A way you can act to bring some balance to journalism. What do you think about erasing med debt from credit reports? And lastly, a hidden variable in the discussion about housing.
Want to bring some balance to journalism? Live in Larimer County? Know someone who does?
If any of the above apply, an opportunity is coming up for you to get involved. This time it's less about being in the government than it is about being in the press.
I saw this first in a newsletter I am subscribed to (see the screenshot) and got intrigued. I followed the link to the project itself and included that link below.
The upshot is this: if you live in Larimer County and want to get involved in bringing some balance to things in this state, you can sign up for the project below and start reporting on local news.
The best news is that this is an opportunity to bring some actual ideological diversity to our news in this state, something we desperately need.
More info in the link below.
https://www.citizenobservers.co/
What do you think: should medical debt be included in credit reports?
By the time I got around to this particular article, the bill is well past the point of any committee hearings. As of this writing it was going to conference committee to iron out the differences in the bills passed by the State House and State Senate. Once that's done it is on its way to the Governor (who will likely sign since as a known micromanager he's almost certainly aware of this law).
So this one is less about advocacy in my view and more about a value judgement.
What do you think about medical debt being included in a credit report as a black mark?
My first impulse was to say it should be. I would be concerned about removing any kind of debt from a credit report. After all, do we really want to incentivize not paying back what you owe?
Then I read the following in the article (quoting the link below):
"Proponents of the bill also argued that victims of medical emergencies should not be punished for accumulating debt since they often have no choice but to get medical care. They said medical debt does not indicate financial irresponsibility, such as debt accrued by voluntarily buying an overly expensive car or house."
That's a fair point. Medical debt is not exactly the same as going into debt because you have to have the newest and greatest stereo in your car.**
The counterargument is also compelling (again, quoting):
"Opponents countered that while medical debt does not indicate financial irresponsibility, it can still indicate financial instability. 'It is still a financial liability. If you’re going to go and get a car loan, the bank or whatever institution you’re borrowing from needs to make sure that you have the capability to repay that debt,' said Rep. Lisa Frizell, R-Castle Rock, while voting against the bill. 'We need to have some sort of level playing field for lenders, or else they’ll just simply stop lending.'”
So now, I'm not so sure what to think. How about you? Would welcome your comments in the comments section.
**In thinking about this too, I'd say that people who are irresponsible in general can include being irresponsible about paying bills on time, including medical bills. However, that irresponsibility would, I think, still show up on the credit report even if the medical bit was removed.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/colorado-remove-medical-debt-credit-score/article_0382a16c-d241-11ed-ae3b-d3d130976491.html
A hidden variable in the discussion about housing: how did a change to the construction defects law affect the supply of condominiums?
One part of the discussion about affordable housing that has not gotten a lot of play (unless you're like me and have a father who has worked in and around construction for his whole career and mentions it frequently) is the effect that the construction defects law in this state has had on developers' willingness to build condominiums.
Let's talk some quick context.
A 2001 law (see the first link below) changed the way that defects in construction can be fought out in court. The details are long and complicated, but if you ask someone who is against this law change the story can be summarized this way: the bill made it much easier for HOA's in condo buildings to sue the people that built the building.
Further, since HOA's can fight court battles without having to spend their own personal cash, they're more likely to do so. This led to a flurry of lawsuits that might not have happened had this law not passed. Contractors and developers threw their hands up and walked off. The insurance to cover you if you build condos jumped in price due to the flurry of lawsuits and many just decided that it wasn't worth it.
It also (and I've mentioned this in the past) allows lawyers to broaden the scope of who can be included in the construction defect lawsuits.
Yeah, one more. This law has also been subject to a lot of review by courts and there was an attempt in 2017 to make it harder for HOA's to bring lawsuits.
**Quick aside: I just want to remind you that this is from the son of a man who hates this law. My perspective here and what I've written is far from neutral. I did try to find a link to a law firm's site about this law to offer the other side, but couldn't find one. All I could find were sites laying out the law itself. Please keep in mind you're only getting half the story here.
The debate on this topic continues in the Capitol now. I'll leave it to you to read up on the specifics yourself (they're in the second link below), but the summary looks like this:
--Those wanting to further reform the construction defects law are really pushing to have that be a part of Polis' new, local-control busting law on land use. They see it as an opportunity to have it snuck in.
--There's another bill making its way through the Assembly that, because it loosens restrictions on lawsuits, has people worried that the reforms and changes that have tamped down the lawsuits so far will go away and any potential for a reduction in insurance costs to builders will go away with the reforms.
Not terribly sexy or exciting stuff insurance law, but I think an important part of the discussion. I think it will be worth remembering how the Governor and Assembly both go here because I think it will be one more indication of how they view the solution to the problem in terms of government involvement vs. getting the government out of the way.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/2001a_sl_132.pdf
https://tsscolorado.com/two-bills-are-reviving-the-construction-defects-fight-at-the-colorado-capitol/