Thanks for your comment, Tfleeman. Do you know if any other states have a "safe harbor" system like Michigan does? And how does Michigan's program work? Is it operated by private companies under contracts with the State or district attorney?
I have a hard time believing that a debt collection company "treat[s] EVERY dispute the same" (see link: http://regulationroom.org/rules/consumer-debt-collection-practices/discussion/when-consumers-dispute-debt#cid-1090) when debt collectors seem to blatantly disregard a dispute that has the appearance of being "copied directly from the internet." Consumer advocates are trying to educate consumers, debtors, and alleged debtors with information on how to handle debt collectors or how to handle their particular situation. We are try to give them relevant links to FDCPA, FCRA, HIPPA, and various form letters that can help them communicate with debt collectors. There is nothing wrong with form letters. But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don't like that it came from a consumer advocate source. Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash. You seem to be saying that debt collectors will only want to communicate with consumers who are misinformed and don't know what their rights are, rather than communicate with a consumer who knows the laws and the appropriate ways to address a letter of dispute.
Information about the source of the debt (such as the date of the service) can be provided without infringing on the patient's privacy. No one should be asked to pay a debt without first being told why they owe the money. This is esp. true of medical debts, which are notoriously complex and apparently redundant, with many charges occurring on the same occasion.
Moderator
1
Thanks for your comment, Tfleeman. Do you know if any other states have a "safe harbor" system like Michigan does? And how does Michigan's program work? Is it operated by private companies under contracts with the State or district attorney?
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
2
I have a hard time believing that a debt collection company "treat[s] EVERY dispute the same" (see link: http://regulationroom.org/rules/consumer-debt-collection-practices/discussion/when-consumers-dispute-debt#cid-1090) when debt collectors seem to blatantly disregard a dispute that has the appearance of being "copied directly from the internet." Consumer advocates are trying to educate consumers, debtors, and alleged debtors with information on how to handle debt collectors or how to handle their particular situation. We are try to give them relevant links to FDCPA, FCRA, HIPPA, and various form letters that can help them communicate with debt collectors. There is nothing wrong with form letters. But there is everything wrong with debt collectors disregaring certain letters just because they don't like that it came from a consumer advocate source. Debt collectors operating legally and with nothing to hide should never treat form letters as something to throw in the trash. You seem to be saying that debt collectors will only want to communicate with consumers who are misinformed and don't know what their rights are, rather than communicate with a consumer who knows the laws and the appropriate ways to address a letter of dispute.
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
3
Thank you for admitting your illegal practices. This is exactly why we need the CFPB regulating debt collectors.
View this comment in the discussion thread
muscogulus
4
Information about the source of the debt (such as the date of the service) can be provided without infringing on the patient's privacy. No one should be asked to pay a debt without first being told why they owe the money. This is esp. true of medical debts, which are notoriously complex and apparently redundant, with many charges occurring on the same occasion.
View this comment in the discussion thread