God supplied my need by having the hospital write off all my medical bills!

Kind of like "gambling winnings" - someone else pays

That someone is a responsible person while the one "God provides" for is a piker.

Ok, here are some options for response to the hospital writing off her bills:

1. Praise God!  Woo-hoo!

2. Praise God for allowing this to happen to me. I know I do not deserve for this to have been done for me, but I am so grateful as I unfortunately have no way to pay these bills.

3. (Praise God that this has happened. I'm ashamed that I can't pay these myself. Therefore, I am not going to publicize my poverty by posting on facebook.)

4. THANK YOU to all you other people who pay your hospital bills so that I have a hospital to go to without paying!!!

5. Haha! All you losers paying for medical insurance! Don't you know that you can just be treated and not pay?

I'm talking about people who don't pay bills for months and months and months, so the hospital looks at their income level, etc.. and writes off the entire amount. And then somehow this is God providing for their needs. Then everyone goes into a 'Praise Jesus' fit, and no one thinks "Hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be a deacon."

Two questions:

1. Who is providing for their needs in this case if not God?
2. Are you saying that a qualification for deacon is ability to pay hospital and medical bills, or inability to have them forgiven by the hospital?

I think it is more about being responsible toward the world and paying your bills.

Not sure how that helps, Chip. Perhaps you can elaborate?

I guess I am obtuse or something, becuase I am not following you at all. To me the issue is whether or not there is a responsibility to pay a debt that has been forgiven, either totally or partially? It seems hard to argue that there is, but perhaps. And I think Susan has already admitted that, so I am not following her line of argument here.

Take Susan's example: She had a $2500 bill that she paid $875 for. They lowered is by $1625 (if my math is correct). That's great. But let's that Susan makes six months of $25 payments because that the company is willing to take that, and then the hospital forgives $2200. All of the sudden, someone is disqualified from being deacon.

What gives?

Susan might respond that the insurance company negotiated that $1625. Okay. But why is an insurance company allowed to negotiate but an individual is not?

Susan might respond that she has insurance. Okay. The whole point of insurance is to keep from paying bills. You have negotiated up front how much you will pay, no matter how much it costs. The insurance company does the same thing. So you are paying a premium in hopes to avoid bills. The insurance coming is taking your premium, with the same hope--to avoid bills.

So it seems to me that it is entirely biblical to negotiate payments and settlements for both the good of both parties in all kinds of situations. Why is that wrong? And why would it disqualify someone from being a deacon? I see nothing in 1 Tim 3:8-13 that addresses that.

On Deacon's qualifications (would apply to Bishops)

• I don't see that poverty is a disqualifier (else who would be a pastor ) 
• But an unwillingness to own up to one's financial obligations would be
• "a good report of them which are without" / "blameless" / "not greedy of filthy lucre" / "not covetous"

• "I don't think this is relevant. It is not even remotely related to the topic." - I'll grant that!
• I learned a lesson last year about HDHP (my first year in the plan).
  • After a cold I had a persistent cough 3-4 weeks later
  • Wife said ... go to the Dr! You're keeping me awake at night
  • Went to the Dr ... his response: "these things take time ... give it another week or two"
  • Yup ... another week ... cough gone!
  • Bill arrived ... it was about $ 200!

Well, we have gone back and forth quickly here and I have bills to avoid paying so I better move on for now, but let me address this:

But an unwillingness to own up to one's financial obligations would be

I agree, but is this an unwillingness? If someone forgives a debt, are we still required to pay it? If someone says, "I'll settle your bill for $875 (or $300 or $0)", are we bound to refuse such an offer?

The point of insurance to keep from paying bills? That's news to me. I've paid car insurance for umpteen years and never used it. Exactly what bill am I avoiding payment on? We pay medical insurance and use it about every 4-5 years. What medical bills am I avoiding paying? 

The catastrophic bills that come from disasters. Or the large bills that come from car wrecks.

Insurance works by assessing risk. A self-insured person is willing to take the risk that either the bill won’t come or they can pay the bill themselves. We buy insurance because we don’t want the risk of facing bills. Five years ago I had back surgery. I avoided a $40,000+ bill because I had insurance. With my car about 15 years ago, I avoided a $10,000 bill when someone ran a red light in front of me. The insurance companies, on the other hand, was not able to avoid the bill. They paid them.

Telling a hospital that you can't afford to pay your bill and asking them to write it off is not negotiating payment, it's asking for a handout- one that other people will pay for with inflated medical costs and increased taxes.

No, it’s negotiating (assuming you are not lying). It’s the opening end of negotiation. You make an offer; they make a counter offer. It might be in bad taste. I would not encourage someone to approach it that way. But negotiation is SOP in all of life, except in retail stores in America usually. Most things in the world are negotiated. And virtually no one pays more than they have to. That’s the way it works.

And you pay whatever the hospital or Dr tells you to pay. They don’t have to negotiate. They may choose not to. But asking them to is not wrong or unethical.

I don't know why it would be stealing to not pay a bill with another business, but SOP when it comes to medical care.

I don’t either. Who said it was? To flat out not pay is stealing. To negotiate a settlement is not stealing.

The hospital isn't saying "Gee whiz, we feel so bad that your family is going through a hard time, so to be charitable, we're going to write off your bill." No- they are saying "You do not have the ability to pay your bill, and pursuing you costs more than your actual medical costs. Have a nice life."

Actually, they might be saying both, depending on the hospital. But everyone makes a call about what things are worth. And some things aren’t worth pursuing, particularly if there’s no likelihood that you will win.

Again, as I said above, consumer debt is a different matter. I am not comfortable with people filing for bankruptcy for consumer debt. One reason is because it is a forced, court-ordered settlement. The creditor has no choice to negotiate.

What's more, knowing that these people often spend money in other, frivolous ways (unless you consider weekly clothes shopping, manicures, tanning, highlights, and take-out pizza to be necessities) somewhat undermines the "We are just poooooooor, wayfaaaring pilgrims....." vibe they are going for.

As I said, that is a different story. That was not a part of the issue here (until I brought it up in my last post and you bring it up here). If they are doing this, they shouldn’t.

But again, any individual or business is free to negotiate their finances any way they want. That’s not a bad thing. And if a man has medical bills is not able to pay, that does not necessarily disqualify him from being a deacon.

 But again, we come back to the original question: Would God use the forgiveness of a debt as a means of provision for someone?

I still think that paying for the actual cost of service, and not paying at all, are two different things. 

Then we agree.

But wasn't the topic here whether or not God uses the acts of others to provide for people? I think he does. You appear not to. So we disagree on that.

People may have bad financial habits. They may not. There are all kinds of things that may happen in life, and any of them are simply things that we do not have control over. By and large, I think people in debt are there by their own choices, and that is bad. But some are not, and I have no idea about people's individual circumstances, so I will withhold judgment on that.

My only point is that accepting forgiveness is not unethical or wrong (all other things being equal), God does sometimes use the acts of others to provide for his people, and having large medical bills forgiven doesn't necessarily disqualify a man from being a deacon.

BTW, I've never heard of a doctor who won't take you because you don't have insurance. I imagine every doctor will take cash on the barrelhead if you have enough of it, and pay it up front. Insurance is because most people don't have enough to self-insure against catastrophic things. It doesn't take long to burn through a savings account with medical bills.

Susan,

I think you are forgetting something.  My local hospital actually has a fund set aside for this very thing.  They have funds for those who can demonstrate their actual need.  So it is not them writing it off grudgingly.  No they do so willingly, to those who have demonstrated need.  Now, I am sure it is abused at times, but generally it is not.  It is done based on negotiation and those who participate still pay something.  They are not the only hospital that does this.  In this case, the people are not deadbeats, nor is the hospital writing off so they don't sue.  No, both are coming to a mutual agreement.  I do agree with you in general, but I think you are overreaching a little bit.

Susan, my questions and points are fairly narrowly targeted. I think you are introducing some other things into the equation that I don't disagree with. So let me tie up my thoughts here with this:

I've made enough phone calls when we were uninsured to know that there are plenty of docs who won't accept patients who are uninsured.

I have called before and said I wasn't using insurance and never had a problem. Who knows ... It's hard to imagine a doctor saying, "I know you have $1000 in your pocket ready to give me for an office visit today but I won't see you because you don't have insurance." They have never done it to me.

But I'd think long and hard before declaring nonpayment of a bill as God's provision.

So would I. But that want the question I raised.

I think God's name gets used a lot in vain all over and not just in nonpayment of a bill. I certainly wouldn't ask for a total write-off and I would not encourage anyone else to. But again, that wasn't what I was addressing. Sometimes God uses the choices of others to provide for people.

Financial responsibility should be part of a church leader's qualifications, and far too seldom is this exercised.

I agree on this. I am not sure how often it is considered, and I am not sure how you would know either. I don't have enough experience in churches outside of my own to know. I think you said you have been in less than a dozen, which hardly seems enough to make a call on. But in principle, of course it should be considered.

But two things: (1) medical bills are often outside of someone's control; (2) this was not the issue I raised. Chip intimated that having debt forgiven was a de facto disqualification from being a deacon. I unpersuaded by anything offered here that is a biblical idea.

I think too many people view the medical profession as having deep pockets, and they feel justified in asking for a write off for a medical bill, but they'd never default on their car or utilities, because 1) bye-bye car and 2) no microwave popcorn or cable tv.

I am not sure this is true. Several years ago my neighbor ran generators in the garage all winter because they had defaulted on their utility bills. And people lose cars for more frequently than they have medical bills written off.

So I agree that "seeking medical care with the intent of not paying for it is wrong-headed for Christians." But I would be cautious in passing judgment on someone who has debt forgiven.