credit cards -- update

Continuing the saga begun here...

I contacted the bank to request, by e-mail, copies of the old and new complete agreements, so I could compare them side by side. Within a few hours I got a polite reply saying they had put a copy of the complete agreement in the mail to me, and it should arrive within 7-10 business days.

So I asked, again, that they send me both old and new complete agreements, by e-mail. Within a few hours I got a polite reply saying they can't send me the old agreement because the new one has already taken effect, and they're "not authorized" to send me the agreement by e-mail, only on paper. (They also added that my suggestion that the current agreement be available on the Web site has been "forwarded to the Management Team for their review.")

I replied, pointing out the inconceivability that a company the size and sophistication of $BANK doesn't have a copy of what were, until last week, its legal rights and responsibilities, and the equal inconceivability that such a company doesn't have the agreements in computer-readable form. The only explanation I can think of is that it is official company policy to prevent customers from learning what is happening to their fees, interest rates, and due dates.

Stupak

So this amendment forbids any insurance policy that covers abortion from being available to anybody who gets any Federal subsidy money. It also forbids the public option from covering abortion, even if said public option is completely self-funding (and therefore isn't a Federal subsidy). It also forbids any policy in the "insurance exchange" from covering abortion, even if it's paid for entirely by the customer, without Federal subsidies.

However, private insurance companies (but not the public option) are allowed to make optional "abortion riders" available (but not in the exchange) for separate purchase (but not with Federal subsidies). Presumably an insurance company would be required to show that they get at least as much money in premiums for such riders as they spend on abortion services; if not, it could be argued that some of their Federal subsidy money was leaking over the border into abortions. In fact, they might even have to show that they make at least the same profit margin on the abortion rider as on their other policies; otherwise, again, Federal subsidy money is in some sense making it possible to pay for an abortion without hurting the profit margins.

Amusing image: the CEO of a major insurance company is called into a Congressional hearing to defend against charges from irate right-wingers that his company set premiums too low, or didn't deny enough claims.



Another puzzle: suppose you don't buy the optional "abortion rider" because you aren't sexually active at the moment. One giddy Saturday night, that changes, and you're afraid you might be pregnant. So you call your insurance company the next morning and say "I changed my mind; I do want the abortion rider." Insurance companies are forbidden to exclude people for "pre-existing conditions," so they have to sell you the rider. If so, then nobody would ever buy such a rider until they got pregnant and were considering abortion. Thus in order for premiums to pay for claims, the premiums for (say) six months would have to cover the cost of a single abortion, which means there's no advantage in buying one even if you do get pregnant. Therefore nobody will buy them, so nobody will sell them.

Or maybe the "no exclusion for pre-existing conditions" clause doesn't apply to optional riders. In which case insurance companies will still have departments charged with deciding whether to sell insurance to a particular customer, and they can still pick and choose their customers, selling insurance only to those who don't need it. The same mess we're in now.