3 ms·

> Yes, probably. This rule likely needs a sibling regulation reducing the capacity of collectors to collect on medical debt in ways that financially impair the

> Yes, probably. This rule likely needs a sibling regulation reducing the capacity of collectors to collect on medical debt in ways that financially impair the consumer. But if we did that, then medical debt would become even less valuable to collectors, and hospitals will struggle to sell off unpaid accounts. They’d have to make up the difference elsewhere, and raise prices further. This regulation seems well meaning but it’s just beating around the bush that our healthcare system is way too expensive and there’s no politically feasible solution.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
What’s the politically infeasible but effective solution in your opinion? I’m having trouble coming up with something that doesn’t create an additional cost elsewhere.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What’s the politically infeasible but effective solution Proper published pricing, for starters. If the price isn’t properly published and price wasn’t agreed upon ex ante, the bill should be dismissible. (It’s technically the law, but compliance is miserable.)
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> then medical debt would become even less valuable to collectors, and hospitals will struggle to sell off unpaid accounts Medical debt is already heavily discounted given its abysmal collection rates. Papering over that by pretending something that trades at pennies is worth face value strikes me as a useless fiction to continue propagating. > have to make up the difference elsewhere, and raise prices further Medical debt trades at a nickel to a dime on the dollar [1]. This isn’t a meaningful difference. [1] https://www.solosuit.com/posts/how-much-collection-agencies-pay-medical-debt https://www.solosuit.com/posts/how-much-collection-agencies-...