hell no I do not see any connection between someones Credit Score and increased Liability for an insurance company covering them. Therefor I see no legitimate reason for them to charge people with poor credit Higher Premiums.

They all do, here in Ohio. As best I can tell, credit underwriting has become a common practice in all 50 states. It allows them to reduce their risk of the unpaid premium -- and has no bearing on their risk of claims. I think it should be illegal. So does MarcATL.

You aren't being asked to join some sort of communist uprising; merely to question whether some new business practices of Ginormous Corporations Inc. might not be predatory?

The idea that they have risk when people fail to pay their premiums is a joke. If you fail to pay your Premium your Insurance company will simply not pay when you need them. So where is the increased risk?

Of course the Insurance industry conducts predatory practices. I have never said our current system is perfect. I have always simply maintained that this Health care bill fails to fix most of the problems and adds demand to a broken system, and will increase all of our costs and cost the tax payers much more than we were told.

Please try not to confuse opposition to this particular bill, as a blanket endorsement of the status Quo.

I'm not. Everyone has complaints about Obamacare, including me. Some want to fix it, others want to throw it out altogether -- but Obamacare is not the topic of this thread.

Abusive uses of credit reports is, and as we have agreed, credit underwriting is one such abuse.

There's a domino effect to being uninsurable. Cannot buy a house, for sure. Cannot get renter's insurance -- better pray your neighbors are safety fiends. Cannot buy a car, and so, cannot live anywhere without mass transportation. Cannot buy groceries for the week in one trip. Cannot visit the farmer's market. Etc.

 

[MarcATL]

They all do, here in Ohio. As best I can tell, credit underwriting has become a common practice in all 50 states. It allows them to reduce their risk of the unpaid premium -- and has no bearing on their risk of claims. I think it should be illegal. So does MarcATL.

You aren't being asked to join some sort of communist uprising; merely to question whether some new business practices of Ginormous Corporations Inc. might not be predatory?

The idea that they have risk when people fail to pay their premiums is a joke. If you fail to pay your Premium your Insurance company will simply not pay when you need them. So where is the increased risk?

Of course the Insurance industry conducts predatory practices. I have never said our current system is perfect. I have always simply maintained that this Health care bill fails to fix most of the problems and adds demand to a broken system, and will increase all of our costs and cost the tax payers much more than we were told.

Please try not to confuse opposition to this particular bill, as a blanket endorsement of the status Quo.

I'm not. Everyone has complaints about Obamacare, including me. Some want to fix it, others want to throw it out altogether -- but Obamacare is not the topic of this thread.

Abusive uses of credit reports is, and as we have agreed, credit underwriting is one such abuse.

There's a domino effect to being uninsurable. Cannot buy a house, for sure. Cannot get renter's insurance -- better pray your neighbors are safety fiends. Cannot buy a car, and so, cannot live anywhere without mass transportation. Cannot buy groceries for the week in one trip. Cannot visit the farmer's market. Etc.

Lemme give you the CON$ response...

Dats YERR problem, not mines. I got mines, so you gotta get YERRS. Tuff luck!!! Now pull YERRSULF up by yo bootstraps and go GIT you a JERB!!!

 

[Hum Dinger]

At the heart of the issue is that the wealth distribution in this country is so unfair that the financial system had to substitute credit for pay.

Instead of paying people fairly, people get credit - essentially ownership of everything of lasting value is retained by the financial system. No wealth accumulation by the employees of America - not even by most small business people.

This in turn has created a soceity where anyone that does not have a good credit rating is a second class person - basic survival at best.

Unfortunately, the employees of America, starting in the late 1970s, compounded the situation by becoming devotedly materialistic - and getting themselves in debt up to their geezers.

If employees were paid in accordance with their productive value, there would be little need for credit.

Think about this:

If an working class American were of, let's say German descent, it would mena that their ancestors have been participating in the western european economic system for approximately 1500 years. Given an average of 25 years per generation, that means that this working person has had 60 generations of working ancestors. Each one at least a manual laborer, and most probably many skilled labor or professionals.

60 generations of people working their entire adult lives - and many thru their childhood. What wealth has been accumulated? In most cases NONE. In some cases, a small amount -perhaps a house or a few thousand dollars inheritence.

For generation after generation, the wealthy in the western European based financial system have systematically made sure that the wealth generated by workers has gone to them, leaving each and every worker near broke at the end of their lifetime.

In America, starting with the Homestead act, then continuing thru the empowerment of the Unions and employees that occured between 1940 and 1980, wealth started to accumulate in the working class.

Then American workers got stupid - along came Ronald Reagan - and wealth accumulation in the working class slowly but surely came to a stop.

Credit was substituted for pay in order to prevent the standard of living of the employees from dropping like a rock - and preventing the ensuing political fallout.

Finally, in 2008 the whole corrupt system went bust.

 

[MarcATL]

At the heart of the issue is that the wealth distribution in this country is so unfair that the financial system had to substitute credit for pay.

Instead of paying people fairly, people get credit - essentially ownership of everything of lasting value is retained by the financial system. No wealth accumulation by the employees of America - not even by most small business people.

This in turn has created a soceity where anyone that does not have a good credit rating is a second class person - basic survival at best.

Unfortunately, the employees of America, starting in the late 1970s, compounded the situation by becoming devotedly materialistic - and getting themselves in debt up to their geezers.

If employees were paid in accordance with their productive value, there would be little need for credit.

Think about this:

If an working class American were of, let's say German descent, it would mena that their ancestors have been participating in the western european economic system for approximately 1500 years. Given an average of 25 years per generation, that means that this working person has had 60 generations of working ancestors. Each one at least a manual laborer, and most probably many skilled labor or professionals.

60 generations of people working their entire adult lives - and many thru their childhood. What wealth has been accumulated? In most cases NONE. In some cases, a small amount -perhaps a house or a few thousand dollars inheritence.

For generation after generation, the wealthy in the western European based financial system have systematically made sure that the wealth generated by workers has gone to them, leaving each and every worker near broke at the end of their lifetime.

In America, starting with the Homestead act, then continuing thru the empowerment of the Unions and employees that occured between 1940 and 1980, wealth started to accumulate in the working class.

Then American workers got stupid - along came Ronald Reagan - and wealth accumulation in the working class slowly but surely came to a stop.

Credit was substituted for pay in order to prevent the standard of living of the employees from dropping like a rock - and preventing the ensuing political fallout.

Finally, in 2008 the whole corrupt system went bust.

Now here's a gent who GETS IT!!!

*One-man standing ovation.*

 

[blu]

At the heart of the issue is that the wealth distribution in this country is so unfair that the financial system had to substitute credit for pay.

Instead of paying people fairly, people get credit - essentially ownership of everything of lasting value is retained by the financial system. No wealth accumulation by the employees of America - not even by most small business people.

This in turn has created a soceity where anyone that does not have a good credit rating is a second class person - basic survival at best.

Unfortunately, the employees of America, starting in the late 1970s, compounded the situation by becoming devotedly materialistic - and getting themselves in debt up to their geezers.

If employees were paid in accordance with their productive value, there would be little need for credit.

Think about this:

If an working class American were of, let's say German descent, it would mena that their ancestors have been participating in the western european economic system for approximately 1500 years. Given an average of 25 years per generation, that means that this working person has had 60 generations of working ancestors. Each one at least a manual laborer, and most probably many skilled labor or professionals.

60 generations of people working their entire adult lives - and many thru their childhood. What wealth has been accumulated? In most cases NONE. In some cases, a small amount -perhaps a house or a few thousand dollars inheritence.

For generation after generation, the wealthy in the western European based financial system have systematically made sure that the wealth generated by workers has gone to them, leaving each and every worker near broke at the end of their lifetime.

In America, starting with the Homestead act, then continuing thru the empowerment of the Unions and employees that occured between 1940 and 1980, wealth started to accumulate in the working class.

Then American workers got stupid - along came Ronald Reagan - and wealth accumulation in the working class slowly but surely came to a stop.

Credit was substituted for pay in order to prevent the standard of living of the employees from dropping like a rock - and preventing the ensuing political fallout.

Finally, in 2008 the whole corrupt system went bust.

 

[Charles_Main]

They all do, here in Ohio. As best I can tell, credit underwriting has become a common practice in all 50 states. It allows them to reduce their risk of the unpaid premium -- and has no bearing on their risk of claims. I think it should be illegal. So does MarcATL.

You aren't being asked to join some sort of communist uprising; merely to question whether some new business practices of Ginormous Corporations Inc. might not be predatory?

The idea that they have risk when people fail to pay their premiums is a joke. If you fail to pay your Premium your Insurance company will simply not pay when you need them. So where is the increased risk?

Of course the Insurance industry conducts predatory practices. I have never said our current system is perfect. I have always simply maintained that this Health care bill fails to fix most of the problems and adds demand to a broken system, and will increase all of our costs and cost the tax payers much more than we were told.

Please try not to confuse opposition to this particular bill, as a blanket endorsement of the status Quo.

I'm not. Everyone has complaints about Obamacare, including me. Some want to fix it, others want to throw it out altogether -- but Obamacare is not the topic of this thread.

Abusive uses of credit reports is, and as we have agreed, credit underwriting is one such abuse.

There's a domino effect to being uninsurable. Cannot buy a house, for sure. Cannot get renter's insurance -- better pray your neighbors are safety fiends. Cannot buy a car, and so, cannot live anywhere without mass transportation. Cannot buy groceries for the week in one trip. Cannot visit the farmer's market. Etc.

We are in general agreement on this subject it seems.

Wonder what that does to MarcATL's theories about how All cons think on this subject.

 

[Madeline]

That was genius, Richard H.

 

[Madeline]

Charles Main wrote:

We are in general agreement on this subject it seems.

Wonder what that does to MarcATL's theories about how All cons think on this subject.

Not all cons think alike...have you met CaliforniaGirl? boedicca? There are others.

Not all liberals think alike, either.

But far too many think what they are told. Always refershing to find another self-operated person, Charles Main.

 

[MarcATL]

We are in general agreement on this subject it seems.

Wonder what that does to MarcATL's theories about how All cons think on this subject.

I think that you are a tiny minority...and only in this case.

I have to observe your posts further to come to any other conclusion.

 

[Madeline]

We are in general agreement on this subject it seems.

Wonder what that does to MarcATL's theories about how All cons think on this subject.

I think that you are a tiny minority...and only in this case.

I have to observe your posts further to come to any other conclusion.

Such a cynic.

*Laughs*

 

[manifold]

Yikes! 7 pages of unread posts... experience tells me it's not worth it.

The bottom line is this folks, the OP is bunk right from the word go and here is why: Individual liberty grants nobody freedom from the consequences of their actions. You kill somebody, you go to jail and have your liberty stripped. You borrow money and don't pay it back, you pay a consequence for that too. The idea that bearing the consequences for one's choices, freely made, is an infringment upon liberty itself is a completely bogus supposition.

 

[Madeline]

Yikes! 7 pages of unread posts... experience tells me it's not worth it.

The bottom line is this folks, the OP is bunk right from the word go and here is why: Individual liberty grants nobody freedom from the consequences of their actions. You kill somebody, you go to jail and have your liberty stripped. You borrow money and don't pay it back, you pay a consequence for that too. The idea that bearing the consequences for one's choices, freely made, is an infringment upon liberty itself is a completely bogus supposition.

Whoops, not reading is not your friend, mani.

That is not Marc's point and the convo is not about that.

Try again?

 

[MarcATL]

Madelin,

As you can see from the RWers' post and post after post.

They don't see the actual issue. What they see instead is somebody possibly getting away with something they strongly feel they shouldn't be getting away with.

This is the prism that they see every issue through...who's getting away with what?

This is why they won't or can't actually address the simple premise of the OP.

 

[Bern80]

Essentially REQUIRES an individual to have good credit to do/have practically anything.

Aka, an abode, whether rent or own, a car, access to loans (well, this one more understandable), and many other things that decades ago was not necessary.

Having credit has nothing to with a free society per se. It has more to do with the free market. Call them crazy, but most businesses don't want to do business with people that show a history of an inability to pay for things.

 

[MarcATL]

Essentially REQUIRES an individual to have good credit to do/have practically anything.

Aka, an abode, whether rent or own, a car, access to loans (well, this one more understandable), and many other things that decades ago was not necessary.

Having credit has nothing to with a free society per se. It has more to do with the free market. Call them crazy, but most businesses don't want to do business with people that show a history of an inability to pay for things.

Don't your RW nutjobs start wailing and squealing about "We want our FREEDUM back" when you perceive something's going awry in the "Free Market?"

Whats the difference here?

 

[manifold]

Yikes! 7 pages of unread posts... experience tells me it's not worth it.

The bottom line is this folks, the OP is bunk right from the word go and here is why: Individual liberty grants nobody freedom from the consequences of their actions. You kill somebody, you go to jail and have your liberty stripped. You borrow money and don't pay it back, you pay a consequence for that too. The idea that bearing the consequences for one's choices, freely made, is an infringment upon liberty itself is a completely bogus supposition.

Whoops, not reading is not your friend, mani.

That is not Marc's point and the convo is not about that.

Try again?

I disagree

My post here addresses the OP directly. The pages of posts that have transpired since are irrlevant unless of course he has retracted his alleged "point" from the OP, which I highly doubt.

 

[Bern80]

Essentially REQUIRES an individual to have good credit to do/have practically anything.

Aka, an abode, whether rent or own, a car, access to loans (well, this one more understandable), and many other things that decades ago was not necessary.

Having credit has nothing to with a free society per se. It has more to do with the free market. Call them crazy, but most businesses don't want to do business with people that show a history of an inability to pay for things.

Don't your RW nutjobs start wailing and squealing about "We want our FREEDUM back" when you perceive something's going awry in the "Free Market?"

Whats the difference here?

I guess I don't get what freedom is being taken away from people by approving them for car loans and the like on the basis of their credit. When we are talking high dollar items that most people can't pay for at once like a car or a house, it seems fairly reasonable that the seller is going to want some assurance that they are going to recieve full payment eventually.

Again I don't get what you're complaining about. Some individuals who were refused loans because they showed an inability to pay for things in the past? My god the injustice.