I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
Full Version: Hospital Medical Collections 101
What rights do consumers have when it comes to disputing hospital medical collections?
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
QUOTE (purplecharm @ Jul 18 2008, 01:54 PM) 
What rights do consumers have when it comes to disputing hospital medical collections?
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
Where did you learn that there is no SOL for hospital point of service medical collections?
QUOTE (purplecharm @ Jul 18 2008, 12:54 PM)
What rights do consumers have when it comes to disputing hospital medical collections?
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
Opt out
Delete old addresses if possible
Send any CRA where any medical account is reporting, paid or unpaid hospital, Dr. or dentist ( anything except a veterinarian bill) this;( follow the directions)
http://whychat.5u.com/hipaadisp.html
Post back here with your results ( on THIS thread)
It is true that if you are SUED by a hospital or any other medical service that is "tax supported" and your ONLY defense is "SOL" that the Courts will likely rule against you. This started many years ago when people would run up big hospital bills and skip out on them, frequently going to another State or another Country for years. When they returned and were located, they tried to plead "SOL" the Courts found that it was against Public Policy to allow this as institutions that were tax supported IN ANY WAY were to be considered the SAME as a "Government" entity, i.e. NO SOL.
MOST of the SMALLER medical accounts on most credit reports that are from hospitals are NOT valid. The garbage CA's pick up left over discounted amounts and try to collect on them.
NOW, if YOUR problem is with a LARGE VALID debt from a hospital, and you have been unreachable for several years for whatever reason, then you should be careful about disputing unless you are ready willing and able to pay the hospital what is owed.
QUOTE (EasyMoney @ Jul 18 2008, 03:38 PM)
QUOTE (purplecharm @ Jul 18 2008, 01:54 PM)
What rights do consumers have when it comes to disputing hospital medical collections?
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
Where did you learn that there is no SOL for hospital point of service medical collections?
On this board.
I started a thread last week about hospital medical collections that date back to 2000 and 2001.
Whycat mentioned that because they are hospital medical collections, there is no "legal" SOL.
Also, see his comment in this thread, which speaks to why they are treated differently.
QUOTE (Why Chat @ Jul 18 2008, 05:53 PM)
QUOTE (purplecharm @ Jul 18 2008, 12:54 PM)
What rights do consumers have when it comes to disputing hospital medical collections?
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
I just recently found out that non-hospital medical collections have SOL but hospital medical collections don't.
What's the best way to deal with hospital medical collections?
TIA
Opt out
Delete old addresses if possible
Send any CRA where any medical account is reporting, paid or unpaid hospital, Dr. or dentist ( anything except a veterinarian bill) this;( follow the directions)
http://whychat.5u.com/hipaadisp.html
Post back here with your results ( on THIS thread)
It is true that if you are SUED by a hospital or any other medical service that is "tax supported" and your ONLY defense is "SOL" that the Courts will likely rule against you. This started many years ago when people would run up big hospital bills and skip out on them, frequently going to another State or another Country for years. When they returned and were located, they tried to plead "SOL" the Courts found that it was against Public Policy to allow this as institutions that were tax supported IN ANY WAY were to be considered the SAME as a "Government" entity, i.e. NO SOL.
MOST of the SMALLER medical accounts on most credit reports that are from hospitals are NOT valid. The garbage CA's pick up left over discounted amounts and try to collect on them.
NOW, if YOUR problem is with a LARGE VALID debt from a hospital, and you have been unreachable for several years for whatever reason, then you should be careful about disputing unless you are ready willing and able to pay the hospital what is owed.
OK thanks. I will send out the letters to the CRA next week. I also plan on DVing Premium Asset again, because the reply they sent in response to my dv on one of the many collections they are claiming the right to collect on, they did not send me proper documentation. If they properly valid all the collections and the CRA's verify the collections, would it be best to just try to do a PFD? I really want to get rid of this so that I can move on.
bump
purplecharm-
I also plan on DVing Premium Asset again, because the reply they sent in response to my dv on one of the many collections they are claiming the right to collect on, they did not send me proper documentation. If they properly valid all the collections and the CRA's verify the collections, would it be best to just try to do a PFD?
Don't do anything until you have the full investigation results back from the Pre Hippa Dispute- Don't communicate with the CA,
If the med collection (s) get "properly validate" why chat has "iron clad" PIF, for medical collection, but not even consider it until after you have the investigation results back from the Pre Hippa Dispute.
I also plan on DVing Premium Asset again, because the reply they sent in response to my dv on one of the many collections they are claiming the right to collect on, they did not send me proper documentation. If they properly valid all the collections and the CRA's verify the collections, would it be best to just try to do a PFD?
Don't do anything until you have the full investigation results back from the Pre Hippa Dispute- Don't communicate with the CA,
If the med collection (s) get "properly validate" why chat has "iron clad" PIF, for medical collection, but not even consider it until after you have the investigation results back from the Pre Hippa Dispute.
Thanks a bunch bonbonXO.
Per your request Whycat, I am updating this thread with the results.
The 2 hospital medical collections that Premium Asset reported to EX back in June are both gone.
I could not have done it with your help! Thanks a bunch.
The 2 hospital medical collections that Premium Asset reported to EX back in June are both gone.
I could not have done it with your help! Thanks a bunch.
Whychat
That isnt exactly correct about the SOL.
Hospital debt that is tax payer subsidized still has a SOL. The thing that "tolls" the SOL is mala fide actions that are meant to avoid payment.
One must leave state in order for the SOL to be tolled.
The mere fact that the debt is paid by taxpayers isnt what tolls the SOL. The DC has the burden of proving that you acted in bad faith by hiding to avoid payment. Absent evidence of that, the SOL is still intact even on unpaid hospital bills that are eventually paid by DOR.
The legality of ther SOL is intact absent evidence of this.
This is similar to the affirmative defense of laches. If you, in bad faith, purposely wait to file a claim until after the defendants star witness dies so they can not testify, the affirmative defense of laches is available even though the claim is within the SOL.
The mala fide behavior is why and the same applies to medical debts where the SOL is tolled by a bad faith effort to avoid payment.
This is not automatic and evidence of bad faith actions must be present.
An expired SOL is an ABSOLUTE affirmative defense on medical claims absent evidence of tolling.
A judge is in error if he rules otherwise and should be appealed for this mistake. What happens is that Pro Se litigants dont object and waive their right to appeal so the claim becomes valid.
They are barred from introducing new evidence on appeal.
Always object if a judge allows a time barred claim to be heard. Then, insist the judge rule on the objection to get it on the record as to preserve the right to appeal to a higher court if needed.
No appeals court would uphold a trial court error of that magnitude.
Medical debt is consumer debt and is covered under the FDCPA.
Student loans, court fines, tickets, and child support are not consumer debt which is why the SOL doesnt apply.
That isnt exactly correct about the SOL.
Hospital debt that is tax payer subsidized still has a SOL. The thing that "tolls" the SOL is mala fide actions that are meant to avoid payment.
One must leave state in order for the SOL to be tolled.
The mere fact that the debt is paid by taxpayers isnt what tolls the SOL. The DC has the burden of proving that you acted in bad faith by hiding to avoid payment. Absent evidence of that, the SOL is still intact even on unpaid hospital bills that are eventually paid by DOR.
The legality of ther SOL is intact absent evidence of this.
This is similar to the affirmative defense of laches. If you, in bad faith, purposely wait to file a claim until after the defendants star witness dies so they can not testify, the affirmative defense of laches is available even though the claim is within the SOL.
The mala fide behavior is why and the same applies to medical debts where the SOL is tolled by a bad faith effort to avoid payment.
This is not automatic and evidence of bad faith actions must be present.
An expired SOL is an ABSOLUTE affirmative defense on medical claims absent evidence of tolling.
A judge is in error if he rules otherwise and should be appealed for this mistake. What happens is that Pro Se litigants dont object and waive their right to appeal so the claim becomes valid.
They are barred from introducing new evidence on appeal.
Always object if a judge allows a time barred claim to be heard. Then, insist the judge rule on the objection to get it on the record as to preserve the right to appeal to a higher court if needed.
No appeals court would uphold a trial court error of that magnitude.
Medical debt is consumer debt and is covered under the FDCPA.
Student loans, court fines, tickets, and child support are not consumer debt which is why the SOL doesnt apply.
What do you mean by "tolls" ? Only reason I ask is my old medical collections (about 75 TL's) that I'm trying to get rid of are from 2002-2004 and in Colorado. I moved to Michigan in 2004.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 13 2008, 03:09 AM)
Whychat
That isnt exactly correct about the SOL. NONSENSE
Hospital debt that is tax payer subsidized still has a SOL. The thing that "tolls" the SOL is mala fide actions that are meant to avoid payment. NONSENSE
One must leave state in order for the SOL to be tolled. NONSENSE
Student loans, court fines, tickets, and child support are not consumer debt which is why the SOL doesnt apply. NONSENSE
That isnt exactly correct about the SOL. NONSENSE
Hospital debt that is tax payer subsidized still has a SOL. The thing that "tolls" the SOL is mala fide actions that are meant to avoid payment. NONSENSE
One must leave state in order for the SOL to be tolled. NONSENSE
Student loans, court fines, tickets, and child support are not consumer debt which is why the SOL doesnt apply. NONSENSE
I am not going to get into a "quasi" legal argument with you.
You are mistaken
The reason "Governmental" debts are exempted from State's legal SOL's is found in the State Statutes.( as well as child support)
The fact that a Court will apply the appropriate State statutes to a lawsuit has nothing to do with "tolling" or "fraud".
By the way, you are also incorrect on tolling. Moving out of State does not toll the SOL unless there is fraud proven to avoid legal service.
As to your contention that a Judge can be sanctioned for applying the State exemption on Governmental debt to a SOL defense, please provide me with any case-law that supports this strange and illogical supposition.
I agree that government debt is defined in state statutes that way but government debt is defined as government debt.
Unpaid consumer debt isnt converted to government debt anywhere and only a perverted definition by some lame trial court judge could make that leap. The states all define medical debt as household debt. The only place where the states differ is in whether they are open or written contracts. Also, I never said that moving tolls the SOL but it can be used to make an argument that the SOL is intact since you moved out of state. The trier of fact would have to determine the motive based on credible facts.
Also, I never said the judge can be sanctioned.
I said he can be appealed.
But instead of engaging in a quasi legal argument, steer me to the statutes that define unpaid hospital bills as government debt if paid by the taxpayer.
Im not confused on anything.
You said the courts have ruled that too.
Where?
I know of no state law that makes the claim that medical debts, when unpaid, now suddenly become government debt.
Thats nonsense.
That is quite a stretch that would never hold up on appeal.
Youre spreading bad info as that would be on a state by state basis.
Start by naming one statute in just one state that defines unpaid consumer debt as "government" debt.
Just one...
Instead of arguing with me, cite me a state that does this and steer me to the appropriate statute.
Heres your chance to back up that nonsense.
Unpaid consumer debt isnt converted to government debt anywhere and only a perverted definition by some lame trial court judge could make that leap. The states all define medical debt as household debt. The only place where the states differ is in whether they are open or written contracts. Also, I never said that moving tolls the SOL but it can be used to make an argument that the SOL is intact since you moved out of state. The trier of fact would have to determine the motive based on credible facts.
Also, I never said the judge can be sanctioned.
I said he can be appealed.
But instead of engaging in a quasi legal argument, steer me to the statutes that define unpaid hospital bills as government debt if paid by the taxpayer.
Im not confused on anything.
You said the courts have ruled that too.
Where?
I know of no state law that makes the claim that medical debts, when unpaid, now suddenly become government debt.
Thats nonsense.
That is quite a stretch that would never hold up on appeal.
Youre spreading bad info as that would be on a state by state basis.
Start by naming one statute in just one state that defines unpaid consumer debt as "government" debt.
Just one...
Instead of arguing with me, cite me a state that does this and steer me to the appropriate statute.
Heres your chance to back up that nonsense.
Why Chat
I didnt come on here to be confrontational but you are convoluting legal theory.
The only time hospital debt can be considered government debt is if the Police take you in. A psych evaluation and drug test on a domestic violence arrest would be an example.
You are describing a trial court error if that happened.
Government isnt a party to Joe Blow going in without Police involvement.
Besides, when the debt is paid, even by government, the collection rights cease to exist since there are no damages for which to base a cause of action.
The Dept. of Revenue would have to be the creditor for it to be government debt.
Thats because they have legal standing and damages to base a cause of action.
This isnt a quasi legal process.
A mistake like you described would be big enough to drive a truck through.
But I can see a novice pro se defendant not knowing any of this and waiving the SOL by not objecting.
That has no precedental value though and is not law.
I didnt come on here to be confrontational but you are convoluting legal theory.
The only time hospital debt can be considered government debt is if the Police take you in. A psych evaluation and drug test on a domestic violence arrest would be an example.
You are describing a trial court error if that happened.
Government isnt a party to Joe Blow going in without Police involvement.
Besides, when the debt is paid, even by government, the collection rights cease to exist since there are no damages for which to base a cause of action.
The Dept. of Revenue would have to be the creditor for it to be government debt.
Thats because they have legal standing and damages to base a cause of action.
This isnt a quasi legal process.
A mistake like you described would be big enough to drive a truck through.
But I can see a novice pro se defendant not knowing any of this and waiving the SOL by not objecting.
That has no precedental value though and is not law.
I think youre passing on bad info Why Chat
The judge cant ignore the SOL even if its your only affirmative defense. The SOL is an absolute defense if expired. Student loans, fines, DMV fees, library dues etc. all are exempt because they are not consumer debt and the government has standing as a party to the claim.
The collector can only get that immunity by collecting government debt for a government entity. The immunity is assigned in the agency relationship. Sallie Mae guarantees loans thru their programs so they are an involved entity.
Joe Blow who cuts his and with a knife and goes to the hospital accumulates a consumer oriented debt and his relationship is with the hospital and not the government. This differs from some guy the cops pick up on a domestic violence complaint and haul him to mental health for an evaluation and a drug test.
One is consumer debt and the other is government debt.
The governments relationship with the hospital doesnt alter the nature of the debt or the standing necesasary to bring a viable cause of action.
DOR can not legally collect consumer debt and only accounts regulated by DOR guidelines are exmpt from any state SOL.
Please dont tell me that my opinions are nonsense without a statute to back it up.
I never said a word about a judg ebeing sanctiuoned for not doing what the law requires. I said he can be asppealed for not following the rules of evidence admissability and have his decision overturned on that basis.
That would be a clear case of the judge acting beyond his authority.
Last, no state judge has the authority to redefine any federal definitons of the debt using state statutes as a guide.
The SOL is legal and applicable on consumer originated debts.
Period!
.
The judge cant ignore the SOL even if its your only affirmative defense. The SOL is an absolute defense if expired. Student loans, fines, DMV fees, library dues etc. all are exempt because they are not consumer debt and the government has standing as a party to the claim.
The collector can only get that immunity by collecting government debt for a government entity. The immunity is assigned in the agency relationship. Sallie Mae guarantees loans thru their programs so they are an involved entity.
Joe Blow who cuts his and with a knife and goes to the hospital accumulates a consumer oriented debt and his relationship is with the hospital and not the government. This differs from some guy the cops pick up on a domestic violence complaint and haul him to mental health for an evaluation and a drug test.
One is consumer debt and the other is government debt.
The governments relationship with the hospital doesnt alter the nature of the debt or the standing necesasary to bring a viable cause of action.
DOR can not legally collect consumer debt and only accounts regulated by DOR guidelines are exmpt from any state SOL.
Please dont tell me that my opinions are nonsense without a statute to back it up.
I never said a word about a judg ebeing sanctiuoned for not doing what the law requires. I said he can be asppealed for not following the rules of evidence admissability and have his decision overturned on that basis.
That would be a clear case of the judge acting beyond his authority.
Last, no state judge has the authority to redefine any federal definitons of the debt using state statutes as a guide.
The SOL is legal and applicable on consumer originated debts.
Period!
.
Whychat:
You said "DO NOT send it RR" in regards to the pre-HIPAA letter. What does RR stand for?
As far as hand-addressing the envelope, using eye-catching colors and such... why do you think it's necessary to stand out (vs. showing professionalism)?
Are there any medical-dispute scenarios in which you'd advise against sending the pre-HIPAA letter to the credit bureaus?
My collection accounts total about $2600 (roughly $2100 being the biggest chunk), and they are listed as being two years old (though the incident is three years old.) The claim is "valid" insofar as services were performed; they were performed without my legal consent, but I think that would be quite hard for me to prove. At this point in time, I am fully able and willing (if necessary) to pay off the debt to make it go away. (By "go away", I mean removing the collection accounts from my credit reports entirely.)
It's also worth mentioning I had brief verbal and written contact with one of the collection agencies two years ago. I do not believe that the letter I wrote can be used against me (I used very precise language), but if nothing else it does show that I was aware of the claim shortly before it was submitted to the credit bureaus.
You said "DO NOT send it RR" in regards to the pre-HIPAA letter. What does RR stand for?
As far as hand-addressing the envelope, using eye-catching colors and such... why do you think it's necessary to stand out (vs. showing professionalism)?
Are there any medical-dispute scenarios in which you'd advise against sending the pre-HIPAA letter to the credit bureaus?
QUOTE (Why Chat @ Jul 18 2008, 05:53 PM)
NOW, if YOUR problem is with a LARGE VALID debt from a hospital, and you have been unreachable for several years for whatever reason, then you should be careful about disputing unless you are ready willing and able to pay the hospital what is owed.
My collection accounts total about $2600 (roughly $2100 being the biggest chunk), and they are listed as being two years old (though the incident is three years old.) The claim is "valid" insofar as services were performed; they were performed without my legal consent, but I think that would be quite hard for me to prove. At this point in time, I am fully able and willing (if necessary) to pay off the debt to make it go away. (By "go away", I mean removing the collection accounts from my credit reports entirely.)
It's also worth mentioning I had brief verbal and written contact with one of the collection agencies two years ago. I do not believe that the letter I wrote can be used against me (I used very precise language), but if nothing else it does show that I was aware of the claim shortly before it was submitted to the credit bureaus.
Asset, while I'm not as familiar with what you're discussing with Why Chat, I don't think you needed to post 3 posts basically stating the same thing, right in a row. You could edit your first post.
QUOTE (loderunner @ Aug 14 2008, 02:18 AM)
Whychat:
You said "DO NOT send it RR" in regards to the pre-HIPAA letter. What does RR stand for? return receipt
As far as hand-addressing the envelope, using eye-catching colors and such... why do you think it's necessary to stand out (vs. showing professionalism)? prevents automated computerized handling and "off-shore" CSR reponse
Are there any medical-dispute scenarios in which you'd advise against sending the pre-HIPAA letter to the credit bureaus?
My collection accounts total about $2600 (roughly $2100 being the biggest chunk), and they are listed as being two years old (though the incident is three years old.) The claim is "valid" insofar as services were performed; they were performed without my legal consent, but I think that would be quite hard for me to prove. At this point in time, I am fully able and willing (if necessary) to pay off the debt to make it go away. (By "go away", I mean removing the collection accounts from my credit reports entirely.)
It's also worth mentioning I had brief verbal and written contact with one of the collection agencies two years ago. I do not believe that the letter I wrote can be used against me (I used very precise language), but if nothing else it does show that I was aware of the claim shortly before it was submitted to the credit bureaus.
You said "DO NOT send it RR" in regards to the pre-HIPAA letter. What does RR stand for? return receipt
As far as hand-addressing the envelope, using eye-catching colors and such... why do you think it's necessary to stand out (vs. showing professionalism)? prevents automated computerized handling and "off-shore" CSR reponse
Are there any medical-dispute scenarios in which you'd advise against sending the pre-HIPAA letter to the credit bureaus?
QUOTE (Why Chat @ Jul 18 2008, 05:53 PM)
NOW, if YOUR problem is with a LARGE VALID debt from a hospital, and you have been unreachable for several years for whatever reason, then you should be careful about disputing unless you are ready willing and able to pay the hospital what is owed.
My collection accounts total about $2600 (roughly $2100 being the biggest chunk), and they are listed as being two years old (though the incident is three years old.) The claim is "valid" insofar as services were performed; they were performed without my legal consent, but I think that would be quite hard for me to prove. At this point in time, I am fully able and willing (if necessary) to pay off the debt to make it go away. (By "go away", I mean removing the collection accounts from my credit reports entirely.)
It's also worth mentioning I had brief verbal and written contact with one of the collection agencies two years ago. I do not believe that the letter I wrote can be used against me (I used very precise language), but if nothing else it does show that I was aware of the claim shortly before it was submitted to the credit bureaus.
In general, if you have a VALID medical/hospital bill that is less than 4 years old, I suggest paying it to the OC with the HIPAA letter insert "a" AFTER using the "pre" HIPAA dispute letter to verify that the REPORTING CA is in CURRENT communication with the OC.
http://whychat.5u.com/hipltr.html
Whychat: I want to thank you wholeheartedly for the tremendous effort you've obviously been putting into this. I will post my results here.
One last thing, what is the "courtesy letter" mentioned here http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=175055 ? I'm assuming this would be a notification of an impending HIPAA complaint, to be sent out right before one makes the actual complaint (assuming one was necessary... here's hoping it doesn't get that far.)
One last thing, what is the "courtesy letter" mentioned here http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=175055 ? I'm assuming this would be a notification of an impending HIPAA complaint, to be sent out right before one makes the actual complaint (assuming one was necessary... here's hoping it doesn't get that far.)
loderunner
Whychat: I want to thank you wholeheartedly for the tremendous effort you've obviously been putting into this. I will post my results here.
One last thing, what is the "courtesy letter" mentioned here http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=175055 ? I'm assuming this would be a notification of an impending HIPAA complaint, to be sent out right before one makes the actual complaint (assuming one was necessary... here's hoping it doesn't get that far.)
Your are correct the courtesy letter would go to the HIPPA compliance department and (I have to double check this the legal department) with the OC, you give a 10 notice before you file a complaint with the OCR. You are absolutely right this is a last resort. You don't this only when you have been through all the steps in the HIPPA process. You may want to start you own thread too, it is easier if each person starts their own thread/post, it helps keep track of what is going on with only your situation and nothing gets mixed up with some one else's post. I am not scolding you, I am just trying to give you some helpful advice.
Whychat: I want to thank you wholeheartedly for the tremendous effort you've obviously been putting into this. I will post my results here.
One last thing, what is the "courtesy letter" mentioned here http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=175055 ? I'm assuming this would be a notification of an impending HIPAA complaint, to be sent out right before one makes the actual complaint (assuming one was necessary... here's hoping it doesn't get that far.)
Your are correct the courtesy letter would go to the HIPPA compliance department and (I have to double check this the legal department) with the OC, you give a 10 notice before you file a complaint with the OCR. You are absolutely right this is a last resort. You don't this only when you have been through all the steps in the HIPPA process. You may want to start you own thread too, it is easier if each person starts their own thread/post, it helps keep track of what is going on with only your situation and nothing gets mixed up with some one else's post. I am not scolding you, I am just trying to give you some helpful advice.
I was told by Nightstar at another site that WhyChat is the guru on this so I came by to find out.
I must say that Im just not seeing it.
Now, I can go back and report that he is full of it.
I came here to set the record straight but obviously his ego is bruised by some newbie on the board showing him up. He could have backed up his claim but has nothing to back it up with. I gave him plenty of red meat to work with. I didnt come to start an argument, I came to set his straight on some bad info that hes passing that adversely effects those in here and leaves them vulnerable to CA abuses. His unwillingness to engage in a debate shows hes more interested in being the big cheese on this site than he is with being accurate.
Take everything he says with a grain of salt because I can only wonder what other bad advice he is giving.
The response he gave insured me that he has no business weighing in on legal matters like that.
He may fool his little groupies on this site but he doesnt fool me.
Never willfully waive your rights. THats what he is teaching you to do.
People did for those rights.
Pathetic Why Chat!
You arent interested in doing your people a service. You are interested in being the big enchilada to appease your ego.
Otherwise, you would have engaged me for the benefit of your board.
I will now discredit you on the other board.
I must say that Im just not seeing it.
Now, I can go back and report that he is full of it.
I came here to set the record straight but obviously his ego is bruised by some newbie on the board showing him up. He could have backed up his claim but has nothing to back it up with. I gave him plenty of red meat to work with. I didnt come to start an argument, I came to set his straight on some bad info that hes passing that adversely effects those in here and leaves them vulnerable to CA abuses. His unwillingness to engage in a debate shows hes more interested in being the big cheese on this site than he is with being accurate.
Take everything he says with a grain of salt because I can only wonder what other bad advice he is giving.
The response he gave insured me that he has no business weighing in on legal matters like that.
He may fool his little groupies on this site but he doesnt fool me.
Never willfully waive your rights. THats what he is teaching you to do.
People did for those rights.
Pathetic Why Chat!
You arent interested in doing your people a service. You are interested in being the big enchilada to appease your ego.
Otherwise, you would have engaged me for the benefit of your board.
I will now discredit you on the other board.
QUOTE (purplecharm @ Aug 14 2008, 08:39 PM)
Do you have a question??
I have placed " Asset" on ignore, ( and I suggest everyone else does the same)
Since these are going to the CRA (right?), how do we do it for multiple bills? Should we just send a separate letter for each one, or just add them all and send them in one letter? Obviously we shouldn't send it while there is already an open dispute, so we don't give them an extension on it. Can we send it with other disputes at the same time?
QUOTE (Chris123 @ Aug 16 2008, 01:01 AM)
Since these are going to the CRA (right?), how do we do it for multiple bills? Should we just send a separate letter for each one, or just add them all and send them in one letter? Obviously we shouldn't send it while there is already an open dispute, so we don't give them an extension on it. Can we send it with other disputes at the same time?
The medical dispute letter to the CRA's should NOT be used while you have any other "open" disputes.
It should ONLY be used for MEDICAL accounts, and no other disputes at the same time.
Dear CRA,
My name is xxxxx xxxxxx , my SS # is xxx xx xxxx.
I am sending this dispute certified mail # xxxx to make sure you receive it.
I have no knowledge or records of the following accounts on my report # xxxxx;
account # xxxxx from xxxxxx .
account # xxxxx from xxxxxx
account # xxxxx from xxxxxx
etc. etc.
Please advise me as to the names and addresses of the medical providers, the dates and types of service,and to whom the services were provided, as any accounts I might have had would be obsolete.
If you can obtain this information, I also would need the names of the persons providing this data, and the manner in which it was provided in order that I may pursue additional legal remedies.
Very truly yours,
xxxxxx
Make sure you HAND ADDRESS the envelope, use personalized stationery and purple or teal font, ( preferably italic).
DO NOT send it RR -WAIT FOR THE FULL RESPONSE FROM THE CRA BEFORE CONTINUING WITH THE HIPAA LETTER PROCESS
You should list ALL your medical accounts, paid or unpaid in one dispute letter to each CRA, make sure the account names and #'s MATCH the CRA report you are disputing.
Thanks!
Is this a good color for the font?
Is this a good color for the font?
He put me on ignore.
How cute.
I collect medical judgments that I convert from medical collections and I write off over 100k every year due to XSOL status of claims.
Am I stoned or just stupid?
The debt is classified according the the contractual origin and no judge has any authority to say otherwise. They would be changing the contract by doing so. The SOL, when used by itself, is just as viable as with any other affirmative defense. Why Chat gives the impression that is is a ticky tacky defense but its not. A judge that allows a time barred claim to go through is in violation of court procedure and can be appealed. That decision would be reversed every time and the judge could be sanctioned for such a novice mistake. Thats why you never see it. I have been collecting debts for 17 years and have NEVER seen a judge ignore a valid SOL defense. Judges get their decisions reviewed by AG regulators and no judge would make that kind of mistake. The fear of the judgment makes people pay for charges they dont legally owe and its bad for the economy.
Should all of you ignore me and do otherwise, it makes no difference to me.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
I love misinformed people like Why Chat spreading this kind of misinformation and fear. People voluntarily waive their rights because of people like him. I make more money as a result.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
So put me on ignore and when I serve you with a Summons to Appear, you had better understand the rules of evidence better than I do. That way none of my tainted evidence will get on the record. Only fools think the judge is going to help them. Judges are barred by law from helping you since they can not act as your attorney. I would love for a judge to convert consumer debt to government debt for me. Why Chat claims the judges will automatically apply applicable state statutes that dont exist. The job of controlling the judge is yours in a courtroom and if you dont understand when the court is making mistakes then its your tough luck. The judge has no obligation to move the court in your favor or silence a plaintiff introducing tainted evidence on the record. That is the job of the parties involved. Judges fall asleep half the time. The dirty secret is that the judge doesnt make the decision most of the time. A person who knows the courts knows this and customizes his argument for the law clerk that really makes the decision. Debt collectors never demand jury trials. Put me on ignore if you want because I wont be returning anyway. This board has been taken out of a book I wrote on credit repair from a debt collectors point of view. I had thought highly of it until I realized that its not a dialogue in here. Instead, it is one guy acting like he is an expert. He has an unsuspecting audience and can get away with passing bad information.
I love people like Why Chat because I can get settlements on out of statute claims that I would normally be thinking of writing off.
I can do it with tainted evidence too.
Yep, I can sway the judge to rule in my favor every time and collect illegal interest rates from right under your noses thanks tothose like Why Chat.
What angers me here is that the media and consumer groups are always whining saying that debt collectors get their money by abusing peoples rights.
They never say a word about people like Why Chat who adsvocate them giving them away.
Great job buddy!
Ill remember you at Christmas.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!!
How cute.
I collect medical judgments that I convert from medical collections and I write off over 100k every year due to XSOL status of claims.
Am I stoned or just stupid?
The debt is classified according the the contractual origin and no judge has any authority to say otherwise. They would be changing the contract by doing so. The SOL, when used by itself, is just as viable as with any other affirmative defense. Why Chat gives the impression that is is a ticky tacky defense but its not. A judge that allows a time barred claim to go through is in violation of court procedure and can be appealed. That decision would be reversed every time and the judge could be sanctioned for such a novice mistake. Thats why you never see it. I have been collecting debts for 17 years and have NEVER seen a judge ignore a valid SOL defense. Judges get their decisions reviewed by AG regulators and no judge would make that kind of mistake. The fear of the judgment makes people pay for charges they dont legally owe and its bad for the economy.
Should all of you ignore me and do otherwise, it makes no difference to me.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
I love misinformed people like Why Chat spreading this kind of misinformation and fear. People voluntarily waive their rights because of people like him. I make more money as a result.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
So put me on ignore and when I serve you with a Summons to Appear, you had better understand the rules of evidence better than I do. That way none of my tainted evidence will get on the record. Only fools think the judge is going to help them. Judges are barred by law from helping you since they can not act as your attorney. I would love for a judge to convert consumer debt to government debt for me. Why Chat claims the judges will automatically apply applicable state statutes that dont exist. The job of controlling the judge is yours in a courtroom and if you dont understand when the court is making mistakes then its your tough luck. The judge has no obligation to move the court in your favor or silence a plaintiff introducing tainted evidence on the record. That is the job of the parties involved. Judges fall asleep half the time. The dirty secret is that the judge doesnt make the decision most of the time. A person who knows the courts knows this and customizes his argument for the law clerk that really makes the decision. Debt collectors never demand jury trials. Put me on ignore if you want because I wont be returning anyway. This board has been taken out of a book I wrote on credit repair from a debt collectors point of view. I had thought highly of it until I realized that its not a dialogue in here. Instead, it is one guy acting like he is an expert. He has an unsuspecting audience and can get away with passing bad information.
I love people like Why Chat because I can get settlements on out of statute claims that I would normally be thinking of writing off.
I can do it with tainted evidence too.
Yep, I can sway the judge to rule in my favor every time and collect illegal interest rates from right under your noses thanks tothose like Why Chat.
What angers me here is that the media and consumer groups are always whining saying that debt collectors get their money by abusing peoples rights.
They never say a word about people like Why Chat who adsvocate them giving them away.
Great job buddy!
Ill remember you at Christmas.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!!
Thanks, but if we had to choose between you and WhyChat, we would take Why Chat.
Why don't you just move along? We don't trust debt collectors at all.
Why don't you just move along? We don't trust debt collectors at all.
QUOTE (undertakeress @ Aug 14 2008, 02:22 AM)
Asset, while I'm not as familiar with what you're discussing with Why Chat, I don't think you needed to post 3 posts basically stating the same thing, right in a row. You could edit your first post.
were you promoted to posting-police?
Look assetkicker, you come here a spew all kinds of nonsense and people should just blindly believe YOU? A self admitted collector? That doesn't make you an expert. And you have posted NOTHING to back up your allegations as you requested Why Chat do. So with that said, go back to the hole you came from and report that you're a freaking moron trying to lead newbies down the wrong path. Get lost.
Further, you aren't going to come here and purposely try and engage Why Chat or any member for that matter, in argument. If your purpose was to help, that's one thing. But your comments show that was not your intent.
Further, you aren't going to come here and purposely try and engage Why Chat or any member for that matter, in argument. If your purpose was to help, that's one thing. But your comments show that was not your intent.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 19 2008, 05:21 PM)
He put me on ignore.
How cute.
I collect medical judgments that I convert from medical collections and I write off over 100k every year due to XSOL status of claims.
I don't know if you're stoned or not, but you sure are stupid.
The debt is classified according the the contractual origin and no judge has any authority to say otherwise. They would be changing the contract by doing so. The SOL, when used by itself, is just as viable as with any other affirmative defense. Why Chat gives the impression that is is a ticky tacky defense but its not. A judge that allows a time barred claim to go through is in violation of court procedure and can be appealed. That decision would be reversed every time and the judge could be sanctioned for such a novice mistake. Thats why you never see it. I have been collecting debts for 17 years and have NEVER seen a judge ignore a valid SOL defense. Judges get their decisions reviewed by AG regulators and no judge would make that kind of mistake. The fear of the judgment makes people pay for charges they dont legally owe and its bad for the economy.
Should all of you ignore me and do otherwise, it makes no difference to me.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
Why Chat is hardly misinformed. We've seen the likes of you before. Scumbag collectors that come here to try and misinform the membership. It doesn't work. They know better than to listen to some schmuck who shows up one day claiming to be almighty and smarter than everyone else. lol pathetic.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
So put me on ignore and when I serve you with a Summons to Appear, you had better understand the rules of evidence better than I do. That way none of my tainted evidence will get on the record. Only fools think the judge is going to help them. Judges are barred by law from helping you since they can not act as your attorney. I would love for a judge to convert consumer debt to government debt for me. Why Chat claims the judges will automatically apply applicable state statutes that dont exist. The job of controlling the judge is yours in a courtroom and if you dont understand when the court is making mistakes then its your tough luck. The judge has no obligation to move the court in your favor or silence a plaintiff introducing tainted evidence on the record. That is the job of the parties involved. Judges fall asleep half the time. The dirty secret is that the judge doesnt make the decision most of the time. A person who knows the courts knows this and customizes his argument for the law clerk that really makes the decision. Debt collectors never demand jury trials. Put me on ignore if you want because I wont be returning anyway. This board has been taken out of a book I wrote on credit repair from a debt collectors point of view. I had thought highly of it until I realized that its not a dialogue in here. Instead, it is one guy acting like he is an expert. He has an unsuspecting audience and can get away with passing bad information.
I love people like Why Chat because I can get settlements on out of statute claims that I would normally be thinking of writing off.
I can do it with tainted evidence too.
Yep, I can sway the judge to rule in my favor every time and collect illegal interest rates from right under your noses thanks tothose like Why Chat.
What angers me here is that the media and consumer groups are always whining saying that debt collectors get their money by abusing peoples rights.
They never say a word about people like Why Chat who adsvocate them giving them away.
Great job buddy!
Ill remember you at Christmas.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!!
How cute.
I collect medical judgments that I convert from medical collections and I write off over 100k every year due to XSOL status of claims.
QUOTE
Am I stoned or just stupid?
I don't know if you're stoned or not, but you sure are stupid.
The debt is classified according the the contractual origin and no judge has any authority to say otherwise. They would be changing the contract by doing so. The SOL, when used by itself, is just as viable as with any other affirmative defense. Why Chat gives the impression that is is a ticky tacky defense but its not. A judge that allows a time barred claim to go through is in violation of court procedure and can be appealed. That decision would be reversed every time and the judge could be sanctioned for such a novice mistake. Thats why you never see it. I have been collecting debts for 17 years and have NEVER seen a judge ignore a valid SOL defense. Judges get their decisions reviewed by AG regulators and no judge would make that kind of mistake. The fear of the judgment makes people pay for charges they dont legally owe and its bad for the economy.
Should all of you ignore me and do otherwise, it makes no difference to me.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
QUOTE
I love misinformed people like Why Chat spreading this kind of misinformation and fear. People voluntarily waive their rights because of people like him. I make more money as a result.
Why Chat is hardly misinformed. We've seen the likes of you before. Scumbag collectors that come here to try and misinform the membership. It doesn't work. They know better than to listen to some schmuck who shows up one day claiming to be almighty and smarter than everyone else. lol pathetic.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!
So put me on ignore and when I serve you with a Summons to Appear, you had better understand the rules of evidence better than I do. That way none of my tainted evidence will get on the record. Only fools think the judge is going to help them. Judges are barred by law from helping you since they can not act as your attorney. I would love for a judge to convert consumer debt to government debt for me. Why Chat claims the judges will automatically apply applicable state statutes that dont exist. The job of controlling the judge is yours in a courtroom and if you dont understand when the court is making mistakes then its your tough luck. The judge has no obligation to move the court in your favor or silence a plaintiff introducing tainted evidence on the record. That is the job of the parties involved. Judges fall asleep half the time. The dirty secret is that the judge doesnt make the decision most of the time. A person who knows the courts knows this and customizes his argument for the law clerk that really makes the decision. Debt collectors never demand jury trials. Put me on ignore if you want because I wont be returning anyway. This board has been taken out of a book I wrote on credit repair from a debt collectors point of view. I had thought highly of it until I realized that its not a dialogue in here. Instead, it is one guy acting like he is an expert. He has an unsuspecting audience and can get away with passing bad information.
I love people like Why Chat because I can get settlements on out of statute claims that I would normally be thinking of writing off.
I can do it with tainted evidence too.
Yep, I can sway the judge to rule in my favor every time and collect illegal interest rates from right under your noses thanks tothose like Why Chat.
What angers me here is that the media and consumer groups are always whining saying that debt collectors get their money by abusing peoples rights.
They never say a word about people like Why Chat who adsvocate them giving them away.
Great job buddy!
Ill remember you at Christmas.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!!
Blah blah blah, more BS from scum.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 14 2008, 01:28 PM)
I was told by Nightstar at another site that WhyChat is the guru on this so I came by to find out.
I must say that Im just not seeing it.
Now, I can go back and report that he is full of it.
I came here to set the record straight but obviously his ego is bruised by some newbie on the board showing him up. He could have backed up his claim but has nothing to back it up with. I gave him plenty of red meat to work with. I didnt come to start an argument, I came to set his straight on some bad info that hes passing that adversely effects those in here and leaves them vulnerable to CA abuses. His unwillingness to engage in a debate shows hes more interested in being the big cheese on this site than he is with being accurate.
Take everything he says with a grain of salt because I can only wonder what other bad advice he is giving.
The response he gave insured me that he has no business weighing in on legal matters like that.
He may fool his little groupies on this site but he doesnt fool me.
Never willfully waive your rights. THats what he is teaching you to do.
People did for those rights.
Pathetic Why Chat!
You arent interested in doing your people a service. You are interested in being the big enchilada to appease your ego.
Otherwise, you would have engaged me for the benefit of your board.
I will now discredit you on the other board.
I must say that Im just not seeing it.
Now, I can go back and report that he is full of it.
I came here to set the record straight but obviously his ego is bruised by some newbie on the board showing him up. He could have backed up his claim but has nothing to back it up with. I gave him plenty of red meat to work with. I didnt come to start an argument, I came to set his straight on some bad info that hes passing that adversely effects those in here and leaves them vulnerable to CA abuses. His unwillingness to engage in a debate shows hes more interested in being the big cheese on this site than he is with being accurate.
Take everything he says with a grain of salt because I can only wonder what other bad advice he is giving.
The response he gave insured me that he has no business weighing in on legal matters like that.
He may fool his little groupies on this site but he doesnt fool me.
Never willfully waive your rights. THats what he is teaching you to do.
People did for those rights.
Pathetic Why Chat!
You arent interested in doing your people a service. You are interested in being the big enchilada to appease your ego.
Otherwise, you would have engaged me for the benefit of your board.
I will now discredit you on the other board.
Yo dippy, Why Chat doesn't need to engage you. He's been here since day 1 and has helped many, many people. The archives speak for themselves. He doesn't need to argue with some 2 bit collector that thinks he's hot shit.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 19 2008, 07:21 PM)
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!!
the Great Carnac says.......... the question was how did your head get so big?
QUOTE (radi8 @ Aug 20 2008, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 19 2008, 07:21 PM)
BECAUSE I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR!!
the Great Carnac says.......... the question was how did your head get so big?
QUOTE (Jen23514 @ Aug 20 2008, 09:22 PM)
QUOTE (undertakeress @ Aug 14 2008, 02:22 AM)
Asset, while I'm not as familiar with what you're discussing with Why Chat, I don't think you needed to post 3 posts basically stating the same thing, right in a row. You could edit your first post.
were you promoted to posting-police?
No, but they're annoying as all heck.
QUOTE (undertakeress @ Aug 21 2008, 01:18 AM)
QUOTE (Jen23514 @ Aug 20 2008, 09:22 PM)
QUOTE (undertakeress @ Aug 14 2008, 02:22 AM)
Asset, while I'm not as familiar with what you're discussing with Why Chat, I don't think you needed to post 3 posts basically stating the same thing, right in a row. You could edit your first post.
were you promoted to posting-police?
No, but they're annoying as all heck.
who is this ASSet guy?
QUOTE (hurricanesfans27 @ Aug 21 2008, 11:50 PM)
who is this ASSet guy?
Cant ya all track him down
Every one of you deserves to get screwed by a DC.
Dont take my word for it, ask the attorney at www.myfaircredit.com
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
The contracts origin is what determines debt classification and no judge or state law can change that. The UCC defines contracts and classifies debt.
But if you want to take his word for it, then go right ahead. I tried to help you and you attacked me.
WhyChats claim is still inaccurate.
None of that has changed.
Hes teaching you to give your rights away. The SOL is meant to guarantee a common law defense in the event a cause of action is brought in a time frame that prejudices your abilty to put on a competent defense.
I dont care how long Why Chat has been here and how many archives hes posted.
The info is still wrong and he knows it.
Thats why he avoids the discussion.
Thats weak and pathetic.
Dont take my word for it, ask the attorney at www.myfaircredit.com
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
The contracts origin is what determines debt classification and no judge or state law can change that. The UCC defines contracts and classifies debt.
But if you want to take his word for it, then go right ahead. I tried to help you and you attacked me.
WhyChats claim is still inaccurate.
None of that has changed.
Hes teaching you to give your rights away. The SOL is meant to guarantee a common law defense in the event a cause of action is brought in a time frame that prejudices your abilty to put on a competent defense.
I dont care how long Why Chat has been here and how many archives hes posted.
The info is still wrong and he knows it.
Thats why he avoids the discussion.
Thats weak and pathetic.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 24 2008, 02:34 AM)
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
Whychat likely won't engage you as he has limited time available and prefers to spend it helping consumers, not arguing with debt collectors. I don't speak for WhyChat, but I understand his motives well enough to know why he chooses to not waste time arguing with you.
Now- as to the disagreement at hand- WhyChat clearly qualified his statement to include "taxpayer supported" hospitals, and under those circumstances what he says is quite accurate.
State operated or funded hospitals have sovereign immunity from application of a statute of limitations for debt collection. A simple search will turn up case after case showing this to be true.
The next question is that of the definition of "state operated or funded". A reading of several of the cases I found indicates that can be anything from completely state owned and funded to a private hospital receiving state funding for indigent care.
So- it appears that for a hospital that receives no taxpayer support of any sort, the SOL likely applies. For those that do receive tax money, the SOL becomes questionable to non-existent with the exact answer lying in that state's statues and case law. What I found related to limited taxpayer funding wasn't consistent. It likely hinges on whether non-collection affects the particular program that is taxpayer supported, honestly I didn't read them all that thoroughly.
QUOTE (radi8 @ Aug 24 2008, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 24 2008, 02:34 AM)
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
Whychat likely won't engage you as he has limited time available and prefers to spend it helping consumers, not arguing with debt collectors. I don't speak for WhyChat, but I understand his motives well enough to know why he chooses to not waste time arguing with you.
Now- as to the disagreement at hand- WhyChat clearly qualified his statement to include "taxpayer supported" hospitals, and under those circumstances what he says is quite accurate.
State operated or funded hospitals have sovereign immunity from application of a statute of limitations for debt collection. A simple search will turn up case after case showing this to be true.
The next question is that of the definition of "state operated or funded". A reading of several of the cases I found indicates that can be anything from completely state owned and funded to a private hospital receiving state funding for indigent care.
So- it appears that for a hospital that receives no taxpayer support of any sort, the SOL likely applies. For those that do receive tax money, the SOL becomes questionable to non-existent with the exact answer lying in that state's statues and case law. What I found related to limited taxpayer funding wasn't consistent. It likely hinges on whether non-collection affects the particular program that is taxpayer supported, honestly I didn't read them all that thoroughly.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 24 2008, 12:34 AM)
Every one of you deserves to get screwed by a DC.
Dont take my word for it, ask the attorney at www.myfaircredit.com
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
The contracts origin is what determines debt classification and no judge or state law can change that. The UCC defines contracts and classifies debt.
But if you want to take his word for it, then go right ahead. I tried to help you and you attacked me.
WhyChats claim is still inaccurate.
None of that has changed.
Hes teaching you to give your rights away. The SOL is meant to guarantee a common law defense in the event a cause of action is brought in a time frame that prejudices your abilty to put on a competent defense.
I dont care how long Why Chat has been here and how many archives hes posted.
The info is still wrong and he knows it.
Thats why he avoids the discussion.
Thats weak and pathetic.
Dont take my word for it, ask the attorney at www.myfaircredit.com
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
The contracts origin is what determines debt classification and no judge or state law can change that. The UCC defines contracts and classifies debt.
But if you want to take his word for it, then go right ahead. I tried to help you and you attacked me.
WhyChats claim is still inaccurate.
None of that has changed.
Hes teaching you to give your rights away. The SOL is meant to guarantee a common law defense in the event a cause of action is brought in a time frame that prejudices your abilty to put on a competent defense.
I dont care how long Why Chat has been here and how many archives hes posted.
The info is still wrong and he knows it.
Thats why he avoids the discussion.
Thats weak and pathetic.
I'm sure the atty at myfaircredit would agree with you. Why else would you mention it. I'm also sure there would be other attys that won't agree with you.
As to your PM, I'll say it again: There is a right way and a wrong way to attempt to engage someone in discussion and coming here and throwing insults and accusations at the person you want to engage is NOT the right way, nor will it make your time here last very long. I'm sure if you had been polite and requested Why Chat discuss it, he likely would have. But I don't blame him for not engaging you. Attacking someone from the word go is weak and pathetic.
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 24 2008, 03:34 AM)
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
correct me if i'm wrong, which i probably am, but isn't that what the government is doing right now?
QUOTE (soozeeeq @ Oct 14 2008, 10:21 AM)
QUOTE (assetkicker @ Aug 24 2008, 03:34 AM)
The reason WhyChat wont engage me is because there arent any state statutes that magically convert consumer debt into government debt.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
That concept defies basic common law theory.
correct me if i'm wrong, which i probably am, but isn't that what the government is doing right now?
Was there some information you were trying to glean from this thread?
yes. i was trying to get info on the statute of limitations for medical collections. i am still quite lost. i am not sure if hospitals are exempt from the sol or not.
this thread came up when i did a search. i'm sorry if i offended you with my post. i did not realize that it was private. i am relatively new and definitely green when it comes to this forum. i won't post here again. sorry.
this thread came up when i did a search. i'm sorry if i offended you with my post. i did not realize that it was private. i am relatively new and definitely green when it comes to this forum. i won't post here again. sorry.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.