This is particularly screwed up because they had the option of a structured settlement vs. lump-sum at the outset, and were shepherded into the structured settlement. Later, when their circumstances generally have NOT changed, it's absurd that they'd give up 70-90% of NPV to transition.
I wonder if there could be a requirement written into the structured settlements that the settlement provider handle a market-rate transition to lump sum at any time, as part of creditworthiness of the settlement provider. Then, petition a judge in jurisdiction of residence to do the transition.
I'm pretty far-right libertarian, but this is just gratuitous abuse of people who aren't able to take care of their own affairs. Selfishly, I want it destroyed with fire because otherwise people will see this abuse and think they need more regulation even in other areas where it's not necessary.
I wonder if there could be a requirement written into the structured settlements that the settlement provider handle a market-rate transition to lump sum at any time, as part of creditworthiness of the settlement provider. Then, petition a judge in jurisdiction of residence to do the transition.
I'm pretty far-right libertarian, but this is just gratuitous abuse of people who aren't able to take care of their own affairs. Selfishly, I want it destroyed with fire because otherwise people will see this abuse and think they need more regulation even in other areas where it's not necessary.