Debt Collector looking for €100...... from a 2 year old.

Infini

http://www.newstalk.com/Debt-collection-company-seeks-100-hospital-bill-from-two-year

Will you take a rattle or toy as payment lads?

Seriously though I dunno weather to laugh at them for lookin for money from someone who hasnt even gone to school yet or slap em on the back on the head for being stupid.

Magellan Murphy

Can't educate stupid.

Atlantic Dawn

The patient is normally billed, are they not?

tomwaterford

I was under the impression that children up to 5 years old had a free medical card??

TallGlass

tomwaterford wrote: »

I was under the impression that children up to 5 years old had a free medical card??

Doesn't cover A&E entrance fee

Magellan Murphy

TallGlass wrote: »

Doesn't cover A&E entrance fee

Is an immigrant covered?

toptom

Magellan Murphy wrote: »

Is an immigrant covered?

They haven't paid tax so they better not be. We've to bloody well pay it.

Pro Hoc Vice

TallGlass wrote: »

Doesn't cover A&E entrance fee

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/3/acutehospitals/hospitals/Hospitalcharges.html

This charge is not applicable if your are in one of the following groups:

Medical card holders

Someone should tell the HSE.

Holograph

"But the hospital then used a debt collection agency to ask the child to pay the €100 fee for going to the emergency department without a doctor's letter."

I like the way NewsTalk present it as if the hospital, with genuine intention, asked the two-year-old to cough up.

It was obviously an administrative error in the name (patient name rather than his parent; not a far-fetched error by someone who is really busy in an A&E department; a very unfortunate mistake but human error is a fact of life) - not personal. And not worth outrage.
"The child is only two years of age, and he hasn't got €100" - no ****, senator!

Also, saying the hospital "then used a debt collection agency" is dishonest - it looks as if they just called a debt collection agency immediately when the little kid left. A debt collection agency would be resorted to only after a prolonged period of non payment. And not sure why it is mentioned that the family are not in a position to pay it - the bill is still going to be issued, the hospital should have been advised of this earlier so that a repayment plan could have been organised, instead of the bill and subsequent reminders being ignored to the extent that a debt collection agency was brought in.

Really not great reporting there by NewsTalk.

Pro Hoc Vice

toptom wrote: »

They haven't paid tax so they better not be. We've to bloody well pay it.

Immigrants don't pay tax so the 3/4 of a million immigrants in Ireland don't pay any tax. I'm outraged is this something like the Apple tax scam?

Magellan Murphy

toptom wrote: »

They haven't paid tax so they better not be. We've to bloody well pay it.

The working person is a fool.

toptom

toptom wrote: »

They haven't paid tax so they better not be. We've to bloody well pay it.

Immigrants don't pay tax??

mdwexford

Stupid headline, pretty obvious the parents should have been billed and should pay aforementioned bill.

End of story.

foggy_lad

Holograph wrote: »

"But the hospital then used a debt collection agency to ask the child to pay the €100 fee for going to the emergency department without a doctor's letter."

I like the way NewsTalk present it as if the hospital, with genuine intention, asked the two-year-old to cough up.

It was obviously an administrative error in the name (patient name rather than his parent; not a far-fetched error by someone who is really busy in an A&E department; a very unfortunate mistake but human error is a fact of life) - not personal. And not worth outrage.
"The child is only two years of age, and he hasn't got €100" - no ****, senator!

Also, saying the hospital "then used a debt collection agency" is dishonest - it looks as if they just called a debt collection agency immediately when the little kid left. A debt collection agency would be resorted to only after a prolonged period of non payment. And not sure why it is mentioned that the family are not in a position to pay it - the bill is still going to be issued, the hospital should have been advised of this earlier so that a repayment plan could have been organised, instead of the bill and subsequent reminders being ignored to the extent that a debt collection agency was brought in.

Really not great reporting there by NewsTalk.

Debt collections agencies are used by the HSE immediately after a reminder is sent to the client.

It is wasteful and smacks of bullyboy tactics being used on the most vulnerable of society, something that the new "boy" minister for health wouldn't know anything about.

Holograph

foggy_lad wrote: »

Debt collections agencies are used by the HSE immediately after a reminder is sent to the client.

It is wasteful and smacks of bullyboy tactics being used on the most vulnerable of society, something that the new "boy" minister for health wouldn't know anything about.

If you cannot afford to pay something in full (which is obviously fair enough) contact the people you have to pay and come to an arrangement, instead of ignoring the bill/reminder. Why should it even have to come to reminder stage?

The deflection of someone owing money into being simply a case of: the company they owe are just bullies, is a big problem in this country (and elsewhere).

Estrellita

Moronic clerical error occurs > Parents tell anyone who will listen > Hilarity / faux outrage / nonchalance ensues. It's a rag article.

rawn

The bang of racism from this thread!

end of the road

Holograph wrote: »

If you cannot afford to pay something in full (which is obviously fair enough) contact the people you have to pay and come to an arrangement, instead of ignoring the bill/reminder. Why should it even have to come to reminder stage?

because sometimes for whatever reason it does. letter goes to wrong address, doesn't arrive, for example. can happen, whether you like it or not.

Holograph

end of the road wrote: »

because sometimes for whatever reason it does. letter goes to wrong address, doesn't arrive, for example. can happen, whether you like it or not.

But I mean when the bill does arrive at the right address.

Winterlong

Estrellita wrote: »

Moronic clerical error occurs > Parents tell anyone who will listen > Hilarity / faux outrage / nonchalance ensues. It's a rag article.

It's like some people are programmed to run to the press anything anything happens to them.
And this is one of the stories that made the cut! What kind of drivel did not make the cut you would have to wonder.

Estrellita

Winterlong wrote: »

It's like some people are programmed to run to the press anything anything happens to them.
And this is one of the stories that made the cut! What kind of drivel did not make the cut you would have to wonder.

It's one less article about Kim Kardashians robbery, or her @rse. We must be grateful for small mercies I suppose.

AudreyHepburn

Surely you don't need a degree to figure this one out.....the child was the patient so naturally his/her name would be on the documentation but obviously it's the parents that will be expected to pay up as the child is only 2.

Making a mountain out of a molehill springs to mind here.

hairyslug

Patient gets billed, sometimes clerical errors are made. Had to deal with it myself with a dead parent who got billed from the hospital she died in 6 weeks later. However, once I explained it to them and the scenario (lack if funds) all was sorted.
If people didn't stick their heads in the sand and did try to communicate directly with the hospital this would be a lot easier.
Saying that, I have also had to deal with a solicitor acting in behalf of a collection agency as they company would not deal with me directly. Things can be made overly difficult for no real reason.

Estrellita

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Surely you don't need a degree to figure this one out.....the child was the patient so naturally his/her name would be on the documentation but obviously it's the parents that will be expected to pay up as the child is only 2.

Making a mountain out of a molehill springs to mind here.

Nothing needs to be figured out. It's lazy low rank 'journalism' at its finest. You can imagine the scene... "

"Jimmy I need you to get page 9 filled out. Get out there and find me a story. I want something with a real human aspect to it. "

Boss exits

*Jimmy opens draw full of post and selects one*

"Ah yes. This s.hite will do."

Dravokivich

This makes no sense, in the case of minors, it's usually parents that get billed.

tomwaterford wrote: »

I was under the impression that children up to 5 years old had a free medical card??

I'd like to know where you got that impression. Unless you are thinking of the GP Card?

seamus

Estrellita wrote: »

Moronic clerical error occurs > Parents tell anyone who will listen > Hilarity / faux outrage / nonchalance ensues. It's a rag article.

This. NewsTalk is the radio equivalent of the Daily Mail. Just hysterical tripe from start to finish.

razorblunt

The wife organised an off site day for meetings with her work in a hotel here in the UK. Last week we got a notice in the door from a debt collector agency as she had parked there all day "without using the facilities" and need to pay £100 fine.

I could hear the manager squirm from this end of the phone as she was dragging him over the coals.
She'd booked a meeting room and 8 rooms for 2 nights for the 3rd time this year with them, he was throwing free rooms at her.
He made the mistake of saying "these things happen" we'll take care of it when the fine was at £60 if paid within 14 days, he didn't.

She's now gone to the area manager.


This really has a loose connection to this thread ... but free rooms y'all.

Your Face

Take it off his first pay-check.

jackofalltrades

Looks like the parents are trying to use an administrative error to embarrass the hospital into not collecting on a debt.
A senator gets free publicity helping "the vulnerable" and Newstalk gets some site visits.
If they can't pay it now, then some kind of arrangement should be made to pay it over time.
I think there's too many people in this country who don't feel like they should have to pay their bills.

Estrellita

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Looks like the parents are trying to use an administrative error to embarrass the hospital into not collecting on a debt.
A senator gets free publicity helping "the vulnerable" and Newstalk gets some site visits.
If they can't pay it now, then some kind of arrangement should be made to pay it over time.
I think there's too many people in this country who don't feel like they should have to pay their bills.

I thought that about them too. Embarrassing the hospital into an apology and to waive their fee for 'distress caused'. And probably think they are cute hoors for it too. Realistically, they publicised that they would scrounge at any chance, shameless.

pickarooney

toptom wrote: »

They haven't paid tax so they better not be. We've to bloody well pay it.

Crap. I've been paying tax as an immigrant for fifteen years. Can I claim it back?

ohnonotgmail

pickarooney wrote: »

Crap. I've been paying tax as an immigrant for fifteen years. Can I claim it back?

you misunderstand, they meant the other immigrants. you know, them.

circadian

bubblypop wrote: »

Immigrants don't pay tax??

Immigrant on a six figure salary. Can confirm am exempt from taxes.

Hercule Poirot

Two words: click bait

Cee-Jay-Cee

The parents are liable for the bill. This is s non story! How many parents here who have ever brought their children to a doctor or dentist left the child to pay themselves? Get fcuking real, the parents should pay the bill!

Roadhawk

Infini2 wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.com/Debt-collection-company-seeks-100-hospital-bill-from-two-year

Will you take a rattle or toy as payment lads?

Seriously though I dunno weather to laugh at them for lookin for money from someone who hasnt even gone to school yet or slap em on the back on the head for being stupid.

Cop on and pay up punk...:cool:

end of the road

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cop on and pay up punk...

they can't afford it.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

they can't afford it.

there is no mention in the article that they cant afford to pay.

Roadhawk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no mention in the article that they cant afford to pay.

It does...
"The child is only two years of age, and the hasn't got €100," he said. "The family are not in a position to pay this bill as well."

...would a doctor on call not have cost more?

Im sure the debt collector would accept €8.33 per month over a year

Holograph

end of the road wrote: »

they can't afford it.

Well they can't have it for free - who pays for it then? A payment plan is the alternative. They'd have a good chunk paid by now if they hadn't put it on the long finger.

And their delay paying is sufficient "revenge" for the clerical error.

end of the road

Roadhawk wrote: »

Im sure the debt collector would accept €8.33 per month over a year

i'd doubt it. they would be best off sending the money directly to the hospital and cut the debt collector out altogether if they can do that. debt collecting should be done by a state agency anyway.

Holograph wrote: »

Well they can't have it for free - who pays for it then? A payment plan is the alternative. They'd have a good chunk paid by now if they hadn't put it on the long finger.

And their delay paying is sufficient "revenge" for the clerical error.

but if the article is correct and they can't afford it then how could they have paid it off?

Roadhawk

end of the road wrote: »

i'd doubt it. they would be best off sending the money directly to the hospital and cut the debt collector out altogether if they can do that. debt collecting should be done by a state agency anyway.

They should just pay their bills then there would be no need for a debt collector.

You can be guaranteed mammy and/or daddy have enough money for a few drinks at the end of the week.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i'd doubt it. they would be best off sending the money directly to the hospital and cut the debt collector out altogether if they can do that. debt collecting should be done by a state agency anyway.



but if the article is correct and they can't afford it then how could they have paid it off?

where does it say in the article that the family cant afford it? can you quote that section?

Roadhawk

end of the road wrote: »

but if the article is correct and they can't afford it then how could they have paid it off?

Perhaps a family member could spot them a partial payment.

Local senator Terry Leyden, who is calling for the fees to be waived would be better off spotting the €100 to the family if they were really stuck rather than dragging out the issue...

im sure the real point of this article is the final lines...

Meanwhile, the INMO reports today that there are 8 people on trolleys in Portiuncula hospital.University Hospital Limerick has the highest number of patients waiting on a bed today, with 26 people on trolleys and 15 people on wards.

...absolutely nothing to do with the headline.

Holograph

end of the road wrote: »

i'd doubt it. they would be best off sending the money directly to the hospital and cut the debt collector out altogether if they can do that. debt collecting should be done by a state agency anyway.



but if the article is correct and they can't afford it then how could they have paid it off?

As I said, by instalments - e.g. €8 a week.

ohnonotgmail, it does say in the quote from the senator "The family are not in a position to pay it."
I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they can't afford it thoigh.

end of the road

Roadhawk wrote: »

They should just pay their bills then there would be no need for a debt collector.

they can't afford to according to the article.

Roadhawk wrote: »

You can be guaranteed mammy and/or daddy have enough money for a few drinks at the end of the week.

well actually, you can't.

Holograph wrote: »

As I said, by instalments - e.g. €8 a week.

maybe they haven't got and can't afford that either. don't know nor care either way, it will be paid some way

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

they can't afford to according to the article.



well actually, you can't.



maybe they haven't got and can't afford that either. don't know nor care either way, it will be paid some way

by the same mugs who pay for everything.

darkpagandeath

Is there something missing here. The accompanying adult would be responsible. Yes they bill the patient but a 2 year old cannot enter into a contract. So whoever attended with the child would have to pay up. I am guessing the parent unless they just dumped the kid at the A&E door. And if that is the case I am surprised they got a name and address out of a 2 year old. Click bait crap journalism.

Holograph

Likely just a mix-up between the parent's name and the child's name.

end of the road wrote: »

they can't afford to according to the article.



well actually, you can't.



maybe they haven't got and can't afford that either. don't know nor care either way, it will be paid some way

By whom? Ok so, a payment plan of €10 a month. Their child's healthcare is high priority.

WhoWhatWhere

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

This charge is not applicable if your are in one of the following groups:

Medical card holders

Someone should tell the HSE.

It's not a medical card under 5's get, its a GP visit card.

And if they can't afford to pay, why don't they have medical cards? A child is covered by their parents medical card.