I don't see why the debt holder has any skin in this game at this point. They're not being harmed in any way, they still owe what they owe on the same terms. Wh

I don't see why the debt holder has any skin in this game at this point. They're not being harmed in any way, they still owe what they owe on the same terms. Why should they benefit? Why should a law require that they benefit? This stance hits me as entitlement cloaked within anti-capitalism/pro-consumerism.