I never said it was the lenders fault. I’m just saying our bankruptcy system allows people to discharge debt. Whether you took on the debt responsibly or irresp

I never said it was the lenders fault. I’m just saying our bankruptcy system allows people to discharge debt. Whether you took on the debt responsibly or irresponsibly, we have a bankruptcy system that allows you to discharge that debt and get a clean slate, generally speaking. I’m not here to argue the merits of our existing bankruptcy system. Your comment could apply to any kind of debt that people get discharged in bankruptcy. Credit card debt, judgments from courts. The person or organization on the other side of the dead might not have done anything wrong (indeed, if we are talking about a judgment from a court, the person that you owe that money to might’ve actually been harmed by you). However, these debts are subject to the bankruptcy code. But not student loan lenders. (I know this is an oversimplification, see my * on another comment) The relationship to the friendly fraud issue is pretty straightforward. Simply put, I believe Visa is over stating the costs and risk of friendly fraud the same way that the industry did with regards to discharge of student loans. We see this in other contexts as well. Government actors are often trying to strip fundamental rights to privacy and from unreasonable searches in the name of protecting us from terrorism or child pornography predators. I’m not denying that those risks exist, the same way that the risk for friendly fraud exists. I’m simply saying that the proponent of the “corrective measure“ is probably over stating the threat.