Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
From reading the other posts, it looks like confronting him about the moral issues involved won't be nearly as likely of success as bringing to his attention the real legal downside to it. That assumes that what other members have said here is correct. You will have to double check with someone.That's not my plan. I think this plan is highly unethical and amounts to gaming the system. My husband wants to do this so he can get a new jeep instead of doing what's right. I just wish I knew how to convince him of the moral issues associated with this.
Seize assets...including his nice new jeep?Once a creditor is successful in obtaining a judgment against a debtor, the creditor can take steps to garnish wages or seize assets
This doesn't really sit well with me ethically. On one hand I know 6k is a lot of money and that some times defaulting on a medical debt is unavoidable, however to me it seems what my husband wants to do is taking advantage.
Does any one have any advice?
Get better insurance? I have insurance that covers no matter where you go in emergency.Recently my husband injured himself and had to go to the ER. He has insurance through his work so we thought it would be covered minus deductible plus Co pay. However, due to this being a freestanding ER and it being out of network, legally they are entitled to balance bill us and we have to pay the difference.
It turns out we have to pay about $6k that was not covered by insurance. We had exhausted all our appeals and by law we owe this money. The thing is we have the money since my hubby has been saving up to buy a jeep. This would knock him back to about $4k towards his dream car if he paid the bill.
His plan is to go out and plunk the entire amount he saved (about 10k) as his down payment on the Jeep and just let 6k we owe go into collections. So basically he is planning on getting his car loan before stiffing the ER so he can still get a good rate on the car loan.
This doesn't really sit well with me ethically. On one hand I know 6k is a lot of money and that some times defaulting on a medical debt is unavoidable, however to me it seems what my husband wants to do is taking advantage.
Does any one have any advice?
Talk to a lawyer...about having your debts and credit separated from hubby's.That's not my plan. I think this plan is highly unethical and amounts to gaming the system. My husband wants to do this so he can get a new jeep instead of doing what's right. I just wish I knew how to convince him of the moral issues associated with this.
Seize assets...including his nice new jeep?
This is exactly the situation. Through a loophole they are able to pretty much over bill us. My husband is arguing that he is justified in not paying because he too is using a loophole ( in our state you cannot garnish garnish wages or seize vehicles to satisfy judgements unless they are for IRS, child support or alimony ) we live in something called a debtors state where debtors have much more rights than creditors. I don't think what the ER is doing is right either but the law is on their side in the regards that the debt is valid. However the law does not allow for many mechanisms to collect on the debt in this state. I personally think two wrongs don't make a right and that we should still pay since the debt is valid.My wife used to handle health care insurance problems for a medical school. What is described here infuriates her. Some urgent care centers have gotten themselves through a loophole, reclassified as ERs, even though they are not attached to a hospital.
They can then pile on much greater charges for the same treatments than an urgent care center could. Often, they hide this from patients, and fleece insurers or patients as they can.
If you truly need an ER, go to a real one, attached to a hospital. The freestanding ones are set up to get what they can from you.
But he will have to pay up at some time, won't he? --assuming that he doesn't declare bankruptcy, that is.
If it is bankruptcy, that could be considered unethical, but I would recommend getting a lot of professional advice if that is the plan.
My wife used to handle health care insurance problems for a medical school. What is described here infuriates her. Some urgent care centers have gotten themselves through a loophole, reclassified as ERs, even though they are not attached to a hospital.
They can then pile on much greater charges for the same treatments than an urgent care center could. Often, they hide this from patients, and fleece insurers or patients as they can.
If you truly need an ER, go to a real one, attached to a hospital. The freestanding ones are set up to get what they can from you.
Yeah, on top of the fact that we have the money to pay right now, my husband is negotiating a payment plan with them. He is doing it solely to buy more time.
His intention is to drag out the payment plan negotiations for a couple months, then not make any payments so he will have 6 months from the day the first payment becomes past due, which will give him almost a year to use his credit before it takes a ding.
My own doctor told me precisely this. His clinic has an attached ER, but on just my last visit, he looked around him, lowered his voice, and said, "If you have an emergency and aren't actually bleeding out, do not come here. And don't go to one of those strip mall ERs. Go to an ER connected to a hospital. Those ER doctors will have privileges with that hospital and can immediately get you to an operating room, or to any tests you need. You won't have to wait for transportation or more insurance paperwork or being put at the end of the line behind the patients whose doctors have privileges in that hospital."
This is why I personally think we should pay and take it as a lesson learned since what they are doing is perfectly legal. I think it's gouging but they are operating within the law so I think it's or responsibility to pay. I believe firmly that WE have a responsibility to yeast others the way we would like to be treated REGARDLESS of if it is reciprocated. Unfortunately, even talking to my husband about or responsibility to do the right thing had hardened him even further against paying. Especially since one of the lawyers at his work has practically walked him through how to be sneaky about avoiding all potential consequences save for the credit hit.Those are also good point to remember. Just never go to an "ER" not attached to a hospital. The problem is, they sometimes won't tell you they are classified as an ER. It's important to check before you check in. They might lie to you, so there's no sure way, other than planning ahead, and knowing which urgent care centers aren't running that scam. It's perfectly legal for them to do so; caveat emptor.
This is why I personally think we should pay and take it as a lesson learned since what they are doing is perfectly legal. I think it's gouging but they are operating within the law so I think it's or responsibility to pay. I believe firmly that WE have a responsibility to yeast others the way we would like to be treated REGARDLESS of if it is reciprocated. Unfortunately, even talking to my husband about or responsibility to do the right thing had hardened him even further against paying. Especially since one of the lawyers at his work has practically walked him through how to be sneaky about avoiding all potential consequences save for the credit hit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?