Comments on: What The CARD Act of 2009 Means to You

By: jwoolman

jwoolman — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:53:14 +0000

About 40% of card holders do pay in full every month. But most cc debt in the US is not due to overspending on “stuff”. Half is due to medical expenses. Even if insured, your insurer can refuse to pay if it decides (even if it pre-certified treatment) a billed item is medically unnecessary or priced too high for your area. Emergency patients especially get stuck with high bills for even minor problems (like my $15,000 UTI…) because of the predatory model for funding normal costs in US hospitals. Plus deductibles have to be paid, which many of us need to set high to afford premiums. Prolonged unemployment (often going along with illness) accounts for at least 25% of cc debt. Most of the rest is due to other emergencies (e.g. , repairs that must be made now). Probably only ten percent is for buying too much “stuff”, although some of that may be related to unexpected unemployment or illness when people decide to buy in installments in better times. Also many small businesses use personal credit cards to smooth out cash flow or buy needed equipment, supplies, and services while waiting to be paid or to get more work (the alternative is to go out of business…). Sneer at debtors if you want, but you all are just one prolonged illness or layoff or deadbeat client away from debt yourself.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:19:05 +0000

I agree that the rewards programs and new annual fees are the most likely source to make up revenue for the credit card companies. This could be a good thing in some respects, becuase if there is no rewards program and there is an annual fee, I won’t use the card anymore. Hopefully we remove some of our dependency on the cards as a result.

I can live without the measely 1% cashback I am getting, even though it was nice to get every once and awhile.

By: Sun

Sun — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:46:08 +0000

@Tom I firmly believe it’s the cardholders who got themselves into the credit card trouble, not the credit card companies. If a person can only pay the minimum every month, but keeps charging the card, the person is responsible for his/her debt problem and nobody should bail he/her out. If everybody pays their bills in full every month, then we won’t have this mess.

Now the annual fee and rewards program downgrade are just rumors. But if it does happen to me, then I will be very upset. It’s just like the government bailout of homeowners who can’t pay their mortgage. All the money goes to those people. People who keep their mortgage payments current are left with nothing. The credit card law could end up hurting people who pay their bills in full every month.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:44:48 +0000

I’m firmly against it for the reasons you mention. We are already seeing rewards programs being downgraded… Chase and AmEx Blue Cash cards are reducing benefits. This is a populist bill because a majority of Americans carry a balance. I think we are rewarding irresponsible behavior. A vast majority of those that carry a balance simply bought more stuff than they could afford. Plus, all of the “shady” practices of credit card companies are explained in the terms and conditions and fine print. One can argue that “no one reads those”, but don’t complain when you miss a payment and your rate skyrockets.

So I have to ask, if you are now a victim… are you still in favor?