I was also not surprised to read that Capital One was being this. I had my own run-in with this shady company, where they charged something to my credit card account without my consent and then tried to ruin my credit rating because I refused to pay. Only by threatening to involve the BBB was I able to save my credit rating, although they’ve still got my money. I recommend people avoid this company like the plague.
This product is a complete scam. It only exists because of the lack of federal regulation. There are more exclusions on these policies than a million dollar commercial policy. Someone somewhere needs to step up to the plate and either ban credit card insurance or outlaw the protectionist exclusions.
Or just make it illegal to add the insurance directly to the credit card bill – make them bill the premiums separately. 99% of it would just disappear.
I was disgusted to find this crap being added to my grandfather’s credit card bill when I took over his finances after he got sick. It was over $100/month and he didn’t even know it was on there.
I like it. Make it a separate product all together with a payment in full requires each month by some means other than the credit card. I could live with that. The banks on the other hand probably couldn’t. No one would pay for this insurance if they knew how much it actually cost.
I am very sorry that the commercial banks have a revenue problem, but they have to stop having a mindset that they can behave like banksters and rip their customers off with obscure “opt-out” schemes. And, yes, we expect the government (including the Republican side of the aisle) to protect us from these predations.
Several years ago I worked at a call center that sold these policies and it opened my eyes to Capitalism at its worst. Many policies, as youngin experienced, were sold to elderly people – people who were already disabled or retired who had little chance of having a “new” disability, of losing a job or understanding what they had bought. It was also sold to many financially desperate cardholders. These people would be granted a card with a $500 limit (actually $450 as it came with a $50 debit for the card’s issuance fee). The recipients were made to feel the purchase of the policy was part of the agreement for obtaining it – a chance to rebuild their credit and keep them on track if they should be unable to make a payment. Those that received these cards were generally financially strapped and would immediately max them out. When it was time for the monthly insurance premium to be charged, it would cause the account to go over the limit or cause an overdraft. These would result in the bank charging fees for both circumstances. It was not uncommon for a purchaser of these polices to have an additional charge of $30 to $60 a month just in fees so in a matter of months these $500 cards would have balances of $2,000 to $3,000 with a 29% interest rate. The federal law change greatly reduced these abuses but still today I would never apply to any of these major companies for any type of credit or debit card. My stay at that company was short as I wasn’t getting much sleep.
I’m not sure why you are making these high risk companies out to be such horrible corporations. While I agree that these policies are a waste and should never ever take a card over the limit (or if they do they need to be exempt from fees), some things require credit cards. Try renting a car or checking into a hotel without one. There is a cost associated with loaning to bad credit risks. A number will default in short order. Denying them credit all together would be far worse. If you’re seeking a second chance you probably shouldn’t blow it.
Gee, I wonder why people are marching in the streets against the banking system. It couldn’t be that they are continually coming up with complicated ways to cheat us out of our money, could it?
I’m no fan of the big banks either, but those idiots in the streets have no idea why they’re out there. They’re the kind of people who are mad because someone else has something they want and feel entitled to a free ride. They also offer no solutions, have no leadership, and have no respect for the rules.
Whether you agree with the tea party’s politics or not you have to agree that they were organized, had a clear message, and offered solutions…until they were hijacked by the Republican Party that is.
Mr. Solvent, your sweeping generalization of the occupy-ers is ridiculous and uncharacteristically one-dimensional. Are you just too old and financially secure to see how the financial system and its government cronies are holding the middle class and vulnerable youth hostage, or are you just having a rough day?
As I said, I’m not a fan of big financial institutions. Frankly their bad actions in addition to government bailouts have led us into this mess we find ourselves in. It’s disgusting to me that we as a society have become so dependent on these bad actors. Then again, is it the bad actors’ fault or us as a society?
As far as my occupy opposition goes, you’re going to change nothing by tresspassing and pitching tents. Complaining rarely solves anything. These folks are likely going to go vote for whomever has a D next to their name come next November. Time to break this country of a 2-party system and institute term limits on all elected Federal, state, and local offices.
I’m with you on the term limits (at the federal and state level at least), but I’m confused by why you think the occupy movement is political in nature. Both of the two major parties have demonstrated where their priorities lay over the past 5 years. Many are disappointed with Obama and I’ve even heard people claim that his presidency has been indistinguishable from a 3rd Bush term. Why do you think the occupy-ers will automatically vote for a Democrat when the Democrats are equally to blame for the nation’s economic woes?
I think this occupy movement turns into another anti-trust movement and I would support that. I agree with you that this might be an opportunity for a viable third party but I don’t think the occupy movement is going to provide that.
I think the movement is about people who played by the rules but realize the game is rigged and are fed up. I sympathize with that and conservatives should too – it’s the tax dollars of the 53% that are used to fund the bailouts!
November 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Mr. Solvent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Youngin,
The occupy movement IS political in nature. It’s for the most part fed up Democrats just as the tea part was/is made up of fed up Republicans. The Democrats will hijack the “movement” just as the Republicans hijacked the “party.”
I’m assuming you identify with Democrats based on your comments and that’s OK. But you and the occupiers must understand is that the Democrats sold us as a country out on the bailouts. They controlled both chambers of Congress! I’d like to hope that these occupiers would vote outside of their comfort but I think it’s history repeated. A bunch of noise and no change. Any “movement” that has Nancy Pelosi as a champion of I want no part of.
November 21, 2011 at 9:30 am
youngin' says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m disappointed you don’t think there are people who can be passionate about an issue or issues without aligning themselves with a political party. My positions on various issues are based on how I feel about them and whether or not they align with one party or another is purely coincidence. I have gone through most of my life assuming most other people are the same way, but as I meet more people I am starting to question that assumption.
Your assumption is wrong. Most people affiliate with a political party and will follow them to a fault. Sure, it’s the independent voters who win it for the clowns on either side, but most people associate with a D or an R. A dirty shame, but it’s what’s kept our sham of a political process going. It doesn’t matter which side of they aisle you’re on, at this point they’re both so dysfunctional that I hold out little hope.
Why am I not surprised to hear this is a Capital one customer?!
I was not surprised either!
I was also not surprised to read that Capital One was being this. I had my own run-in with this shady company, where they charged something to my credit card account without my consent and then tried to ruin my credit rating because I refused to pay. Only by threatening to involve the BBB was I able to save my credit rating, although they’ve still got my money. I recommend people avoid this company like the plague.
This product is a complete scam. It only exists because of the lack of federal regulation. There are more exclusions on these policies than a million dollar commercial policy. Someone somewhere needs to step up to the plate and either ban credit card insurance or outlaw the protectionist exclusions.
Or just make it illegal to add the insurance directly to the credit card bill – make them bill the premiums separately. 99% of it would just disappear.
I was disgusted to find this crap being added to my grandfather’s credit card bill when I took over his finances after he got sick. It was over $100/month and he didn’t even know it was on there.
I like it. Make it a separate product all together with a payment in full requires each month by some means other than the credit card. I could live with that. The banks on the other hand probably couldn’t. No one would pay for this insurance if they knew how much it actually cost.
I am very sorry that the commercial banks have a revenue problem, but they have to stop having a mindset that they can behave like banksters and rip their customers off with obscure “opt-out” schemes. And, yes, we expect the government (including the Republican side of the aisle) to protect us from these predations.
Several years ago I worked at a call center that sold these policies and it opened my eyes to Capitalism at its worst. Many policies, as youngin experienced, were sold to elderly people – people who were already disabled or retired who had little chance of having a “new” disability, of losing a job or understanding what they had bought. It was also sold to many financially desperate cardholders. These people would be granted a card with a $500 limit (actually $450 as it came with a $50 debit for the card’s issuance fee). The recipients were made to feel the purchase of the policy was part of the agreement for obtaining it – a chance to rebuild their credit and keep them on track if they should be unable to make a payment. Those that received these cards were generally financially strapped and would immediately max them out. When it was time for the monthly insurance premium to be charged, it would cause the account to go over the limit or cause an overdraft. These would result in the bank charging fees for both circumstances. It was not uncommon for a purchaser of these polices to have an additional charge of $30 to $60 a month just in fees so in a matter of months these $500 cards would have balances of $2,000 to $3,000 with a 29% interest rate. The federal law change greatly reduced these abuses but still today I would never apply to any of these major companies for any type of credit or debit card. My stay at that company was short as I wasn’t getting much sleep.
I’m not sure why you are making these high risk companies out to be such horrible corporations. While I agree that these policies are a waste and should never ever take a card over the limit (or if they do they need to be exempt from fees), some things require credit cards. Try renting a car or checking into a hotel without one. There is a cost associated with loaning to bad credit risks. A number will default in short order. Denying them credit all together would be far worse. If you’re seeking a second chance you probably shouldn’t blow it.
Gee, I wonder why people are marching in the streets against the banking system. It couldn’t be that they are continually coming up with complicated ways to cheat us out of our money, could it?
I’m no fan of the big banks either, but those idiots in the streets have no idea why they’re out there. They’re the kind of people who are mad because someone else has something they want and feel entitled to a free ride. They also offer no solutions, have no leadership, and have no respect for the rules.
Whether you agree with the tea party’s politics or not you have to agree that they were organized, had a clear message, and offered solutions…until they were hijacked by the Republican Party that is.
Mr. Solvent, your sweeping generalization of the occupy-ers is ridiculous and uncharacteristically one-dimensional. Are you just too old and financially secure to see how the financial system and its government cronies are holding the middle class and vulnerable youth hostage, or are you just having a rough day?
As I said, I’m not a fan of big financial institutions. Frankly their bad actions in addition to government bailouts have led us into this mess we find ourselves in. It’s disgusting to me that we as a society have become so dependent on these bad actors. Then again, is it the bad actors’ fault or us as a society?
As far as my occupy opposition goes, you’re going to change nothing by tresspassing and pitching tents. Complaining rarely solves anything. These folks are likely going to go vote for whomever has a D next to their name come next November. Time to break this country of a 2-party system and institute term limits on all elected Federal, state, and local offices.
I’m with you on the term limits (at the federal and state level at least), but I’m confused by why you think the occupy movement is political in nature. Both of the two major parties have demonstrated where their priorities lay over the past 5 years. Many are disappointed with Obama and I’ve even heard people claim that his presidency has been indistinguishable from a 3rd Bush term. Why do you think the occupy-ers will automatically vote for a Democrat when the Democrats are equally to blame for the nation’s economic woes?
I think this occupy movement turns into another anti-trust movement and I would support that. I agree with you that this might be an opportunity for a viable third party but I don’t think the occupy movement is going to provide that.
I think the movement is about people who played by the rules but realize the game is rigged and are fed up. I sympathize with that and conservatives should too – it’s the tax dollars of the 53% that are used to fund the bailouts!
Youngin,
The occupy movement IS political in nature. It’s for the most part fed up Democrats just as the tea part was/is made up of fed up Republicans. The Democrats will hijack the “movement” just as the Republicans hijacked the “party.”
I’m assuming you identify with Democrats based on your comments and that’s OK. But you and the occupiers must understand is that the Democrats sold us as a country out on the bailouts. They controlled both chambers of Congress! I’d like to hope that these occupiers would vote outside of their comfort but I think it’s history repeated. A bunch of noise and no change. Any “movement” that has Nancy Pelosi as a champion of I want no part of.
I’m disappointed you don’t think there are people who can be passionate about an issue or issues without aligning themselves with a political party. My positions on various issues are based on how I feel about them and whether or not they align with one party or another is purely coincidence. I have gone through most of my life assuming most other people are the same way, but as I meet more people I am starting to question that assumption.
Your assumption is wrong. Most people affiliate with a political party and will follow them to a fault. Sure, it’s the independent voters who win it for the clowns on either side, but most people associate with a D or an R. A dirty shame, but it’s what’s kept our sham of a political process going. It doesn’t matter which side of they aisle you’re on, at this point they’re both so dysfunctional that I hold out little hope.