2 ms·

> It thus seems up for debate whether these debts represent the financial health or creditworthiness of the consumer. You’re missing my point, I think (feel fr

> It thus seems up for debate whether these debts represent the financial health or creditworthiness of the consumer. You’re missing my point, I think (feel free to tell me otherwise). It doesn’t matter that they ordinarily pay their debts and are responsible financially before their medical debt. If they have medical debt that they’re obligated to pay off, then it affects their ability to pay other debts and is therefore something I would want to know as a lender. > It's commercial speech regarding a private concern and thereby subject to "intermediate scrutiny" (versus the strict scrutiny afforded to political speech) I have not analyzed the SCOTUS precedent here. But I’m making a more generic claim that this violates free speech (a basic principle more fundamental than US law). EDIT since I can’t reply deeper in the thread: this speech isn’t fraud so that feels like a false equivalence. It’s just informing others of the facts. That shouldn’t be limited, right?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If they have medical debt that they’re obligated to pay off, then it affects their ability to pay other debts and is therefore something I would want to know as a lender I'm curious for data on how medical debt affects creditworthiness. There are limits on collecting medical debt, for example, that might make someone with a massive on-paper medical debt a good credit concern. Medical billing is also notoriously error prone in a way e.g. credit card billing simply is not. That further reduces the information in each medical-debt line item. > I’m making a more generic claim that this violates free speech (a basic principle more fundamental than US law) Yes, so does prosecuting someone for fraud. We've been balancing rights for centuries, in law and philosophy, particularly when it comes to commercial speech.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If they have medical debt that they’re obligated to pay off, then it affects their ability to pay other debts and is therefore something I would want to know as a lender I'm curious for data on how medical debt affects creditworthiness. There are limits on collecting medical debt, for example, that might make someone with a massive on-paper medical debt a good credit concern. Medical billing is also notoriously error prone in a way e.g. credit card billing simply is not. That further reduces the information in each medical-debt line item. > I’m making a more generic claim that this violates free speech (a basic principle more fundamental than US law) Yes, so does prosecuting someone for fraud. We've been balancing rights for centuries, in law and philosophy, particularly when it comes to commercial speech.