Harsh Question

[Imagination 15]

If someone brings a fiance/fiancee in on a K1 visa, the immigrant can't work for an extended period of time. Thus, a burden on the sponsor.

I think you greatly overestimate the mobility of much of the American population. People are geographically bound by any number of factors, including family, jobs, etc. It's not as easy as "oh just pick up and move somewhere cheaper and you'll be fine," which you seem to be implying by saying people CHOOSE to live in these areas. It's more complicated than this.

So if you get sick or hurt and have to go to the hospital, who has to pick up the tab?

If they can't work for a time period, the sponsor has agreed to provide support! If they weren't able to provide support, they arranged someone that will. The co-sponsor voluntarily helps to sponsor and is not forced. What make some of you say that this option should be taken away?

People relocate for work reasons all the time. If they have a good job where they live, they wouldn't have to move. They would move obviously because they can't afford to live in that area.

There are 49.9 million people without health insurance in the United Sates. I am not one of them.

[Andy_R 12]

I can find 1 bedroom apartments for 400$/month. I can't help you if you have to live in DC. $50/month -->unlimited use of public transportation. Doesnt matter how far you have to go.

Edit: i agree i didnt account for the medical/dental insurance, and relying on prayers. dont get sick!

It's perfectly possible that someone might be below the 125% level and have health insurance from their work. I have health insurance from my work for myself and spouse but don't make much money.

[Imagination 15]

It's perfectly possible that someone might be below the 125% level and have health insurance from their work. I have health insurance from my work for myself and spouse but don't make much money.

Thank you! that works perfectly!

[dukeandduchess 141]

I suppose it depends on the cost of living. However, I think 125% of the poverty limit for 2 people is very low. Then again I lived in one of the most expensive cities to live. If you're bringing people in, especially when they can't work right away, I think the amount required is far too low to support 2 people.

[Mike B. 231]

It's perfectly possible that someone might be below the 125% level and have health insurance from their work. I have health insurance from my work for myself and spouse but don't make much money.

Right, but the cost of it has risen in a way that is not accounted for in the change in poverty guidelines because the poverty guidelines are way over-representative of the price of beef, which is now a relatively small percentage of the average household budget. I have to pay $3,937.92 per year for my I+1 health insurance, and my employer has to pay an additional $7,313.40/year. Of course both sides cost me because every dollar my employer pays out is one less that they can use to directly compensate me. Fifty years ago no one was paying this kind of money for lousy managed care. There is great debate within the government as to how we can adjust the poverty guideline formula we use to take this meteoric rise in health costs. I know that during the last census there were plans to include a report that basically said "and this would be the level of poverty in this country if we measured it in a way that made sense, which we don't...." Not sure if it happened, though.

It really is just a fact: the poverty guidelines are over-representative of the stable cost of meat, which is not a large percentage of household income. Which is why it's virtually impossible to live exactly on the poverty line unless you live somewhere where there is so little demand for housing that the real estate market is collapsed.

Think of it this way: even if I could get housing for $600 despite there not being a single apartment in the entirety of the capital of the United States for $600, and I was jumping turnstiles to keep my transportation costs low, that $6000 in spending money in Imiagination's imaginary scenario would be $2062.08 after health premiums. That's $171.84/month. Take out federal and state taxes, FICA, Social Security, Medicare, federal and state unemployment, as well as the fact that you have to at least clothe yourself and pay for certain amenities, and now we're talking about feed yourself on what, $75/month or something? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this over-representation of meat prices leads us to wacky conclusions. It's a known flaw with our system, and has been for years.

[Andy_R 12]

I believe that living at 125% of the poverty line is possible. BUT what if emergencies arise. Like health issues. Maybe we should check to be sure couples have decent health coverage. I am on Medicare and not working so I have no coverage for my wife. Good coverage is very expensive. I am always mindful of my late wife's hospital bill. 1.2 million $. How would you like to open that envelope ?

Our plan now is to pay small Dr. bills but she goes back home for the big ones.

It's not only possible, millions are already doing it every day. As for the emergencies, keep in mind it's possible to have healthcare from your union or employer and still make less than the 125% guideline.

[newlyweds2010 208]

Our active military is the reason we can bring foreign nationals here. Lets salute them. If they made 1/2 of what they deserve, they would be 500% of the poverty guidelines. Thank you all who serve this Great Country!

I certainly salute them and I am very thankful for their sacrifice, as they are the reason many European countries, including my own, today are part of the free world. But if we apply this rule to all those who serve for the public good, the list would be much longer. How about police officers? Firefighters? Nurses? Former military people? Disabled people have had enough bad luck in life already, shouldn't we give them a break, too? If the 125% rule is to avoid that immigrants become a public charge, even military spouses are at risk of becoming one. Unless simply meeting the poverty guidelines (100%) is in fact sufficient to avoid that risk. Then asking civilians to prove extra income and/or assets sounds discriminatory to me. Just my 2 cents.

[Andy_R 12]

Right, but the cost of it has risen in a way that is not accounted for in the change in poverty guidelines because the poverty guidelines are way over-representative of the price of beef, which is now a relatively small percentage of the average household budget. I have to pay $3,937.92 per year for my I+1 health insurance, and my employer has to pay an additional $7,313.40/year. Of course both sides cost me because every dollar my employer pays out is one less that they can use to directly compensate me. Fifty years ago no one was paying this kind of money for lousy managed care. There is great debate within the government as to how we can adjust the poverty guideline formula we use to take this meteoric rise in health costs. I know that during the last census there were plans to include a report that basically said "and this would be the level of poverty in this country if we measured it in a way that made sense, which we don't...." Not sure if it happened, though.

It really is just a fact: the poverty guidelines are over-representative of the stable cost of meat, which is not a large percentage of household income. Which is why it's virtually impossible to live exactly on the poverty line unless you live somewhere where there is so little demand for housing that the real estate market is collapsed.

Think of it this way: even if I could get housing for $600 despite there not being a single apartment in the entirety of the capital of the United States for $600, and I was jumping turnstiles to keep my transportation costs low, that $6000 in spending money in Imiagination's imaginary scenario would be $2062.08 after health premiums. That's $171.84/month. Take out federal and state taxes, FICA, Social Security, Medicare, federal and state unemployment, as well as the fact that you have to at least clothe yourself and pay for certain amenities, and now we're talking about feed yourself on what, $75/month or something? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this over-representation of meat prices leads us to wacky conclusions. It's a known flaw with our system, and has been for years.

Not everyone lives where you live or pays what you pay. Many of us live in small towns where there apartments in nice neighborhoods that cost $500-600. A bus pass here costs $30/month. After my fiance gets here I will have to option to add her to my full health coverage for $150/year through my union. It's obvious from reading your post that your situation is quite different from mine. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine that there might be other people like me who can make a comfortable living on a lot less than you can??

[Imagination 15]

Not everyone lives where you live or pays what you pay. Many of us live in small towns where there apartments in nice neighborhoods that cost $500-600. A bus pass here costs $30/month. After my fiance gets here I will have to option to add her to my full health coverage for $150/year through my union. It's obvious from reading your post that your situation is quite different from mine. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine that there might be other people like me who can make a comfortable living on a lot less than you can??

[Justine+David 218]

Mike is right about D.C. I lived in the city limits back in '08 and the rock bottom price I found in a slummy area was $745 for a teeny studio. Put together DC taxes, groceries, yeesh.

[Imagination 15]

Mike is right about D.C. I lived in the city limits back in '08 and the rock bottom price I found in a slummy area was $745 for a teeny studio. Put together DC taxes, groceries, yeesh.

Which is why it wouldn't be the best idea for a person to live there with a dependent (spouse or family member). The whole idea of a job should be to help you live comfortably. It wouldn't be comfortable when the cost of living is higher than your income.

Choose whether you want to be with your spouse or loved one, and make it happen (get another job, move somewhere you can afford, etc). OR not sponsor your loved one and keep waiting for a "better time".

[Kukolka 8]

You can find your love in US.

Sorry, I tried, for quite a few years, but couldn't. He wasn't here then.

[Mike B. 231]

Not everyone lives where you live or pays what you pay. Many of us live in small towns where there apartments in nice neighborhoods that cost $500-600. A bus pass here costs $30/month. After my fiance gets here I will have to option to add her to my full health coverage for $150/year through my union. It's obvious from reading your post that your situation is quite different from mine. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine that there might be other people like me who can make a comfortable living on a lot less than you can??

About 50 million people live in the BosWash area. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine that the average cost of living is dramatically increased by the extreme amount that it costs to live here? Obviously it costs less to live in Cleavland than it does in Manhattan. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it is an extremely well-known problem that our formula for determining the poverty guidelines under-represents the average cost of real estate and health care and over-represents the cost of meat. The guidelines are simply divorced from the reality of the average American, even if they are not divorced from the reality of the average rural West Virginian or whatever.

[Mike B. 231]

Which is why it wouldn't be the best idea for a person to live there with a dependent (spouse or family member). The whole idea of a job should be to help you live comfortably. It wouldn't be comfortable when the cost of living is higher than your income.

Choose whether you want to be with your spouse or loved one, and make it happen (get another job, move somewhere you can afford, etc). OR not sponsor your loved one and keep waiting for a "better time".

The reason that real estate in some parts of the country is low is because cost is a function of supply and demand and there is little demand to live in those places. The reasons that there is little demand are disparate, but often include poor local economies. Yeah, I'd pay less for rent if I lived in Detroit. I'd also have NO JOB. That doesn't mean that no one has a job in Detroit, but it does mean that I wouldn't have one. The poverty guidelines should be rational for the average person, allowing that people will move around in order to maximize utility using the free market. It's irrational to tell me that I should simply pack my bags and move to the city with the cheapest real estate or whatever.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

About 50 million people live in the BosWash area. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine that the average cost of living is dramatically increased by the extreme amount that it costs to live here? Obviously it costs less to live in Cleavland than it does in Manhattan. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it is an extremely well-known problem that our formula for determining the poverty guidelines under-represents the average cost of real estate and health care and over-represents the cost of meat. The guidelines are simply divorced from the reality of the average American, even if they are not divorced from the reality of the average rural West Virginian or whatever.

I live in the San Francisco Bay area, quite a bit north of that exactly, and rents start around $1200/mo for an apartment, $2000/mo for a house. Good thing I own my own home, free and clear, no mortgage.