Yes he did. But that is totally appropriate. Because the alternative is impossible to maintain.
The alternative (another true story): The police catch you trying to muster the nerve to step in front of a train because you have been unemployed for almost a year and you feel like a waste of oxygen. They call an ambulance and have you committed and detained until your head clears. That obligates you to pay for it. It seems obvious that all you needed was a slap in the face, not thousands of dollars worth of professional intervention. But the former is frowned upon, so the latter is what the system imposes. And that is the debt you are now going to pay. Of course, you can't, for several years. So every month of those several years you get a reminder in the mail that you were temporarily weak. This does not help the associated depression any, and you are therefore less productive for the same money than you otherwise would have been for a long time.
The point (other than we whining) is that accounting this kind of debt so personally is almost always bad for everyone. In a high-honor culture, or a very capitalist one, everyone is expected to pull their own weight. But the result is a counterproductive accounting that is wasteful, and particularly demands more resources out of individuals less likely to have them.
It encourages formalistic actions (like those of the police here) that are often overkill and become bizarrely inefficient. And it encourages people (like the debt managers here) to extract whatever they can manage in terms of money or privileges from human suffering, generally at the expense of increasing it.
That seems immoral, even though it is the very heart of a certain kind of ethical system. To naturalize this, any other ethical framework needs to be bound up with a good dose of the "ethics of care", either through honoring responsible charity, or through subjectively deciding to individually intervene in other people's situations.
Our cultures are not designed to work with clinical precision and enforce rigid balance. We see historically that those accounting-driven cultures always existed alongside extensive 'commons', or have had large institutions that work in the opposite direction (religions orders, for instance.) But when we are devising moral accounting systems, we forget all of that.