Obama said he would change recent changes in the nation’s bankruptcy laws that he said favored credit card companies over consumers giving new protections for those who go into debt for medical expenses.
Under Obama’s intend people who show they went bankrupt because of medical expenses could get approve on their feet with help from the government.
“I don’t accept an America where we let someone go over a cliff just because they get sick,” he said.
Obama said his credit card account of rights would ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement prohibit changes in interest rates in debt already incurred and ban interest on late fees. Such changes would ensure Americans paid what they owed but would verify a fair process he said.
1. I thought he wanted ? If America has universal health care there would be no need to put medical bills on credit cards right? Then there would be no need for Obama’s plan. So which is it? Universal health care or change in bankruptcy laws to “protect” populate who rack up medical bills on credit cards?
2. This credit card bill of rights is a ridiculous idea. Everything Obama would “command” is simply a matter of contract. It’s not like Obama is going to change bad laws he is effectively going to ban the ability of people to freely assure - a fundamental and necessary right! You do not have to write a piece of cover that allows for changes in interest rates and you do not have to sign a piece of paper that permits late fees (never object that these things just ensure that the lending company is not losing money). The Founding Fathers understood how important this alter was to the healthy functioning of an economy.
“No express shall enter into any Treaty. Alliance or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any account of Attainder expost facto Law or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts or grant any Title of Nobility.”
Article I section 10 clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … go any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” On its face an absolute limitation on state cater the meaning of this clause has varied greatly in Supreme act interpretation. In the early years of the nation the Contracts Clause dominated the Supreme act’s case lay and the act’s interpretations constrained.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.libertypundit.com/2007/11/08/obama-to-change-credit-bankruptcy-laws-forget-contract-clause-in-constitution/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
