Medical billing and debt collection in the US

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know why Kuci and KH try so hard to defend the US system.

I take it as an example of how some regulation/etc can create a very inefficient market.

The facts are that sometimes markets are very inefficient and are worse than state controlled.

JM

Way to misconstrue my position, jon.

1) in this thread I've written two sentences which are only tangentially about the us "health care system". I wouldn't call that trying hard to defend it.
2) there are any number of other threads where I criticize the massive distortions in the us health care "market" (quotes in both cases because it's neither much of a system nor a market).

[MikeH]

My impression has always been that you are broadly critical of the US health system, although not from the same angle I am.

[Dr Strangelove]

Not that I'd doubt it, but what's your source on this? In my experience the vast majority have been a garden-variety job loss combined with insane credit card usage. In the several dozen Chapter 7's I've filed I've seen maybe three or four with aged medical bills of significant size.

See Mike H's post two spots below yours.

[Jon Miller]

Way to misconstrue my position, jon.

Sorry.

I think I interpreted your statements wrongly.

I apologize.

JM

[Sava]

My impression has always been that you are broadly critical of the US health system, although not from the same angle I am.

Yeah. KH seems to be upset that companies aren't allowed to fleece people more than the current policies allow.

[Darius871]

See Mike H's post two spots below yours.

Pfft, there's not even a slight hint at what the methodology was. I wouldn't expect some Investopedia reporter to understand the difference between a cause and a mere contributing factor. I suppose $1000 in medical bills on a $90,000 schedule of unsecured debts "caused" the bankruptcy in the sense that Adam and Eve getting it on "caused" me to type this post.

[Darius871]

John Smith
ACME Hospitals Inc

Solicitation mailed

On the substance, I have also told them twice now that they have never tendered an invoice on me which both their agents implicitly acknowledged in describing their clients system issues in generating bills and sending them to addresses outside the US. If they ever do send me a bill, I will forward it to my insurers just as i would have done if they had tendered it promptly. So far all I have is some collection outfit I never heard of sending me paper with a 'Re" line that mentions a hospital and a balance due that names a figure. Not one piece of paper which identifies the services, the legal entity to which the debt is supposedly owed or the calculation of the amount owing. Also nothing that shows me their agency relationship or anything else which could assure me that a payment to these folks actually would satisfy the alleged debt which has never been seen.

So I currently don't see how I could be found liable for a penny. Or do US courts just say you are responsible for whatever some bill collection says with no requirement that the undelying alleged debtor be provided ANYTHING.

Nope, no requirement to provide anything to you before legal action or upon commencing legal action. Even supposing your demands were written, which they don't appear to have been, a third-party collector failing to respond to a written request for validation of a debt only creates a cause of action against the third-party collector itself for meager statutory penalties. Unless the third party collector happens to also own the account (i.e. a junk debt buyer), failure to validate does not impact the validity of the underlying debt in any way, shape, or form. What's more, the standard for validation so incredibly lax that it might as well be "you owe x" scrawled on the back of a napkin.

My first actions here would be a $1 settlement offer and a request for security for my costs (since plaintiffs pay defense costs if they lose and the rules of court can require such security from a plaintiff that has no assets in the jurisdiction)-- Oh and your fees would be subject to review- so it would be relentlessly hacked down--)

Bonds are pennies on the dollar and fees can be amply supported by time log affidavits. I'm shaking in my boots.

I can see a judge just loving that--So an insured buys insurance and does everything in his power to comply with everything in the policy. There wasn't anything else I could have done. A caregiver waits 20 months before providing an invoice (I have never ever been given one to date ) and somehow the insurer would be off the hook and I have to pay?? I cannot envision any judge ever saying that, particularly a canadian judge who probably travels to the US frequently and could imagine being caught in such a situation themselves. I don't even have to look at the policies to know a judge would look for a way to make the insurer pay or deny the claim

Of course, but that would simply be framed as joinder for indemnification or contribution, not anything impacting the validity of the debt or its provision for collection costs. Either way I get paid.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm no lawyer, thankfully, but that sounds like utter bull****. No judge is going to make me pay collection fees for a bill when I never received the bill due to the claimant's incompetence.

[Aeson]

Darius vs Flubber video:

[Felch]

I'm no lawyer, thankfully, but that sounds like utter bull****. No judge is going to make me pay collection fees for a bill when I never received the bill due to the claimant's incompetence.

I'm no lawyer, but I've got a lot of courtroom experience, and I think you're right.

[Darius871]

I'm no lawyer, thankfully, but that sounds like utter bull****. No judge is going to make me pay collection fees for a bill when I never received the bill due to the claimant's incompetence.

There might be some misunderstanding here. Obviously I need to present to the court some scintilla of admissible evidence that the debt and the fee agreement exist. All I am saying is that whether or not the creditor provided more itemized billing than mere demands prior to initiating suit simply is not a legally relevant fact. The legally relevant facts are duty, breach, and damages, and it's presumed that your supposed "right" to additional evidence of the debt can be amply satisfied by the court's discovery process. I've done enough "but you never sent me anything" cases to know that judges don't give a **** so long as the debt actually existed at the time of the complaint.

[Krill]

There might be some misunderstanding here. Obviously I need to present to the court some scintilla of admissible evidence that the debt and the fee agreement exist. All I am saying is that whether or not the creditor provided more itemized billing than mere demands prior to initiating suit simply is not a legally relevant fact. The legally relevant facts are duty, breach, and damages, and it's presumed that your supposed "right" to additional evidence of the debt can be amply satisfied by the court's discovery process. I've done enough "but you never sent me anything" cases to know that judges don't give a **** so long as the debt actually existed at the time of the complaint.

That requires the plaintiffs to be the party that the debt is owed to, not a third party collection agency. Otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Darius871]

Darius vs Flubber video:

I don't have black hair or a vagina, but other than that you're dead-on.

[Darius871]

That requires the plaintiffs to be the party that the debt is owed to, not a third party collection agency. Otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you mean. If it's strictly a third party collection agency, then ordinarily there wouldn't even be authority to sue; rather, the account would be "recalled" by the original creditor after the agency's basic purpose (systematically blowing up peoples' phones and mailboxes) hasn't produced results. Then the original creditor makes the choice of whether to refer to an attorney network which in turn refers to local counsel, or whether to auction a portfolio containing the account on the secondary market for much less than face value. The buyer at that point, though a third party, would be an assignee of any and all rights of the original creditor, including rights arising from the collection cost clause. Whether it's "ACME Hospitals, Inc." or "Lazarus Portfolio Solutions XXVIII, LLC," the legal rights will be identical. If some backwoods hick judge doesn't buy it then it's appeal time, with all of those extra fees also courtesy of Flubber.

[Krill]

I'm not sure what you mean. If it's strictly a third party collection agency, then ordinarily there wouldn't even be authority to sue; rather, the account would be "recalled" by the original creditor after the agency's basic purpose (systematically blowing up peoples' phones and mailboxes) hasn't produced results. Then the original creditor makes the choice of whether to refer to an attorney network which in turn refers to local counsel, or whether to auction a portfolio containing the account on the secondary market for much less than face value. The buyer at that point, though a third party, would be an assignee of any and all rights of the original creditor, including rights arising from the collection cost clause. Whether it's "ACME Hospitals, Inc." or "Lazarus Portfolio Solutions XXVIII, LLC," the legal rights will be identical.

But the bill still has to be given to the debtor, otherwise the demand for payment is just extortion, which is pretty much the key point. Whether the debt exists or not is mute, proof of that debt has to be shown, as you've pointed out. The rest of the logic isn't exactly hard to follow and does end up with the claimants either going straight to the insurer or being laughed out of court.