Medical billing and debt collection in the US

[Darius871]

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.

Extortion only exists when there's no valid basis for the demand. If there is and was a valid basis for demand, then you simply have a claimant who didn't happen to provide additional detail prior to commencing litigation that avails the defendant of ample discovery rights to obtain that additional detail. I'm not hearing from anyone any legal principle suggesting that pre-litigation statements are anything other than a voluntary courtesy. It's the best practice of course, because it will induce some to pay, but there is simply no rule requiring it. At least not here, anyway.

[Krill]

Extortion only exists when there's no valid basis for the demand. If there is and was a valid basis for demand, then you simply have a claimant who didn't happen to provide additional detail prior to commencing litigation that avails the defendant of ample discovery rights to obtain that additional detail. I'm not hearing from anyone any legal principle suggesting that pre-litigation statements are anything other than a voluntary courtesy. It's the best practice of course, because it will induce some to pay, but there is simply no rule requiring it. At least not here, anyway.

Actually, in the UK they are required to provide written copies of paperwork relating to the debt. Demanding payment without proof of debt is illegal, which runs into the extortion thing. Which is so obvious it makes me think you are trolling rather badly.

[Hauldren Collider]

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

1. Kuci hasn't posted in this thread.
2. This statement demonstrates you don't even know what his position is. (Hint: It's very different from mine.)

[Jon Miller]

He defended it in another thread.

(He might just have been defending an aspect/etc, but I don't think you can talk about medical/etc stuff in the US from a capitalistic perspective without including the fact that it is broken.)

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Jon, if Kuci is defending the US healthcare system, it means you are attacking it for the wrong reasons.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

Actually there's a considerable amount of data to support this claim. A $1000 medical bill is peanuts. Hell, I can inflict that amount of damge in less than 15 minutes.

[Darius871]

Actually, in the UK they are required to provide written copies of paperwork relating to the debt. Demanding payment without proof of debt is illegal, which runs into the extortion thing.

Well, that sounds like a lovely communist paradise, but I can tell you most assuredly that it is not the case here. I can demand and demand and demand until I'm blue in the face, but I don't have to produce jack****.* The remedy is simply to say "then I guess I'll see you in court, good luck proving it." Which is so obvious that it makes me think you are trolling rather badly.




* - Hypertechnically speaking, if 1) you demand the validation and 2) the debt was for non-business purposes and 3) I'm not the original creditor and 4) your demand was in writing and 5) my nondisclosure could not be construed as a good-faith error and 6) you stumble upon counsel, then you may have a meager FDCPA claim against me that would quickly be settled for a pittance. However, that does not affect the validity of the underlying debt itself, which I understood to be the narrow focus of the discussion.

[Darius871]

Actually there's a considerable amount of data to support this claim. A $1000 medical bill is peanuts. Hell, I can inflict that amount of damge in less than 15 minutes.

I'm not saying I doubt it, and the $1000 bit was just being facetious about reporters' habitual misunderstanding of studies, as that article was clearly ****. It may well be correct, but if it is, I must have the healthiest damned bankruptcy clientele known to man. Not a scientific sample, I know.

[Krill]

* - Hypertechnically speaking, if 1) you demand the validation and 2) the debt was for non-business purposes and 3) I'm not the original creditor and 4) your demand was in writing and 5) my nondisclosure could not be construed as a good-faith error and 6) you stumble upon counsel, then you may have a meager FDCPA claim against me that would quickly be settled for a pittance. However, that does not affect the validity of the underlying debt itself, which I understood to be the narrow focus of the discussion.

That's pretty much Flubbers' position though. Minus the demand in writing, but if Flubber isn't given an email address or a postal address he can't provide a written request for validation. So...own goal, I think.

[self biased]

mute,

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm not saying I doubt it, and the $1000 bit was just being facetious about reporters' habitual misunderstanding of studies, as that article was clearly ****. It may well be correct, but if it is, I must have the healthiest damned bankruptcy clientele known to man. Not a scientific sample, I know.

I deal with this from the medical side. I see it every day. Maybe the people being driven into bankruptcy by medical costs just can't afford you.

[Darius871]

That's pretty much Flubbers' position though. Minus the demand in writing, but if Flubber isn't given an email address or a postal address he can't provide a written request for validation. So...own goal, I think.

No. Flubber's position, and apparently the position of everyone else here but me, is that they can't successfully assert their claim against him in court merely by virtue of the fact that they haven't provided validation prior to commencement of suit, which is false.

The only point of that asterisk was that failure to provide validation might theoretically create a separate statutory counterclaim for a statutory penalty unrelated to the underlying debt itself. Again, FDCPA violations do not invalidate debts. That is a common misconception that I have to correct almost daily while grinding my teeth and longing to eat a bullet. It really is this simple: if you owe me $10,000, and I violate the FDCPA fifty ways from sundown, then that might have created a statutory counterclaim against me for up to a $1,000 cap, but you still owe me $10,000 regardless. The underlying debt still exists and can be successfully asserted in court, validation or no validation. I can throw your validation request in the trash, curse it, burn it, and piss on the ashes while laughing maniacally, and the underlying debt still exists and is still enforceable in court, FDCPA violation or no FDCPA violation. Why is the fundamental distinction between claim and counterclaim so ****ing difficult to grasp?

[Aeson]

It's difficult to grasp because most of us aren't soulless lawyers, and taking someone to court over a bill that was never actually billed (rather than, you know, sending the bill) seems evil and underhanded even for a lawyer.

[DinoDoc]

FDCPA violation or no FDCPA violation.

By definition when the FDCPA violation costs you more than the debt is worth, why not just send the damn invoice?

[Darius871]

I deal with this from the medical side. I see it every day. Maybe the people being driven into bankruptcy by medical costs just can't afford you.

It's a broader range than you'd think. One day I'm saving a million dollar house and the next day I'm clearing up a divorce's aftermath for a guy who lives out of his truck. But who knows, maybe this silent majority is mostly pro se filers.