I hear you, but those debts are actually yours. When you get treatment, you're assuming responsibility for the bill. The insurance company is technically reimbursing you, not assuming your debt.

That's certainly the bullshit narrative the billing department vampires want to push on you. But very rarely when you receive medical services is an actual contract being formed. Contracts require well-defined consideration, and some arbitrary figures pulled out of a hat after the fact doesn't meet that bar.

That's the sort of case that needs to be made to a judge in the course of a lawsuit against the provider, then.

Listen, I'm not saying that this is ethically or morally right. I'm just saying that's the way things actually are (in the US).

Why would you proactively sue a provider over a billing issue? You mean a lawsuit from the provider, trying to substantiate the debt they claim you owe?

I've no doubt that there is some assortment of corrupt laws bought by the medical industry that have enabled these blatantly abusive billing practices. But until shakedown victims actually force the issue and publicize it, then those corrupt laws continue to avoid scrutiny.

Assuming responsibility for tens of thousands of dollars just to continue existing is NOT how it's supposed to work.

Also, I expect insurance companies to honor their contracts.

> is NOT how it's supposed to work.

I could not agree more. This problem absolutely ruins lives. I've seen people who've suffered terrible injuries beg not to be taken to the hospital because it would result in devastating financial consequences.

> I expect insurance companies to honor their contracts.

I agree with this as well. But that's a separate issue than who is legally responsible for the debt.