[Question] Bring my parents to USA

[Unlockable 7,316]

10 minutes ago, CutePuppy said:

 

 

So if this is already the case that Greencard holder cannot claim any benefits then why are there so many people whine about it?

Because some immigrants (even undocumented) find a way to claim benefits. In some cases they are given benefits because the can’t be denied due to a local government’s policy. It gets abused.

[CutePuppy 1]

7 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Since when did truth ever get in the way of anti-immigrant propaganda?

 

 

Info is on the official websites but simpler to see here:

http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/SocialSecurity_basics.moneymag/index4.htm

http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/SocialSecurity_basics.moneymag/index6.htm?iid=EL

 

The 5 years you mentioned probably refers to the various other benefits citizens can get, as green card holders can apply for citizenship after 5 years. They generally have to naturalize first for those type of public charge benefits though - and may not be able to if they rely on those things. Using public charge benefits as a green card holder prevents you naturalizing. 

 

 

I see, you are talking about Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits...

 

Anyways, I am not looking at any of the benefits and I believe Trump is stopping all other benefits that greencard holder is eligible for..  Either way I do not care

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

Just now, CutePuppy said:

I see, you are talking about Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits...

 

Anyways, I am not looking at any of the benefits and I believe Trump is stopping all other benefits that greencard holder is eligible for..  Either way I do not care

Good to know that... though you did say you hadn’t finished the research and seemed surprised at some of the requirements. I trust you will do research into the costs of aged healthcare in the US to fully inform your decision to sponsor your parents seeing as no Medicare etc will be involved. (Medicare pays around two-thirds of the average US retired person’s medical expenses.)

 

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/health-care/elderly-medical-spending-medicare

https://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/04-24-17-seniors-spending-medical-expenses/

 

Medical expenses for the elderly more than double between the ages of 70 and 90. The average amount spent on medical care for an American in his or her 90s exceeds $25,000 annually, a cost based primarily on nursing home costs.

The poor use more medical goods and services than the rich and a larger portion of their expenses are financed by the government.

Medical expenses before death can be high but do not appear to be a major driver of increased medical spending in the U.S. Medical spending over the last year of life averages $59,100, of which 71 percent is covered by Medicare and 10 percent is covered by Medicaid.

[CutePuppy 1]

7 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Good to know that... though you did say you hadn’t finished the research and seemed surprised at some of the requirements. I trust you will do research into the costs of aged healthcare in the US to fully inform your decision to sponsor your parents seeing as no Medicare etc will be involved. (Medicare pays around two-thirds of the average US retired person’s medical expenses.)

 

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/health-care/elderly-medical-spending-medicare

https://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/04-24-17-seniors-spending-medical-expenses/

 

Medical expenses for the elderly more than double between the ages of 70 and 90. The average amount spent on medical care for an American in his or her 90s exceeds $25,000 annually, a cost based primarily on nursing home costs.

The poor use more medical goods and services than the rich and a larger portion of their expenses are financed by the government.

Medical expenses before death can be high but do not appear to be a major driver of increased medical spending in the U.S. Medical spending over the last year of life averages $59,100, of which 71 percent is covered by Medicare and 10 percent is covered by Medicaid.

Not sure what "surprised" part you are talking about, I didn't know what meant Medicare and Social Security benefits and obviously I fully support that people need to work for certain years to be eligible for it.

 

Honestly, I think 40 quarters is way less than I expected, the overall HC system is so broken, we should have an individual data from the IRS indicated how much this person has paid for the work period, then the total amount will be correlated to the benefits they will be eligible to claim.   Since this is so not fair for the people who started working after college (21~23 years) and paid for 40+ years of tax compare to those who just work for 10 years.

 

The Healthcare + 401k and many other "prepare for retirement" plans are almost ineffective for new generations (a legal scheme)  in my opinion, this is not just USA but many other countries too.   Feels like government are hoping to ask money from you and do not wish to pay the money in the future (hope people do not live or claim after they are 75 years old, as an example)

 

 

Anyways, outside of what the original topic that I want us to discuss here..  

 

Thanks

 

[CEE53147 559]

SS benefits are based on an average over a 35 year worklife. However, the payments are weighted in that those with lower average earnings receive a higher benefit proportional to their taxed income.  One needs only 10 years (40 quarters) of work to qualify. It is frustrating to me that people who worked at a low wage job their entire worklife can receive the same benefit as a high income worker with a much shorter worklife.  The entire system was setup so long ago that it does not reflect the current work environment. A 10 year work requirement to qualify is ridiculously small compared to a 45 to 50 year potential worklife from 18 to 68. What is also frustrating are proposals that want to raise the retirement age. Workers in physically demanding jobs are at a disadvantage already as they are unable to continue working due to their health issue while those in more sedentary positions can work well into their 70s.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

1 hour ago, CutePuppy said:

we should have an individual data from the IRS indicated how much this person has paid for the work period, then the total amount will be correlated to the benefits they will be eligible to claim.   

 

 

Lol, so richer people can claim way more than those who made minimum wage all their lives. Makes sense

anyway yes that’s off the topic, some of us were simply trying to make sure you were aware of what sponsoring your parents actually entails. Not everyone has $50k-$100k per year after tax lying around to pay for healthcare costs for their elderly parents who are not Medicare or social security eligible.

[CutePuppy 1]

55 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Lol, so richer people can claim way more than those who made minimum wage all their lives. Makes sense

anyway yes that’s off the topic, some of us were simply trying to make sure you were aware of what sponsoring your parents actually entails. Not everyone has $50k-$100k per year after tax lying around to pay for healthcare costs for their elderly parents who are not Medicare or social security eligible.

Well, if you want to play the "fair" game, I think it is fair to limit certain amount to be claimed if the person has only worked in United States for certain years (not like majority of those who pay 40+ years of taxes)

 

There is no need to blame on the rich, your eligible amount should be proportional to what you have contributed with some conditional exceptions.  Especially for those who do not exercise and live and/or eat unhealthy + never contribute enough tax to the country.

 

I believe if we look at the years of tax you pay will be a good starting points

[CutePuppy 1]

2 hours ago, NuestraUnion said:

Because some immigrants (even undocumented) find a way to claim benefits. In some cases they are given benefits because the can’t be denied due to a local government’s policy. It gets abused.

I see..  I certainly hope the new policies and regulations will be able to stop those

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

34 minutes ago, CutePuppy said:

Well, if you want to play the "fair" game, I think it is fair to limit certain amount to be claimed if the person has only worked in United States for certain years (not like majority of those who pay 40+ years of taxes)

 

There is no need to blame on the rich, your eligible amount should be proportional to what you have contributed with some conditional exceptions.  Especially for those who do not exercise and live and/or eat unhealthy + never contribute enough tax to the country.

 

I believe if we look at the years of tax you pay will be a good starting points

There is a limit. I didn’t say everyone gets the same after 40 quarters; I simply said you need to contribute for 40 quarters to qualify to receive anything. As you said before, you still have research to do.

tired of getting waylaid on this, good luck with your parents immigration journey.

Edited February 3, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[Boiler 46,364]

6 hours ago, CutePuppy said:

Thank you for asking and I intend to pay for their expenses without using the US benefits, I am not that far yet with my research but this is my intention 

Suggests they do not have any funds of themselves.

 

Will they be working in the US, are they likely to work 10 years?

[nelmagriffin 157]

GREETINGS!

MY EXPERIENCE RELATED TO SPONSORING A PARENT:

 

AFTER SUBMISSION OF I-130 ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS TO USCIS---> 3 MONTHS LATER I RCVD APPROVAL LETTER---> THEN NVC PROCESSED EVERYTHING AND THE CASE WAS COMPLETED WITHIN A MONTH FROM CHOICE OF AGENT SELECTION, PAYING BILLS, SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS UNTIL CASE WAS COMPLETED--> NOTICE OF INTERVIEW WAS RCVD.--> INTERVIEW WAS 50 DAYS AFTER THE CASE WAS COMPLETED.

AFTER ARRIVAL IN THE USA---> 9 DAYS LATER SS CARD WAS RCVD.--->17 DAYS LATER 10 YEAR GREEN CARD ARRIVED.

 

THE WHOLE PROCESS TOOK 6 MONTHS. I PREPARED ALL DOCUMENTS AHEAD OF TIME. I APPLIED JANUARY 21 AND INTERVIEW DATE WAS ASSIGNED JULY 21.

GOOD LUCK,

NELMA ( VJ MEMBER SINCE 2004)

[CutePuppy 1]

54 minutes ago, nelmagriffin said:

GREETINGS!

MY EXPERIENCE RELATED TO SPONSORING A PARENT:

 

AFTER SUBMISSION OF I-130 ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS TO USCIS---> 3 MONTHS LATER I RCVD APPROVAL LETTER---> THEN NVC PROCESSED EVERYTHING AND THE CASE WAS COMPLETED WITHIN A MONTH FROM CHOICE OF AGENT SELECTION, PAYING BILLS, SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS UNTIL CASE WAS COMPLETED--> NOTICE OF INTERVIEW WAS RCVD.--> INTERVIEW WAS 50 DAYS AFTER THE CASE WAS COMPLETED.

AFTER ARRIVAL IN THE USA---> 9 DAYS LATER SS CARD WAS RCVD.--->17 DAYS LATER 10 YEAR GREEN CARD ARRIVED.

 

THE WHOLE PROCESS TOOK 6 MONTHS. I PREPARED ALL DOCUMENTS AHEAD OF TIME. I APPLIED JANUARY 21 AND INTERVIEW DATE WAS ASSIGNED JULY 21.

GOOD LUCK,

NELMA ( VJ MEMBER SINCE 2004)

Thank you for sharing the timeline, when was this :)?

[nelmagriffin 157]

HELLO!

 

HERE IS THE TIMELINE OF MY PARENT THAT WAS REQUESTED.

 

JANUARY 21, 2009 - USCIS SUBMISSION

JANUARY 25, 2009- PRIORITY DATE

APRIL 22, 2009- APPROVAL NOTICE

MAY 7, 2009- RCVD LETTER FROM NVC ABOUT CHOOSING AGENT

MAY 18, 2009- I WROTE TO NVC IF CHOICE OF AGENT WAS RCVD. THEY CONFIRMED THAT THEY DID.

MAY 20, 2009- AOS/I-864

MAY 23, 2009- IV FEE

MAY 26, 2009- SENT DOCUMENTS TO NVC

JUNE 2, 2009- I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE RCVD. THE DOCUMENTS AND THAT IT IS UNDER REVIEW ( I WROTE PRIOR FOR THE STATUS).

JUNE 9, 200-- RCVD A LETTER FROM NVC REGARDING INTERVIEW APPOINTMENT (JULY 21, 2009 ASSIGNED DATE).

JULY 17, 2009- MEDICAL.

JULY 21, 2009- INTERVIEW APPOINTMENT, YEHEY!

AUGUST 27, 2009- ARRIVAL USA.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2009- SS CARD RCVD.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2009- GREEN CARD RCVD.

 

I HOPE IT HELPS,

NELMA (VJ MEMBER SINCE 2004)

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by nelmagriffin

[JFH 12,191]

*~*~*moved from "bringing family members of LPRs" to "bringing family members of USCs"*~*~*

[Zzyzx 106]

9 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

Lol, so richer people can claim way more than those who made minimum wage all their lives. Makes sense

Makes total sense, if you pay more into a system you should get more out.  Especially in the case of Social Security where you are obligated to take part in a terrible retirement plan.  When did logic ever get in the way of anti-rich propaganda?

 

11 hours ago, CutePuppy said:

The Healthcare + 401k and many other "prepare for retirement" plans are almost ineffective for new generations (a legal scheme)  in my opinion, this is not just USA but many other countries too.   Feels like government are hoping to ask money from you and do not wish to pay the money in the future (hope people do not live or claim after they are 75 years old, as an example)

You may want to rethink that statement as you will be living off of Social Security (if it still exists) when you retire.  401k's are VERY EFFECTIVE in planning for retirement.  And the monies paid into them don't go to the government rather into mutual funds.  If you do your homework and pick the right funds you can rack up money pretty fast.   But don't take my word for it, do some research on how to save money for the future.  In any case we are way off topic.