You say the above is not ture? Who says? Lest yu forget, there is a FINE (part of ObamaCare) proposed for peole who do not comply with the MANDATE to purchase health insurance. If this DOES NOT WORK, without threats of jail, will this not reesult in the "return of debtoros' prisons? And can you not end up in JAIL in a number of ways under this law, iincuding LYING (or failing to report) in order to aovid the fine? You might note that, RIGHT NOW, teh Texas Attorney General's office, orr equivalent stae agency, can simply send a LETTER accusing a person of owing BAcK child support (a "debt"), even after the child is an adult, and get the IRS to take the money out of a REFUND CHECK. Be honest. Do you KNOW how Obama INTENDS to enforce lthe INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, and how far he is prepared to go? You don't know, and I realy don't know for sure, because our disgraceful media has NO INTEREST in the FACTS (or potentil future enforcement methods). But you say: "Skip, you have no business saying this will bring back DEBTORS' PRISONS. Taht is "hysterical", and DISTORTS THE DEBATE."
Actually, I sort of agree with you ., That was MY reactin to another DISGRACEFUL "nes" story from the people at Yahoo (one of the worst companies that has ever existed, but typical of modern "jurnlaism"), quoting extensively the Associated Press (as to which this blgo has establishhed, over a decade, there iis NO worsse "news" organization that has ever existed, in this or any other UNIVERSE, becaue it is impossilbe to be any worse). Here is the headline of the article, contradicted in the article itself: "Breeaest cancer survivor jailed for faiure to pay $280 medical bill, in return of debtors' prisons".
You can see the relationship with ObamaCare. WHY would a state PREFER medical bills to the point of allowing omeone to be ARRESTED for not paying them? Right,. It is the SAME "justification" made for the ObamaCare "individual mandate":: If lpeople fail to by health insurance, OR PAY THEIR MEDICAL BILLS (even when able to do so), then they are getting a FREE RIDE on other peole--taking the bread out of the mouths (or the cancer treatment away) from other peole. You go very far down the Obama road, you DO end up with DEBTORS' PRISONS. The logic leads DIRECTLY THERE, whehter with regard to health care, grocery store credit, or credit cards.
What do I mean wwhen I say that the DISGRACEFUl, INCOMPETENT, HYSTERICAL AP--and Yaho--contradict themselves? Weil, for one thing, in the very FIRST paragraphm, the FALSE assertion is made, as is obvius from the internally contradictory sentence: "Debtors' prisons were abolished in the United States in the 1930s, but 1/3 of the states still allow peoople to be jailed for any numberr of things, including faiure to pay for health care services or credit cards." So "debtors' prisons" were ABOLISHED, but 1/3 of the states RETAIN them? Great, you LKIARS of the AP, and Yaho. Do you never stop GETTING WORSE. You should be able to see lthe problem here, and it is a DELIBERATE lLIE by the AP for the PUROSE of their AGENDA with this story (to HYPE the story). When it is said that "debtors' prisons" were eliminated, we are talking about DEBTORS' PRISONS. We are NOT talking aobut jailing lpeople under SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES for speccifc DEBTS (or for failing to compy with collection procedures allowed to try to collect specific debts). "Debors's prisons" is a LIE, and the despicable AP kknows it.
Nevertheless, you APOLOGIISTS for the DESP:ICABLE AP may argue, is it "right"? It depends, doesn't it. Traffic vifines? Are they not DEBTTS (with, maybe, LESS real utility for the society at learge than MAKNG people pay medical lbills, or credit card ebt)? Sure, they are debt (although a person might use SEMANTICS to argue taht they are someting else, but that is realyl what they are). In fact, in the news this last week was a town that was CRACKING DOWN on peple running red lights, and caught with one of those CAMERAS. But doesn't there at least have to be a court PROCEEDING, even if people don't appear? Sure, but that is OFTEN true of civvil debts as well. The desgraceful AP article even talks abut "using publicly funded courst, sheriff's deuties and other public officials to collect private debts,. What do you think our judicial system is FOR? A creditor can go to COURT (where the debtor may not appear), and get an uncontested JUDGMENT. Then the creditor may REQUIRE the debtor to "appear" to REFEAL the debtor's asset (talking Texas law here, where I was an attorney on both sides of this for the first part of my 35 lyears as a Texas lawyer). IF the debtor does not appear, the debtor GOES TO JIL for failing to appear (that is, after a court order is obtainned), for CONTAEMPT, and the debtor is todld he can get out of jail (or, usually, out of the deputy's custody), by arrangement to pay the debt. This is all apart from the EXECUTION on property, which--in some states, can TAKE AWAY A PERSON'S HOUSE. In other words, there are all kinds of pr9oceedings in which wyou can go to JAIl, essentially for DEBT.
Still don't understand? Waht about CHILD SUPPORT (that "garnishment by letter" I reference earier)? Even if you SAY you do not have the money, you can go to JAIL for failing to pay child support (again, USUALLY after a court proceeding). Is the AP saying this is DEBTORS' PRISON? Who knows. This is the DESPICABLE< INCOMPETENT AP, and despicable, incompetent people like those of Yahoo "News' "quote" the AP.
Then there is El Paso Country, where I ive. The El Paso Country attorney, backed up by the sheriff's dpartment, regularly ENFORCES BAD CHECKS. No a CHECK is a DEBT, although deliberately writing a bad check without fihnds to cover ti, in order to obtain a good or service, is a kind of THEFT. The BAD CHECK can be for almost anyting, although it is not supposed to be one "extorted" by a debet collectin agency to "pay" a PAST DEBT (at least not in Texas). But you shuld lbe able to see that the County of El Paso is NOT goihng to make thisese "fine" distincitions If they put out a WARRANT for a bad check, you are going to be ARRESTED. They regularly send out LETTERS threatening people with that--people who hae allegedly written bad checks.
You shuold be able to see that theese are COMPLEX issues, which you really have to "report" on a case by case, or at least law by law--basis. That is exactly what the despicable AP, and Yahoo, do NOT want to do.
Do "debt collectors" ABUSE the law. Damn right they do. After my frim (not my decisin) once represented a dbet collection agency, I SUED credit agencies and debt collection agencies as a TRIAL LAWYER. Teas, and most states, have CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS, inclduing laws on debu collectin. There is a FEREAL LAW prohibiting "unfair dbet collection practices". Nevertheless, there are, as the AP says, numberous LEGAL ways that you can end up in jail for not paying a specific debt, or not complying with the REQuIREMENTS of a court, or other agency, which a creditor is LEGALLY using to enforce a DEBT. The law definitely allows you toattempot to COLLECT a debt in this country. You are just supposed to do it in a legaly correct way, and--generally--you cannnot JAIL a person MERELY for failing to pay an ORDINARY debt. The trade off here--between DEADBEATS getting a "free rie", and over-zealous debt collectin--will last as ong as time itself. The incompetent AP is a disgrace for trying to make thissome sort of "scandaL" involving the "return of debtors' prisons".
Oh. Notice that "breast cancer surviror" touch, repeated over and over again in the article. SO WHAT? I am serious. SO WHAT. Do "breast cancer survivors" GO TO JAIL for traffic fines? Of curse. For bad checks? Of course. Prostate cancer survivors for faiing to lpay child support? Of course. That has NOTHING oto do iwth it. It reminds me of the famous Texas case of "humber v. Morton--farily recent when I was in law school--establishing an IMPLIED WARRANTY (or some such CONSUMER PROTECTIN rule in housing for the buyer).). This was a time when Texas law was actually taking a LIBERAL directin (to be reversed in the past decade or two). My law professor says that the result of the case was signalled by the first three words of the opinion: "The widow Humber........" Yep. The "widow Humber" won. And "widow Humber" had MORE relevance than whether a person is a "breast cancer curvivor".
No. I tel you, and show it almost every day in this blog, that our media are getting WROSE. They have absoutley NO interest in FACTS, or in the real issues. No, I have NO sympthy, as a general rule, for "debt collecters". That is even apart from the fact that I used up all sympathy for ANYONE by the age of gen--all sympathy I was orn with. However, this sotry is useless, and worse than useless. We already have Federal laws. And states can make laws, or change them, if they are being abused. This HYSTERICAL reference to "debtors' prisons" is ridiculous . And then there is ObamaCare. Is the AP realy saing that ObamaCare--as illustrated by thesese AP exmples--can easicly slide into DEBTORS' PRISONS for peole who don't comply with Obama's "signature" health care alw? I don't see how any other concusion is posssilbe--unless, of coure, yu have previuslyreaed this blog, and understand that the peole of the AP are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth (together with the rest oft he mainstream media), on two legs or four.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh. How do I KNOW abut the Texas Attorney General being able to get the IRS to "garnish" your refund with a LETTER? It happened to my ex-wife's new husband (as relayed to me by my Boston lawyer daughter), and my friend Sylviea (with friends i nt the Teas attorney General's office, and contacts who have experienced EVERYTHING) confirmed to me that shehas been LONG familiar with thi. It was a SHOCK to me. My reacitn was: Can this really happen in America, where all it takes is a LETTER to grab money from you? Apparently so, although I still find it hard to believe. Be warned. We are headling down that road with ObamaCare, aloong with so many other BAD things at the end of that road.