The Impact of a Voluntary Vehicle Surrender

[Castanza]

Since this thread is active again...

 

Another anecdote.

 

A friend had to call ambulance for health emergency. They had big 3 insurance, so what can go wrong, right? Well, they get $2100 bill for ambulance service... Insurance paid the ambulance company their rate of $700. Ambulance company though claims it's not in network and not accepting insurer's rates, and their total is $2800 (for 10 minute drive KK OK!), so please pay $2100 from your pocket. This an intentional scam where ambulance organizations intentionally do not go "in network" with the insurers so that they can milk the unwary. But hey, the victim should just roll over, show the great moral character and pay up to the extortionists, right? They entered the contract knowingly ... they called 911... nobody forced them... ::) (The insurer is trying to work this out with the extortionist ambulance company, but results are not guaranteed).

 

There was a similar story in the news where a Covid patient had to be airlifted and is stuck with $57000 bill since airlift company does not accept insurer's rate either. Sounds like a pattern?

 

Oh, the great moral US medical system. It builds character in all of us.

 

This is a terrible comparison...

 

Under what emergency circumstances would one need to purchase a luxury vehicle? You know the price and precise monthly payments before you sign anything at a dealership.

 

In your example the one extorting someone is the Ambulance company.

 

In the car example the one extorting another party is the person who bought the car.

[Spekulatius]

Since this thread is active again...

 

Another anecdote.

 

A friend had to call ambulance for health emergency. They had big 3 insurance, so what can go wrong, right? Well, they get $2100 bill for ambulance service... Insurance paid the ambulance company their rate of $700. Ambulance company though claims it's not in network and not accepting insurer's rates, and their total is $2800 (for 10 minute drive KK OK!), so please pay $2100 from your pocket. This an intentional scam where ambulance organizations intentionally do not go "in network" with the insurers so that they can milk the unwary. But hey, the victim should just roll over, show the great moral character and pay up to the extortionists, right? They entered the contract knowingly ... they called 911... nobody forced them... ::) (The insurer is trying to work this out with the extortionist ambulance company, but results are not guaranteed).

 

There was a similar story in the news where a Covid patient had to be airlifted and is stuck with $57000 bill since airlift company does not accept insurer's rate either. Sounds like a pattern?

 

Oh, the great moral US medical system. It builds character in all of us.

 

Interesting.

 

For comparison, when we went to Germany we had to call an ambulance for my wife’s brother. He ended up with an ambulance ride to the nearest emergency room. I had to prepay 100 Euro on his behalf (there is no insurance treaty with the US) and total bill came out at 300 Euro later. That included a couple of hours in an emergency room.

 

But yes, socialized healthcare (which it technical isn’t in Germany) is scary!

 

 

Just for the ambulance scam - the same scam exists with tow trucks. If cops call a tow track on behalf of an accident participant, you can bet that this tow truck isn’t with AAA (at least from my and a friends experience).

[Dalal.Holdings]

Since this thread is active again...

 

Another anecdote.

 

A friend had to call ambulance for health emergency. They had big 3 insurance, so what can go wrong, right? Well, they get $2100 bill for ambulance service... Insurance paid the ambulance company their rate of $700. Ambulance company though claims it's not in network and not accepting insurer's rates, and their total is $2800 (for 10 minute drive KK OK!), so please pay $2100 from your pocket. This an intentional scam where ambulance organizations intentionally do not go "in network" with the insurers so that they can milk the unwary. But hey, the victim should just roll over, show the great moral character and pay up to the extortionists, right? They entered the contract knowingly ... they called 911... nobody forced them... ::) (The insurer is trying to work this out with the extortionist ambulance company, but results are not guaranteed).

 

There was a similar story in the news where a Covid patient had to be airlifted and is stuck with $57000 bill since airlift company does not accept insurer's rate either. Sounds like a pattern?

 

Oh, the great moral US medical system. It builds character in all of us.

 

Only a socialist would be ignorant of our great capitalistic system--you obviously just need to learn to shop around for the right ambulance while you are having the heart attack. The free market at work!

[KJP]

Interesting viewpoints.  I'd add that viewing defaulting on a contract as "breaking the law" is inconsistent with modern U.S. contract law, which generally permits efficient breach and does not permit punitive damages in breach-of-contract cases.  In this view, breaching a contract is not normally thought of as "breaking the law," rather it activates an additional set of default remedies that the counterparty may avail itself of, such as judgments, garnishments, levies and so on.  Though when the sheriff comes to your house to levy on your personal property, you might not recognize the distinction.  And, of course, an individual need not let the letter of the law dictate his or her morality.

 

Also, a non-recourse transaction is essentially collateral based, not income/trust based, and thus it is hard to square with ascribing a moral component to default.  (Also, the counterparty presumably understands that you will in fact default if it makes economic sense to do so.)  An unsecured or recourse transaction, on the other hand, has a greater trust-based component, and thus it's easier to ascribe moral aspects to a default.  But as someone mentioned earlier, I suspect most people assign those aspects less weight the more institutional the counterparty is.  In other words, the average person would be far more likely to look askance at someone who left a friend to their legal remedies relative to leaving a leasing company to its.

[Cigarbutt]

Interesting viewpoints.  I'd add that viewing defaulting on a contract as "breaking the law" is inconsistent with modern U.S. contract law, which generally permits efficient breach and does not permit punitive damages in breach-of-contract cases.  In this view, breaching a contract is normally thought of as "breaking the law," rather it activates an additional set of default remedies that the counterparty may avail itself of, such as judgments, garnishments, levies and so on.  Though when the sheriff comes to your house to levy on your personal property, you might not recognize the distinction.  And, of course, an individual need not let the letter of the law dictate his or her morality.

Also, a non-recourse transaction is essentially collateral based, not income/trust based, and thus it is hard to square with ascribing a moral component to default.  (Also, the counterparty presumably understands that you will in fact default if it makes economic sense to do so.)  An unsecured or recourse transaction, on the other hand, has a greater trust-based component, and thus it's easier to ascribe moral aspects to a default.  But as someone mentioned earlier, I suspect most people assign those aspects less weight the more institutional the counterparty is.  In other words, the average person would be far more likely to look askance at someone who left a friend to their legal remedies relative to leaving a leasing company to its.

Thank you. The comments are quite helpful.

Attitudes towards debt and failure to pay debt have evolved. For centuries and up to the 19th century, people used to go to debtor's prison (failure to pay was considered a crime). In Victorian England, some of those prisons were run for profit and debtors with resources (?!) could obtain great conditions until things were ironed out. For truly poor people though, the conditions were truly horrible.

Nowadays, people don't go to debt prisons for unpaid debt as it is considered a civil matter but some counterparties (some collection agencies, those going after unpaid used car loans) threaten 'consumers' with the possibility of going to prison and in fact succeed at times if people are found to have either avoided a court presence or to have failed to respect a court order. i understand the prison stay is short (up to 14 days?) but the morality of unpaid debts has not completely been expunged from today's customs.

Edit: small addition

i think a few signers of the Declaration of Independence had spent some time in debtor's prison along the way before reaching financial independence.

[cwericb]

In Canada, if you sign a contract to pay for a purchase and then default on payment, the court may authorize the repossession of that item and you (the debtor) will be responsible for the court costs involved plus any shortfall from the sale of the item.

 

Also and as outlined in an earlier post, I am likely the only person here who has actually arrested a person for non payment of a debt.  :)

 

If you defaulted because of reasons beyond your control, well sh*t happens. If you defaulted intentionally, as was cited in the first post in this thread, then there is little difference between you and the guy who swipes a ring off the jewelry store counter and runs out the door. A crook is a crook is a crook.

 

[Jurgis]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/millions-are-hounded-for-debt-they-don-t-owe-one-victim-fought-back-with-a-vengeance?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[rkbabang]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/millions-are-hounded-for-debt-they-don-t-owe-one-victim-fought-back-with-a-vengeance?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

That's nuts.  But that is a little different from buying a car from a dealership, driving it for a year and then regretting that you spent so much.