Yeah, because it's intentionally being vague to elicit rage. What's actually happening (ie. people with poor credit being denied access to cerdit) isn't as rage inducing as some vague implication that Experian is running death panels. However, there are snippets that imply hospitals are basically doing a credit worthiness assessment.
>Under these heightened circumstances, you now have to wait to see if a company thinks you're a good customer for them.
>While Reede says this is likely not an issue for larger hospitals that have less financial pressure (although Kaiser Permanente uses this system), it's definitely appealing for smaller hospitals that will notice a hit to their finances if a patient defaults.
Besides, what plausible reasons do hospitals have for refusing care based on information from experian? Do you think hospital administrators despise people with under 800 credit score and want them to die of illness?
> Besides, what plausible reasons do hospitals have for refusing care based on information from experian? Do you think hospital administrators despise people with under 800 credit score and want them to die of illness?
Hospitals want to get paid for their work same as anyone else. But if occasionally someone has a low credit score not because they're an actual credit risk but because an ex-spouse lied about them, or because they published an article critical of Experian, then they're going to lose access to medical care all the same.
>But if occasionally someone has a low credit score not because they're an actual credit risk but because an ex-spouse lied about them
okay but I fail to see how that's "shady" behavior on the part of experian, any more than amazon is "shady" for allowing to post false/defamatory reviews.
>because they published an article critical of Experian, then they're going to lose access to medical care all the same
is this something that actually happened, or something theoretical?
> is this something that actually happened, or something theoretical?
It doesn't matter. Even the theoretical possibility is bad. If you're going to be denied medical care because of a score generated by a third-party you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated, and be allowed to fix errors.
What Experian is doing — controlling your ability to get a job, buy a house or even get medical care through their opaque and non-appealable scoring system — is worse than China's purported Social Credit System [1]. We look down on China's system, but our own system is just as bad if not worse.
>It doesn't matter. Even the theoretical possibility is bad.
So you're saying that we should get rid of reputation systems because they can theoretically be used to deny people services?
>If you're going to be denied medical care because of a score generated by a third-party you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated, and be allowed to fix errors.
You can already see your report and fix any errors. I'm not sure how "you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated" helps though. If your Experian Medical Score™ is 500, and all the details (eg. past medical bankruptcies are correct), what are you going to do? Argue that you merely warrant a score of 600? Or more realistically, since the scores map to a default probability, try to convince them that you merely have a 4% risk of default rather than 10%?
>What Experian is doing — controlling your ability to get a job, buy a house or even get medical care through their opaque and non-appealable scoring system — is worse than China's purported Social Credit System [1]. We look down on China's system, but our own system is just as bad if not worse.
The difference here is that the social credit system is used as a tool by the state to punish dissidents and other unwarranted behavior and participation is mandatory (ie. you don't get the choice between not serving a patron with a bad social credit score or not), whereas various credit rating agencies are providing information and businesses are choosing to make use of that information. The latter case is more acceptable because there's a legitimate interest by people/businesses that want to screen their counterparties (eg. employers who don't want flakey workers, and banks/hospitals who don't want deadbeat creditors).
> any more than amazon is "shady" for allowing to post false/defamatory reviews.
Amazon attaches identifiers to reviews, and you could ultimately file a defamation suit and subpoena their identity. With Experian you don't even know you're being defamed.
> is this something that actually happened, or something theoretical?
There's no way to know from the outside. Even if Experian hasn't done this yet, they've set up their system so that they have the capacity to do so.
Yeah, because it's intentionally being vague to elicit rage. What's actually happening (ie. people with poor credit being denied access to cerdit) isn't as rage inducing as some vague implication that Experian is running death panels. However, there are snippets that imply hospitals are basically doing a credit worthiness assessment.
>Under these heightened circumstances, you now have to wait to see if a company thinks you're a good customer for them.
>While Reede says this is likely not an issue for larger hospitals that have less financial pressure (although Kaiser Permanente uses this system), it's definitely appealing for smaller hospitals that will notice a hit to their finances if a patient defaults.
Besides, what plausible reasons do hospitals have for refusing care based on information from experian? Do you think hospital administrators despise people with under 800 credit score and want them to die of illness?