Fair enough. I am not familiar enough with lead poisoning to understand the degree of mental impairment, but you are getting to a gray area where you're saying people with lead poisoning shouldn't be allowed to handle their own finances nor enter contracts etc.
It is both the degree of mental impairment, and the legal protections put in place. These people ostensibly have an "independent advisor" who makes sure they understand the settlement. That should be enough, even for an impaired person who can't read but is capable of basic decision making. But there are judges who accept a sixty second phone call as sufficient. Even if the seller is an illiterate person being asked if they understand the ramifications of a 12 page legal document. And even if the "independent advisor" has done dozens of deals with the buyer before, and has no other clients.
This is a local article. Many of the problems it points out are specific to the weak legal protections in Maryland. It calls out specific people and companies, and specific conflict of interest issues. Talking about structured settlement pricing or mental impairment in the abstract really isn't relevant. Also, maybe read the whole article before commenting.
re: abstract discussions - you're right, of course. But "net present value with a twist" wasn't the title of this article, and I suspect it's not why it was voted to the top.
re: my hypothetical lead poisoning woes - I would want an effective, truly independent advisor to explain the deal. I would want a requirement that I show up in court, and that the judge verify that I exist, and am capable of making decisions. These aren't tall legal barriers - they are the law in many other states. This article exposes some weaknesses of the Maryland regulatory regime.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? We all know articles like this rarely give you both sides of the story but amidst the emotion in this article are facts which demonstrate a very clear picture of shady business practices and obviously unethical behavior. The legality is certainly questionable but you can't seriously consider the company in the article to be providing a legitimately useful service to these people. I hope this is some kind of contrived case of devil's advocacy or blind obsession with an economic ideal on your part because if not your moral compass needs some serious tuning.
