bOtH SiDeZ
I’m going to assume it’s the 5th circuit.
Am I right? Did I win?
Yes. Eastern District of Texas
It’s a good thing it only applies in that district now.
….right anakin? Right?
For-profit healthcare is inherently unethical.
*evil
Yeah, let’s just ruin everyone’s credit with medical debt so we can stop buying bullshit overpriced cars and accruing ludicrous quantities of credit cards. The main downside I see is if this acts as another barrier to home ownership. But then, of course, the banks will begin getting pissy if they can’t loan to anyone.
I can only see this backfiring on the economy–theres only so much money allocated to people’s pockets, and this is the federal government deciding that the medical industry gets to have a larger share of it.
youre blaming people for buying things with credit and not the companies who handed out credit like it was popcorn
Sometimes credit is the only way I can pay my bills…
Yeah they don’t understand more and more households are resorting to credit for so many purchases not because of frivolous spending, but because more people have to decide now between that or being homeless.
Anything to further class division.
great, creditors still know medical debt isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s printed on. You can buy hundreds of dollars of medical debt for pennies.
just in time for everyone to get booted off medicare
Judge could use an unscheduled leg amputation followed by a bath in sewage and HIV and hep C blood, then maybe they find out how easy medical debt grows
Federal judges are insured on the taxpayer dime.
Are they? Do they not just have a (probably very robust) plan through their job like everyone else? I.e. taking money from their paycheck to pay for it? Of course having such a massive workforce would allow them to offer great insurance, I imagine.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe judges are on Tricare or anything like that.
They have FEHB same as many federal employees. This gives them even more options than ACA and allows them to keep health insurance into retirement. The federal government like any employer covers a lot of their premiums.
So are our tax dollars funding it any more directly than they’re funding any other federal worker’s health insurance?
No, but not sure how thats relevant. Their salaries also come from our taxes. Other federal employees aren’t the ones putting medical debt back onto credit reports.
denied! trumpidiotism is a pre-existing condition.
The accelerationist in me (who has gotten louder and louder lately) is saying “Whatever, it was just another band-aid on the broken system.”
The tactics of class warfare these nazis will take is just… completely unsurprising. They need prison.
They need prison.
You’re much too kind.
If a Nazi gets sent to prison, even if it’s for life, the next spineless leader will just pardon them in the name of “unity” and “peace”
or use them in a rocket program.
Prison? Hah.
So much Great. Such again
At the risk of being downvoted to hell. I agree. This rule never made sense as medical debt is a real thing and it does impact someone’s ability to pay back a loan. The banks were never going to eat this cost, they were going to spread it to everyone else. The real problem is the cost of the medical care and with insurance. This is just something that sounded nice to the dem base.
Studies by the CFPB say you are wrong. Where is your evidence that you are correct?
Thanks for the link! Yeah it does seem like my understanding is incorrect here “CFPB’s research reveals that a medical bill on a person’s credit report is a poor predictor of whether they will repay a loan,”
My argument is a purely logic based one. Lenders make money by giving out loans, so it’s against their interest to deny loans to people which are capable of repaying them.
So the finding is a bit surprising, but willing to admit I’m wrong here :)
I mean I guess it makes sense. You have an accident and suddenly went into debt for 500,000 dollars. You need to replace your car also. You certainly could afford a 400 dollar a month car note. You most likely can’t afford the 2000/month to pay it off in 20 years.
There hits a point of so far beyond reasonable that you just start saying fuck it and don’t even try.
Their feels
Medical debt is in no way the same as other debt though. It’s not the same as real debt. For one you’re dealing with the cartel system that is medical insurance. So it’s not a fair Marketplace to begin with. However the real kicker is you don’t have a choice on it. Oftentimes you’re injured and are brought to a hospital and you don’t have time or the ability to call your insurances 24/7 helpline to figure out what the prices are and where what hospital you should go to. Medical debt is often involuntary and a matter of life and death. Not even mentioning the Absurd disgusting costs of it.
You simply can’t compare it to someone taking too big of a loan for a car. And frankly saying well the real problem is something else doesn’t really help actual living human beings. Because that real problem is not going to be solved and this could have helped people. You can’t let this Pie in the Sky idealism stop us from helping actual people right now. Someone shouldn’t die on the streets because you think an ideal should be achieved first.
It is real debt in the sense that you have an obligation to pay it back. Sure, you don’t have a choice to take it, but that doesn’t mean it won’t effect your finances.
Of course it’s real debt, but taking it on is involuntary. It does not have the same behavioral predictive power as debt that exists because of bad financial decisions.
It might affect your ability to pay, but less so if it is not on the credit report to begin with.
Should debt to loan sharks and illegal bookies be on your credit report too?
I’m sure if they could get that info it would be on there. Seems like it would be useful for loan decisions.
Disgusting
Of course they would.
The question was “should they” not “would they”
Right I feel like you’re all missing my point, I probably didn’t explain my thought process well.
The premise is that: giving out loans involves risk. To make the risk worth while, the lender needs more upside(higher rate). The more unknowns, the more risk, thus higher rates. My logic is that if lenders had more information then they would be better positioned to evaluate risk, thus borrowing could become less expensive for people that are less risky. This is due to competition between lenders for customers. On that, based on friends getting mortgages recently, it does actually feel like there is a decent amount of competition that space specifically.
I will admit that in one of the other threads someone linked to a study that proves this wrong for medical debt specifically.
stop simping for capitol
Yikes.
