You may inherit a parent’s medical debt if you live in a state with filial responsibility laws. “These laws may require children of a deceased parent to pay back medical bills if the deceased’s assets are insufficient,” says Tayne. “Filial laws exist in 30 states and vary in their protocols and processes.”

Seeing how you're saying you're not wrong, while also just a couple of replies earlier you said:

The Wikipedia article you just linked has nothing to do with debt in general. The debt referred to in that article refers specifically to caring for your parents, not assuming their debt for other things (medical bills for previous procedures, credit cards, loans, etc.)

Where you SPECIFY medical bills. When in fact medical debt is literally said to be an exception which you can inherit from your parents BECAUSE OF FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS.

What is it that you're not understanding, honestly, do tell? The answer is "nothing", I know. You know you're wrong and you know you're pulling arguments from your arse with someone who actually has experience and literal education on the subject. That's why you can't actually discuss this with someone, even when were having the discussion in your language.

Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of filial responsibility laws.

You're trying to disprove the comedian's bit never happened. You can't prove a negative, silly, but we can definitely show that it's a plausible scenario, because of those filial responsibility laws YOU CLAIM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?

Medical debt != child support debt, genius.

Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.

Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.

Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

And why, again, doesn't medical debt get dissolved through insolvency... genius?

Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don't even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it's rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.

I feel like I'm kinda repeating myself here.

Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.

Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.

So now you're on the "nuh-uh, my 'nuh-uh' is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia" rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn't this childish.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Child support debt isn’t medical debt and wouldn’t fall under filial responsibility laws.

Source: the ones you’ve provided.

Child support isn’t medical debt. Are you even following your own logic, or does your LLM not have that sort of memory?

6’3” (1.9m) and 200lbs (90kg), not fat, but I am a bit sweaty at the moment, it’s summertime and to be expected at the end of the day.

You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn't covered.

A bit touchy about your size, are you? It's not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It's your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you're part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won't change the facts of the matter.

You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.

Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let's me know that I've got to you. Cheers. ;)

Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that's because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had "NOTHING to do" with this. But you're not incapable of admitting when you're wrong? :D

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.

It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility

ONLY REASON

You just can't help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you've proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying "oh if that's how filial responsibility laws work in Finland" when the article literally begins "... are laws in the United States.".

Let's have another look at that link, shall we?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

#Support required

#Typically, these laws obligate adult children (or depending on the state, other family members) to pay for their indigent parents'/relatives' food, clothing, shelter and medical needs.

Weird how there's a bunch of words before "medical needs", innit, buddy?

Like I said earlier, you really should just say "okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir", and bugger away. "Gracefully" isn't an option anymore.

Like I said, you'd try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn't have anything to do with it. You're just desperate to make it personal, because you're not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I'll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I'm assuming it'll take a few years.)

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.

The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.

Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.

Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don't have sources. 2005 called and wants it's "wikipedia is bullshit" rhetoric back.

You don't have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you've made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you're just simply one of those people who can not accept when they're wrong.

You'll just keep ignoring all the times you're wrong, and then you're pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I'll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn't know jack shit about from the start, while I do.

That's ad hominem. It's not "insults" unlike people assume it is. It's when you're pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you're wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren't only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that "filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt". Are you gonna ignore that?

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.

Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.

Are you gonna ignore that?

Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I said that I've read credible similarly fucked up stories. I meant that I've read them over the years. You know that the US is fucked up and crazy shit happens there and I've just shown you a personal clip of a person saying that it's a 100% true story what happened to them, then I've shown you how that is plausible through the legislation that the US has.

You've constantly been shown wrong, yet you won't admit to a single mistake and you're just shifting goalposts further and further and further.

If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem.

Oh god, this is hilarious. Remember how I said that you keep proving yourself wrong? Self-humiliating? This is one those times. You literally implied this, very strongly, SEVERAL TIMES.

Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States.

As in "your opinion on these facts doesn't matter because of a personal property."

That's literally a textbook ad hominem. Once again, I prove you wrong, based on things you've said, yet you can't accept it. You say in your last comment that "I don't have arguments", but you keep literally ignoring the ones I'm saying in each and every single comment:

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We've already established that it's an exception to this. We're now pointing out that you argued that filial responsibility laws have "nothing" to do with inheriting debt, which is wrong, you then claimed that filial responsibility SOLELY concerns medical debt, which is also wrong. And you're simply going to ignore having been wrong, because you're not a big enough person to do that, just like I said from the very start.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can't argue, you don't know the subject, and you should've taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Medical debt can be dissolved in probate, just potentially not the kind related to say, nursing homes, assuming you’re in one of those states, and you’re in a rare scenario when they actually enforce it. I’m not responsible for my parents medical debt; I am responsible for their care and medical debt can be a part of that, but not necessarily, as in the pacemaker example I used earlier. That pacemaker example would fall into the same category as other debtors seeing payment from the estate.

There’s no ad hominem in my comments. Quote me, and don’t paraphrase and put quotes around it. Implications are neither here nor there, either. I’m saying you’re wrong because the facts don’t support your points, not because of any personal characteristics you have. A prime example is you mistakenly equating any medical debt to what would be covered under filial responsibility.

”filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”

It is remarkable how you selectively quote what I said. You left out “…to the state”, which is a key part of the point I was making about how a child would never be responsible for their parents child support debt.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the laws here in the United States, something which you have no experience with, nor any sort of legal expertise. You may want to work on that reading comprehension rather than spending time formatting your text just so.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We've already established that it's an exception to this. […] Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not? For the record, it is dissolved unless it’s debt directly related to care, and only in rare cases is that actually enforced.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago

in probate

UUUH, he's *learned the words! Only after me repeating them a dozen fuckingtimes :D

Blablabla more excuses and more denial.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

You're simply not man enough to admit to when you're wrong, and that's why you're never gonna learn, and why you're gonna stay a small, insignificant ignorant arsehole who no-one will ever love.

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not?

I'm not contradicting anything. Do you not speak English. Medical debt is the established exception. I'm asking for you to say what the reason is for that exception. Which you simply aren't abled enough to do.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

Next I'll stop replying to any of your personal bullshit, and just post facts about the thread and the convo we've had, the questions you've answered. Then you won't be able to answer them and you'll fuck off in a week or so, your tail between your legs. Like the thousand or so other pathetic cases I've seen before who can't admit when they've wrong.