Credit card bill plan is too weak
Consumers generally ignore the interest rates on their credit cards and treat interest payments as a service charge for using credit cards. Thus, the use of interest rate adjustments by the Federal Reserve Board cannot control this inflationary factor ("Credit Card Debt Has Its Price," Consumer Confidential, Jan. 30).
An excessive amount of banking capital is committed to financing credit card debt. That capital is not available to businesses for expansion.
Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein's bill does not go far enough. What is needed is legislation that would mandate a minimum monthly payment of 10% of the balance carried forward plus a down payment of 20% of all new charges on unsecured, revolving consumer financing.
David E. Ross
Oak Park
While it's wonderful that Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants to do something to help consumers burdened with excessive credit card debt, it's too bad she's going after a symptom rather than the disease.
The latter is, of course, the banks' ability to charge totally outrageous interest rates on credit card debt -- coupled with their ability to change the interest and pay-back rules at will, affecting, retroactively, debt already accumulated.
Doug Harris
Masonville, N.Y.
Insurer's fat cats are getting fatter
It's about time someone took notice of UnitedHealth/PacifiCare's mishandling of claims ("Health plan faces fines of $1.33 billion," Jan. 29).
As a result of the acquisition two years ago, executives pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars while the claims department underwent layoffs. I've come to the realization that our obesity epidemic began right here in the boardrooms of UnitedHealth/PacifiCare. The fat cats keep getting fatter, just like our premiums. UnitedHealth/PacifiCare should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Sergio Gonzalez
Cypress
UnitedHealth Chief Executive William McGuire made the unsubstantiated claim in 2005 that the acquisition of PacifiCare would benefit every participant in the system and result in greater efficiency and lower healthcare costs.
In reality, there is no evidence that there is ever any efficiency to be gained in mergers of this magnitude.
Patients, physicians and employers in California do not appear to be benefiting from this merger. The primary beneficiaries appear to be shareholders and the highly paid insurance company executives.
