Once a bank reaches critical mass and they can afford to lose customers, their game changes. It goes from gaining/serving customers to maximizing profits. At that point, it's about cutting services and raising prices. After all, your stock price HAS to continue to climb, even if they aren't bringing in new customers. It doesn't matter if you drop ~1000 customers if you make up the difference on the backside. At least the new regulation is giving people a reason to diversify their banking.

It's said that people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and I agree. Wholeheartedly... Because in the end, when someone if boned, it's their reality. Thankfully, we've got the division of labor thing going so people don't have to be lenders or real estate agents to get a home. Whose burden of responsibility is it to say "No, you can't have that home"? I keep hearing that it's government regulation with the Community Reinvestment Act that caused it, but the act was only compulsory to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which handled roughly 33% of the secondary loans to low income families. That left 66% loosening up their underwriting standards and giving loans to people that were guaranteed to not be able to afford them. The 66% were companies not covered under the CRA, which did not have to give out the loans. The only reason the loans were a good investment was because they could be repackaged into CDOs and sold off, leaving the risk with the last sucker holding the bag, which was not the underwriting firm. They didn't have a pound of flesh in the game after the securities were sold. The individuals who could not pay the mortgage lacked the sophistication to tell they couldn't afford it was only part of the problem. I know if Tyrone Biggums walked up to me asking me for a loan, while I knew he had no job and a $300/week crack habit, would make me the asshole for giving it to him. Sure, he shouldn't have asked for it, but that doesn't put that money back in my pocket. Maybe there should be a fiduciary duty in the housing and lending markets to ensure the loan meets the expectations.

tl;dr making bad loans was not compulsory to private lending instututions. They did it because they saw dollar signs instead of what it really was: a plan designed to fail for private institutions due to the inherent risk. Subprime means less than optimal. If you're putting your own money up, you're not going for subprime.

Damn. I modded you funny but it just put you at +5 Insightful! Dude, that's some funny paranoid nonsense. I'm sure there's a rubber room free of commies somewhere with your name on it!

Drat! Beat me to it!

I agree, The Market would handle this handily. I mean, those people could just pack up and move on, right? There are plenty of other jobs in 'merica? The Free Market operates properly when there are viable alternatives. Given the skillset required for this job, the jobs they'd qualify for are already taken. Sure, they could get educated, but that's a different story altogether where the market is also failing people.

The Free Market works when people have a choice. Doesn't seem like a lot of choice out there these days.

Are you poor? What are you doing squandering your life away working hard and having nothing? You, too could have it all. More and more people each day are making their way to the good life. All you have to do is slide into poverty! Hell, if its so great, why aren't you trying it, instead of badmouthing those freeloaders on the internet?

Really? It's a pretty popular business model to run a municipal exchange just like a for-profit does, just without the profit part.

Honestly, I have a hard time buying the line that its everyone riding off someone else's dime. If the system worked and people like you actually worked to a sensible solution instead of decrying any progress as the second coming of Karl Marx, we'd probably be a lot further along.

Sorry, bro. We spent all of our cash on bombs, bribes, and bullets. :T

I have to disagree with that. It's possible to set up a single payer system that everyone pays into as we do with insurance. The good part about that is government isn't on the take and marking up the rates due to artificial inflation. If they were, they would have to answer to the citizens, and not the stockholders. The great thing about this is you don't have to enslave anyone, because everyone will be working on the same system that's employed in the private healthcare industry, which isn't slavery now. Switching providers from Met Life to Fed Health shouldn't be that big of an ordeal.

IMO, the real problem people have is the FUD being spewed by the healthcare industry because they stand to lose a lot of profits. They might even be fighting for their very existence, but I don't think they're entitled to exist when they fleece their customers, collude with competition, and refuse to employ price control. Why try to act right and serve customers better when it's easier to scare people with talk about "death panels", "enslavement" and "communism". Hell, it might cost a bit to lobby, but it's cheaper than changing how you do business.

So, in your infinite wisdom, what is the root cause of this vigilantism? Do you think they have no just cause? Especially after knowing this company is not above paying off officials to get out of trouble and avoid scrutiny, how can you believe this is going to be handled above board and professionally?

That's not memorization, that's math... Unless you haven't learned basic math, but have decided to memorize the "hard" ones.

Maybe times have changed since I was a kid, but saving money to spend it on something I actually wanted, rather than putting gas in the car or paying for a power bill.

Just like you need money to make money, you need insurance to get affordable insurance?

Roughly 25% equates to average? We shouldn't let facts get in the way of your slander though. Sure, it's a lot of people. No, it's not the average.

Wait, this is the senate... Isn't it supposed to be hard?