Legal Commentary

On An Unrelated Note

By Big Tent Democrat

By Big Tent Democrat

On the Trina Bachtel story, I disagree with Paul Krugman's correction. I think Krugman is wrong when he writes:

The Columbus Dispatch reports that the debts in question had been written off as uncollectable long before her pregnancy, so that it does not appear that they were a barrier to care.

Declaring the debt uncollectable would not, in my experience have removed the debt as a barrier to receiving services or products as a result of the bad debt. The debt was not declared satisfied as a legal matter nor would its effect on someone' scredit history be removed. This is a bookkeeping matter for the clinic, not having any legal effect or positive effect on the credit history of Ms. Bachtel. Consider a car loan being declared uncollectable. Do you think the uncollectability would be a barrier to getting another car, or keeping the one you have (repo man)? I am afraid it would be an obstacle. As for Ms. Bachtel, the the AP report Krugman references makes this clear: "In some cases, Blevins said, Holzer clinics place 'credit restrictions' on patients . . ." unless it is an emergency. It seems clear that this is what happened to Trina Bachtel. I disagree with Krugman's correction here.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 17, 2008 (boomark / email).