[Nathan]

The World Bank has cancelled $37 billion in debt owed by the 17 poorest countries.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...6-04-25-02.asp

I think that is really cool. Wouldn't it be neat if creditors cancelled debt of some of the neediest widows and families facing long-term disabilities?

[babydawn]

That is a really awesome article. I completely agree with you. We do need more forgiving people in this world....including creditors. Not that people who run up stupid debt trying to look rich would qualify, but as you said, forgiveness of debts for the most needy.

[SUSPENSE]

The cancellation of debt is on the basis of the respective government's agreement to let in the capitalist into the countries in the name of economic and industrial development.
The secret behind the debt.
70 % of the debt has gone back as the technical assistance that came in as the part of loan and 30 % through their pockets. The loan has numerically swollen with the principal and the cumulative interests, well documented in papers. the numbers bubble so large it becomes embarresing for the donars to keep pressing the innocent recepient(victims).
Now the victimized governments have to obey what the multilateral corporates( through capitalistic WTO, WB, IMF....) say. They want the unopposed entry of the capilists, who form the pillars of the donors..
We rejoice for the news.

Suspense

[mcmama]

Originally Posted by Nathan

The World Bank has cancelled $37 billion in debt owed by the 17 poorest countries.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...6-04-25-02.asp

I think that is really cool. Wouldn't it be neat if creditors cancelled debt of some of the neediest widows and families facing long-term disabilities?

You have got to be kidding if you think this would ever happen!

What would be more neat is if there were a ceiling on credit card rates, an initiative to up the minimum payments INSTEAD of raising the rate (as opposed to going along with it) and if health insurance could be offered to all at affordable rates.

Not in my lifetime.

I think the world debt cancellation is neat, and cancelling the debt means that these countries have a chance to get on their feed and ultimately the whole world profits.

[MJ7]

Originally Posted by mcmama

You have got to be kidding if you think this would ever happen!

What would be more neat is if there were a ceiling on credit card rates, an initiative to up the minimum payments INSTEAD of raising the rate (as opposed to going along with it) and if health insurance could be offered to all at affordable rates.

Not in my lifetime.

I think the world debt cancellation is neat, and cancelling the debt means that these countries have a chance to get on their feed and ultimately the whole world profits.

There are payment protection offers on all credit cards I've seen for a minimal monthly feel. You can even get this on mortgages so in the event of disability, or along those lines, your debt can be halted and not have to owe for that time. It's not perfect, but a better option than nothing.

There are lot's of credit cards with interest rate caps. Ours fortunately is a fixed 5.9% rate. Depending on one's credit risk there are many options for types of credit cards.

As far as the health insurance though. Clark Howard a radio financial guy has an interesting perpective on this. I think he's right for the most part. Right now we the insured, through our companies, are not who the health insurance providers look at as their customers. It's the employers. So, if instead of the companies paying out HUGE amounts in insurance, what if they instead gave us that money in our paychecks and were were responsible for finding our own health care provider? This would create more presure on health insurances to compete for OUR business and perhaps better customer service and lower rates. Did you know that when you are paying your part of employer selected insurance or they are paying the big chunk, that the rates are usually based off of the employees of the highest risk? This isn't fair to us that are younger and healthier to be paying the same high rates (basically between us and employer) when we are not in the same risk catagory. Anyway, Clarks emphasis on making individuals responsible (and it would need to be required to have) for their own insurance doesn't sound too bad in theory. His suggestion is make it mandatory as having auto insurance is mandatory.

Interesting stuff.

[babydawn]

Originally Posted by MJ7

As far as the health insurance though. Clark Howard a radio financial guy has an interesting perpective on this. I think he's right for the most part. Right now we the insured, through our companies, are not who the health insurance providers look at as their customers. It's the employers. So, if instead of the companies paying out HUGE amounts in insurance, what if they instead gave us that money in our paychecks and were were responsible for finding our own health care provider? This would create more presure on health insurances to compete for OUR business and perhaps better customer service and lower rates. Did you know that when you are paying your part of employer selected insurance or they are paying the big chunk, that the rates are usually based off of the employees of the highest risk? This isn't fair to us that are younger and healthier to be paying the same high rates (basically between us and employer) when we are not in the same risk catagory. Anyway, Clarks emphasis on making individuals responsible (and it would need to be required to have) for their own insurance doesn't sound too bad in theory. His suggestion is make it mandatory as having auto insurance is mandatory.

The problem with this theory is that right now, at least in Idaho, you can't get a decent individual health insurance plan. My husband and I went through trying to find good health insurance for our family when we were self employed a few years ago. We got the best we could find. It was a $3000 deductible, and a seperate $3000 maternity deductible. Newborns weren't even covered for 3 days after they were born. I found this out after I had my second son. We would have paid my second baby off sooner if we had not even had insurance and put the money we spent on insurance every month towards medical bills. Yes, it did provide major medical, but that was about it. No doctors appointments, no perscriptions, it was a joke. And it was a huge financial stress. Now, my husband's company "self-insures" which means they have a higher deductible health insurance plan, but once a small portion of that deductible is met, then the comany pays the rest for the employee, or reimburses it to the employee....the company he works for is a small business with only about 30 employees, and it saved the company $40,000 per year in health insurance premiums to do it that way.

[mcmama]

Originally Posted by babydawn

The problem with this theory is that right now, at least in Idaho, you can't get a decent individual health insurance plan.

Ditto NJ. Unless you are an employer you are stuck. You cannot organize into a group, like a professional association or union, and get health insurance. Illegal in NJ.

I pay 439 a month for a bare bones hmo just for myself. I still think I am under insured.
The states need to change the laws to accomodate self employed people and independent contractors.

[MJ7]

Originally Posted by babydawn

The problem with this theory is that right now, at least in Idaho, you can't get a decent individual health insurance plan. My husband and I went through trying to find good health insurance for our family when we were self employed a few years ago. We got the best we could find. It was a $3000 deductible, and a seperate $3000 maternity deductible. Newborns weren't even covered for 3 days after they were born. I found this out after I had my second son. We would have paid my second baby off sooner if we had not even had insurance and put the money we spent on insurance every month towards medical bills. Yes, it did provide major medical, but that was about it. No doctors appointments, no perscriptions, it was a joke. And it was a huge financial stress. Now, my husband's company "self-insures" which means they have a higher deductible health insurance plan, but once a small portion of that deductible is met, then the comany pays the rest for the employee, or reimburses it to the employee....the company he works for is a small business with only about 30 employees, and it saved the company $40,000 per year in health insurance premiums to do it that way.

I understand, and it would take I think some time to get health insurance companies to wise up and listen to thier clients to provide better plans. There would need to be some serious healthcare reform for this to happen. I think it's a neat theory though. Force the health insurance companies to work for US.

[TheFamilyCEO]

Those of you who are self-employed might want to look into an HSA (Health Savings Account). It combines a high deductible insurance policy with tax advantaged savings for health expenses. It can sometimes be a good alternative.