Thoughts on the New Debt fairness Act

Not sure how many of you saw that the debt Fairness act was signed by Waltz and goes into effect on Oct. 1st. I’m not totally sure how I feel about this act. It now makes its so that:

Past Due medical bills can no longer be reported to credit Bureau’s and has 0 effect on Credit ratings.

A spouse is no longer liable for their spouse’s medical expenses.

A medical provider can no longer withhold medical care for those with past unpaid medical expenses.

I see this causing many from not even bothering to find and pay for medical insurance, or simply not even bothering to try and pay for medical care expenses. In turn this will just allow medical care to now just charge even more for medical care for those who have medical insurance to cover for those who don’t. This once again just causes those who are working and paying for their medical coverage to just have to pay for those who can’t or in some cases just won’t work. I just don’t see how this will end up well in the end. Its going to get to a point when those working and paying for those who are not will simply give it and stop working as well.
On the other hand I don’t think anyone should be refused medical care because they don’t have the means to pay. I also don’t think someone should need to have to spend the rest of their life trying to pay off medical bills that were way over priced in the 1st place.
Like I said, I’m not totally sure where I stand on this one.

The government won’t let you just die until you have no money to pay taxes with. How about they take the gigantic taxes generated from pot and gambling they tell us about and pay our medical bills with that.

Big Pharma, Big Medical, Big Government will get their money.

Dutchboy wrote:

Big Pharma, Big Medical, Big Government will get their money.

That is certain!

I havent read the details of this bill and will refrain comment in detail until I have, but based on what FT posted I dont like it already.

fishthumper wrote:

A spouse is no longer liable for their spouse’s medical expenses.

This one seems strange to me. Once you legally marry, you take on your spouse’s assets and liabilities, unless you have a prenuptual agreement ahead of time. Everything you buy when you’re legally married is owned by each of you. If you take out a loan, its owed by both of you. This bill now separates out medical bills even if you’re married? I’m skeptical of that.

Perhaps some clarification is needed but maybe what it means is that if you have medical debt prior to getting married, then that debt stays with the person and is not taken on by the spouse.

I would ask. If there is no penalty and no refusal of service, then why repay or why have insurance?

“Life-saving cancer treatments or a trip to the emergency room shouldn’t cause a tanked credit score or a lifetime of debt,” said Governor Walz. “Thanks to the work of the Attorney General, legislators, and Minnesotans who’ve shared their stories, these reforms will help Minnesotans get the care they need, manage their medical debt, and feel protected in their most vulnerable moments.”

“We all agree that if you borrow money, you should pay it back. We also all agree that we shouldn’t punish people for getting sick. We also agree that a debt-collection system that makes it harder for people to pay back what they owe does nobody any good. And we also agree that debt collection shouldn’t create more debt,” said Attorney General Ellison.

“With the passage and signing today of the Debt Fairness Act, we have a fairer, more dignified, and more just system for repaying debt than we did before. My thanks go to chief authors Senator Liz Boldon and Representative Liz Reyer for their outstanding work in seeing it through to passage, and to Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan for their steadfast support. There is more work to do, and we’re not done yet — but today, Minnesotans facing debt, including medical debt, can rest easier in the knowledge that the law provides them with more protections than it did before,” Attorney General Ellison concluded.

The legislation eases the burden of medical debt for Minnesotans by:

Banning medical providers from withholding medically necessary care due to unpaid debt;
Preventing medical debt from impacting credit scores
Eliminating automatic transfers of medical debt to a patient’s spouse
Establishing strong new protections from unethical medical debt collections practices
Requiring medical providers to publish their medical debt collection practices
Creating a new process to help people dispute medical coding and billing errors

I myself have not read all the details of the act. Just the info. that has been posted on the media. There may be some more fine details that the media is overlooking or not sharing. All I can say is that if its is the way it sounds, its not good. Lots of people that currently go out and pay for private health insurance will most likely no longer do so. The medical system and cost in this country has long been a big problem and it just keeps getting bigger each year. There has to be a way to bring some of this crazy medical cost into line.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
A spouse is no longer liable for their spouse’s medical expenses.

This one seems strange to me. Once you legally marry, you take on your spouse’s assets and liabilities, unless you have a prenuptual agreement ahead of time. Everything you buy when you’re legally married is owned by each of you. If you take out a loan, its owed by both of you. This bill now separates out medical bills even if you’re married? I’m skeptical of that.

Perhaps some clarification is needed but maybe what it means is that if you have medical debt prior to getting married, then that debt stays with the person and is not taken on by the spouse.

I can see it both ways. A good friend of mine is in unreal debt due to a fire that he nearly burned alive from. 100s of thousands in debt due to some insurance issues and other things. He ended up divorcing his wife so the debt wasn’t on her and medical debt has wrecked his life more then the fire has. Why should medical bills have to ruin your life in certain situations. I can see it from both sides of the fence.
Luckily I have extremely good insurance and haven’t paid much in medical bills ever. Hell having a baby and a 4 day stay in the hospital 4 months ago cost about a half days pay out of pocket.
I feel like medical providers need to be paid for sure but getting help for health shouldn’t destroy people’s lives.

The debt is still collected through wage garnishment, if it comes to that, even if it’s not reported to credit bureaus. This changed the amount that’s garnished from a flat 25% to 10-25% based on income level and adjusts some bankruptcy protections.

gim wrote:

This one seems strange to me. Once you legally marry, you take on your spouse’s assets and liabilities, unless you have a prenuptual agreement ahead of time. Everything you buy when you’re legally married is owned by each of you. If you take out a loan, its owed by both of you. This bill now separates out medical bills even if you’re married? I’m skeptical of that.

It’s only that black and white in community property states, which Minnesota is not.

Reef is right. My mom needed an ambulance ride and then later passed away. The clinic tried coming after my dad I told him to not even talk to them. He talked to his attorney and he drafted a letter and sent it off to the clinic and not a word since.

From what I’ve read (mostly here), at the outset it hit me like the student loan forgiveness deal. Another way to buy a vote.
But I don’t think anyone should be in hardship because of a hospital bill. And I don’t believe most hospitals will turn you down for care or send a collection agency after you. Mayo Clinic has very lenient payment plans. Like pay $10 a month for 80 yrs. I also think it is a way for some to not have health insurance because the gov’t will pick up the tab. But the welfare system already does that. Yes/No ?

insideARM Perspective:

While the original proposed language of this bill sent alarm bells ringing throughout the ARM industry, this final bill should be seen as both a win for collectors and proof of how much impact the industry can have when it comes together for a common cause. The final bill still includes some unfavorable changes to garnishment and a ban on credit reporting medical debt but, through the work of advocacy groups and pressure from the ARM Industry, the bill does not include many of the extreme measures originally presented, positively altered many others, and includes a reasonable definition of medical debt.

https://www.insidearm.com/news/00049918-controversial-minnesota-debt-fairness-act/

wkw wrote:

From what I’ve read (mostly here), at the outset it hit me like the student loan forgiveness deal. Another way to buy a vote.
But I don’t think anyone should be in hardship because of a hospital bill. And I don’t believe most hospitals will turn you down for care or send a collection agency after you. Mayo Clinic has very lenient payment plans. Like pay $10 a month for 80 yrs. I also think it is a way for some to not have health insurance because the gov’t will pick up the tab. But the welfare system already does that. Yes/No ?

your wrong, we’ve had centra care send all kinds of stuff to collection agencies. Them azzhats can’t seem to send us the bill in the mail first

When mom past away last year, they were the only ones who notified probate of money owed. $4.21

Bearcat89 wrote:

Hell having a baby and a 4 day stay in the hospital 4 months ago cost about a half days pay out of pocket.

I’m grateful for good health insurance too. I paid 110 bucks for 3 days in a birth center when my kid was born 5 years ago. I saw the billed amount to my health insurance though. It was over $14,000.

More free stuff for the freeloaders.

For every person who doesn’t pay for medical expenses, the sum is spread onto others. This new legislation will not make anything more affordable. The people who pay their bills will pay even more. The people who don’t pay their bills will just have a clean credit report to go with it.

In our area in SE Minnesota some of the most frequent fliers in the clinics, urgent care centers, and ER rooms are those who have the least financial means to pay back the bills. That’s not just hearsay, as my wife is a Charge Nurse and often runs the ER. On the flip side people who work hard and don’t abuse the system are left with crazy high bills that ultimately are also covering losses for the people who will never pay a dime.

My brother is a single teacher and coach, paid down all his own student loans within 5 years, lives a modest lifestyle, but pays over $700 a month in medical bills for the foreseeable future for complications from multiple knee surgeries related to his football playing days. Last week when I talked to him he was debating skipping PT altogether in his late 20s as his public school teacher insurance was only paying 60%. My wife and I have had conversations about offering him some work around our place that he can earn extra cash just to try and get “ahead” in life and to help us get “caught up” with endless work

I doubt any one’s regular medical bills are now going to sky rocket. You probably will see no difference. This isn’t a huge change, those who don’t pay bills still won’t. Those who do will still pay the regular bills you already do. If any one takes a hit it’s probably the insurance

I’m going to agree to disagree. I can’t see insurance companies taking any less than their current margins. They simply are too big too fail, or take less.

I do think those who don’t pay still won’t. The issue is that those who DO pay or pay on longer drawn out repayment plans to maintain their credit now have ZERO incentive to pay. Even if wages are still garnished, that process is at best an inexact science, and more often than not a joke

This: 25 – 30 years ago a new mom got one full night in the hospital after giving birth unless it was a C-section.

That: There are too many that go to Emergency Rooms for what should be a minute clinic, doctor visit or Urgent Care visit.

and the Other Thing: The CEOs of America’s seven largest publicly traded health insurance and services companies cumulatively earned more than $283 million in 2021 — by far the most of any year in the past decade.

Look at the CEO pay of a Health Insurance nonprofit vs. a for profit health care company. Maybe all Health Insurance companies need to be nonprofit ??

This too: After subtracting government-run facilities, 72 percent of Minnesota hospitals are classified as nonprofit. According to the Star Tribune’s 19th Annual Nonprofit 100, nonprofit health systems, hospitals and insurers comprise 19 of the 20 largest nonprofit organizations in Minnesota and take in 92 percent of the overall revenue among the top 100.

Credit is such a corrupt game anyways, non of you will probably be impacted at all.

You can’t talk about how corrupt health insurance is without talking about how corrupt healthcare is in general. Its got to be the only business that can’t even give you a ball park of how much the services will cost before you’re receiving them. The inconsistencies in cost and billing structures are laughable. Like bearcat said – a medical emergency shouldn’t financially derail you for the rest of your life.

Bearcat89 wrote:

I doubt any one’s regular medical bills are now going to sky rocket. You probably will see no difference. This isn’t a huge change, those who don’t pay bills still won’t. Those who do will still pay the regular bills you already do. If any one takes a hit it’s probably the insurance

When the insurance company takes a hit they are going to pass it onto their customers. Healthcare is already allowed to charge higher rates for services to those with insurance than those without. This in turn leads insurance companies to pass on higher cost to employers. Who them pass on the higher cost to their employees. This is what’s been happening for awhile now already. If your cost of medical insurance has not increased in the last few years you are real lucky. In that case your employer is simply picking up the extra cost and not passing it into you. That is a rare employer.

I shouldn’t have said insurance companies will take a hit. That was misspoke, it’ll be providers not profiting off lower income families. Again I doubt any one here will be affected.

SPeaking of Insurance. So my employer requires us to go through CVS for any refillable prescriptions. My wife had terrible insurance so I added her to my coverage and now she has to go to CVS and the costs are SIGNIFICANTLY higher now than they were before.
This shouldnt be legal to force you go to certain Pharmacies.

CaptainMusky wrote:

SPeaking of Insurance. So my employer requires us to go through CVS for any refillable prescriptions. My wife had terrible insurance so I added her to my coverage and now she has to go to CVS and the costs are SIGNIFICANTLY higher now than they were before.
This shouldnt be legal to force you go to certain Pharmacies.

if your talking Maintenace type prescriptions have you looked at mail order???

generally speaking you gt 90 day supplies for 60 day cost delivered to your door. my wife nad i are both on Maintenace meds, meaning we probably will be on them the rest of your life and thats what we do. when i was employed my insurance did require me to use a certain mail order company, when i retired and hit 65 i had to switch to OptimumRX!!!

Bearcat89 wrote:

Again I doubt any one here will be affected.

Everyone with health insurance will be affected by significantly higher rates. The insurance companies will have to increase rates to account for the decrease in revenue from people choosing to or being unable to pay. This is, in effect, the same thing as the “Affordable” Care Act that forced people that were on MN Care due to pre-existing conditions off of the subsidized MN Care (not the same as current MN Care), and onto the open individual plan market. Rates more than doubled, and still continue to rise, while competition (# of providers of health insurance) decreased. I doubt this will have as drastic impact, as the number not paying is smaller and the pool (everyone insured and/or medical providers) is larger. If one were to look at the bigger picture, it would be hard not to come to the conclusion the politicians are trying to drive costs up to an untenable level, which will make universal health care look more attractive. We are close to that stage already.

so,,back in the day when i was a union thug doing contract negotiations Ins was one of if not the biggest topic. negotiating out of pocket, monthly premiums etc.

at first it was broke down single and family.

then some came in with single, single plus one, and married with kids. there’s one more but cant for the life of me remember it!!! it lessoned the cost to employees and company based on needs!

recently one employer brought this outfit in called Gravy. has all kinds of policies………but it put the burden on the employee to select the coverage and cost best fit for the individual needs. we still haggled over premium sharing, but overall Ins coverage was selected by the individual and way less headaches.

as someone alluded to earlier…….it may not go to collections anymore but they WILL get there money. wage garnishment is still a total kick in the teeth either way you look at it!!!

as someone alluded to earlier…….it may not go to collections anymore but they WILL get there money. wage garnishment is still a total kick in the teeth either way you look at it!!!
[/quote]

My thought exactly. The money will still come to the mother ship either way. People lives won’t be ruined over it. It really doesn’t matter who’s brother does side work for more cash and how great that guy is. Has 0 to do with anything. Good for him, but lots can’t do that.
The right people will still do the right thing and the bad people will still do the bad thing.