3 ms·

The whole point of a credit report is to indicate the likelihood that an individual will pay back new debt that they're applying for. Isn't it helpful and impo

The whole point of a credit report is to indicate the likelihood that an individual will pay back new debt that they're applying for. Isn't it helpful and important to know that a) how much debt the person is liable for and b) that they're willing to sign a contract allowing someone to charge them any amount to be decided at a later date? The later seems important both to know that the person may continue to agree to writing blank checks in the future and that their willingness to do so says something about their financial awareness.

yazzku 2y ago
(b) does not apply here. Like the parent said, you don't know how much exactly a medical procedure is going to cost you until the price is negotiated with the insurance company, which can often take months. The medical office will, at best, give you an upper bound. When you're in pain, you don't really have choice.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  B) applies here because medical intake forms include agreeing to the way prices are decided and agreeing to allow any treatments they deem necessary. It is basically a blank check. B) shouldn't be legal at all though, and that's the real problem. It is a fact that patients agree to owe whatever the hospital says they owe, and in my opinion that should be part of a credit history. Its also a fact, though, that hospitals charging this way is fraud and the system needs to be fundamentally fixed rather than band-aided by trying to just hide how much debt they are creating.
  - yazzku 2y ago
    By "does not apply" I meant that you can't use the same logic in a health situation. You're mostly just paraphrasing.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Say more if you don't mind. What logic did I use that isn't right, and why can't it specifically for a health situation? I'm guessing the argument here is that you can't expect someone to have the chance to make a nuanced decision or to turn down care because of the terms a hospital requires you to agree to. That's simply not true. Beyond the obvious, but unreasonable, fact that one doesn't actually have to get treated there if they don't like the terms, it's a contract and contracts have to be agreed to by both parties. A patient doesn't have to sign intake papers as-is. It's a contract, scratch out what you don't agree to and add your own terms if necessary. Include "Under duress" with your signature and make sure the person at the desk is aware. You aren't trying to be difficult or fight with them, you simply don't agree to some of the contract and are making that legally clear while signing in.
      - yazzku 2y ago
        > because of the terms a hospital requires you to agree to. No. You cannot make a nuanced decision when you're in an accident and are rushed (unconsciously) to an out-of-network hospital, or any kind of similar emergency situation. Negotiating a medical contract is not like signing a car lease. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand? Have you actually been to a hospital, or in any form of even mild pain?
jellicle 2y ago
> that they're willing to sign a contract allowing someone to charge them any amount to be decided at a later date? Hilarious to try to blame the US's broken medical system on the victim. If you've ever had any medical procedure done then you've done this thing that you consider so reprehensible. If you've ever been seriously injured you've done this (your consent to any price charged is presumed while you are unconscious, by law). If the hospital walks 5 specialists quickly through the room while you're out cold, congratulations, you legally consented to pay any price they charge. Come on. It's a ludicrous system. Don't even try to blame the victims here.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'm not blaming it on the victim at all. Are you saying what I described is inaccurate or just not fair to patients? If the latter, we totally agree. My view is that the system is fundamentally broken and continuing to just try to help patients deal with fraud after the fact isn't the right solution. In this case, allowing the fraud to continue and only hiding it from credit reports just makes it worse for us as consumers. We need to stop band-aiding the problem and fix the medical system. They obviously shouldn't be allowed to decide to charge whatever they want after the work is done, and they shouldn't be able to game it by running multiple specialists through just to rack up fees. There are actually ways around it today, but the hospital will hate you. When signing intake forms that have you agreeing to this payment model, cross out the terms you do to agree to and include "Under Duress" with your signature. Raise this with the hospital staff and make it clear what terms you disagree with, including that you must approve every individual treatment. They won't like you, or they may 100% respect you, but it is legal to do.
nielsbot 2y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I'm ok with creditors making less profit.

yazzku 2y ago

(b) does not apply here. Like the parent said, you don't know how much exactly a medical procedure is going to cost you until the price is negotiated with the insurance company, which can often take months. The medical office will, at best, give you an upper bound. When you're in pain, you don't really have choice.

_heimdall 2y ago
B) applies here because medical intake forms include agreeing to the way prices are decided and agreeing to allow any treatments they deem necessary. It is basically a blank check. B) shouldn't be legal at all though, and that's the real problem. It is a fact that patients agree to owe whatever the hospital says they owe, and in my opinion that should be part of a credit history. Its also a fact, though, that hospitals charging this way is fraud and the system needs to be fundamentally fixed rather than band-aided by trying to just hide how much debt they are creating.
- yazzku 2y ago
  By "does not apply" I meant that you can't use the same logic in a health situation. You're mostly just paraphrasing.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Say more if you don't mind. What logic did I use that isn't right, and why can't it specifically for a health situation? I'm guessing the argument here is that you can't expect someone to have the chance to make a nuanced decision or to turn down care because of the terms a hospital requires you to agree to. That's simply not true. Beyond the obvious, but unreasonable, fact that one doesn't actually have to get treated there if they don't like the terms, it's a contract and contracts have to be agreed to by both parties. A patient doesn't have to sign intake papers as-is. It's a contract, scratch out what you don't agree to and add your own terms if necessary. Include "Under duress" with your signature and make sure the person at the desk is aware. You aren't trying to be difficult or fight with them, you simply don't agree to some of the contract and are making that legally clear while signing in.
    - yazzku 2y ago
      > because of the terms a hospital requires you to agree to. No. You cannot make a nuanced decision when you're in an accident and are rushed (unconsciously) to an out-of-network hospital, or any kind of similar emergency situation. Negotiating a medical contract is not like signing a car lease. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand? Have you actually been to a hospital, or in any form of even mild pain?

jellicle 2y ago

> that they're willing to sign a contract allowing someone to charge them any amount to be decided at a later date? Hilarious to try to blame the US's broken medical system on the victim. If you've ever had any medical procedure done then you've done this thing that you consider so reprehensible. If you've ever been seriously injured you've done this (your consent to any price charged is presumed while you are unconscious, by law). If the hospital walks 5 specialists quickly through the room while you're out cold, congratulations, you legally consented to pay any price they charge. Come on. It's a ludicrous system. Don't even try to blame the victims here.

_heimdall 2y ago
I'm not blaming it on the victim at all. Are you saying what I described is inaccurate or just not fair to patients? If the latter, we totally agree. My view is that the system is fundamentally broken and continuing to just try to help patients deal with fraud after the fact isn't the right solution. In this case, allowing the fraud to continue and only hiding it from credit reports just makes it worse for us as consumers. We need to stop band-aiding the problem and fix the medical system. They obviously shouldn't be allowed to decide to charge whatever they want after the work is done, and they shouldn't be able to game it by running multiple specialists through just to rack up fees. There are actually ways around it today, but the hospital will hate you. When signing intake forms that have you agreeing to this payment model, cross out the terms you do to agree to and include "Under Duress" with your signature. Raise this with the hospital staff and make it clear what terms you disagree with, including that you must approve every individual treatment. They won't like you, or they may 100% respect you, but it is legal to do.

nielsbot 2y ago

Maybe it's just me, but I'm ok with creditors making less profit.