New Healthcare Requirements for US Immigrants

[gkzrl 47]

3 minutes ago, DesiJase said:

Absolutely, I just don't know how the 30 day timeline is supposed to work with K-1's.

Technically, the K1 visa is a non-immigrant visa, so it *shouldn’t* be affected by this. But I guess we’ll have to wait and see?

[Georgia16 2,858]

5 minutes ago, DesiJase said:

Absolutely, I just don't know how the 30 day timeline is supposed to work with K-1's.

It says it would take effect in 30 days. 

If it does my guess would be proof at either the k-1 interview (hard for that one) or more likely at the AOS interview that they are covered. 

[SalishSea 17,971]

4 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

I didn’t see this posted elsewhere here - sorry if a duplicate

 

bottom line:

 

Immigrant visa applicants will have to demonstrate that they will be covered by health insurance within thirty days of entering the country or have the financial resources to pay for medical costs.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-protecting-healthcare-benefits-american-citizens/

 

I think that is fantastic news, and I'm certainly not a Trump supporter (quite the opposite).  I have been an RN for 20 years, and  I think everyone in the US should be required to have healthcare.  

 

Btw, I read it as that immigrants would have to show evidence of a plan to obtain health insurance within 30 days, not that it would need to take effect within 30 days.  Like a letter or policy from USC's employer that the new spouse will be eligible to be added to the insurance, etc.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Jorgedig

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

2 hours ago, geowrian said:

Other than the 30 day timeframe, this isn't really different than what they do now. They always took medical costs / insurance coverage into consideration.

I don’t think it’s ever been explicitly enforced like this, though we have seen one or two forum comments from sponsors needing to explicitly show they can cover it. 

 

I agree it’s something that should be done. The people most likely to be disadvantaged by it are large families being sponsored by those who don’t make much over the poverty guidelines, and the handful of immigrants (mainly diversity visa) who generally move before they have a job and without a sponsor. 

 

If my understanding of this is correct, that whole mega thread about how to get cheap insurance for your parents by gaming the subsidies on ACA might need a rewrite?

Edited October 5, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

Sound totally reasonable to me....

 

one question tho, how do I purchase insurance when my SS number may not arrive until after the 30 day post date of entry? 

 

Having already visited a few times, seems you can’t do a right lot of anything without a SS number 🤷‍♀️ And it’s evident USCIS is notorious for exceeding expected timeframes 

[geowrian 22,337]

9 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

I don’t think it’s ever been explicitly enforced like this, though we have seen one or two forum comments from sponsors needing to explicitly show they can cover it.

Agreed that having it so explicitly defined is new. But I say it has at least been a primary consideration for at least a couple years.

 

3 minutes ago, Duke & Marie said:

one question tho, how do I purchase insurance when my SS number may not arrive until after the 30 day post date of entry? 

 

Having already visited a few times, seems you can’t do a right lot of anything without a SS number 🤷‍♀️ And it’s evident USCIS is notorious for exceeding expected timeframes 

An SSN is not required for insurance.

[jasonlzak 173]

As expected, whenever a hardliner rule was set out to curb legal immigrants. You can see a bunch of elite members here who are done or almost done with their journey, gathering and chanting the rule is reasonable. I'm not going to reply or read any of you people replies, so don't waste your time. This forum is used to be good and filled with tolerant members, now it became a favorite gathering place of Trump's cult. Excuse for my bad English, I'm not from your 1st countries.

[SalishSea 17,971]

17 minutes ago, geowrian said:

An SSN is not required for insurance.

Yup.  I added my husband to my workplace plan before his social security card arrived in the mail, and we just provided it later.

[Lemonslice 4,922]

1 minute ago, jasonlzak said:

As expected, whenever a hardliner rule was set out to curb legal immigrants. You can see a bunch of elite members here who are done or almost done with their journey, gathering and chanting the rule is reasonable. I'm not going to reply or read any of you people replies, so don't waste your time. This forum is used to be good and filled with tolerant members, now it became a favorite gathering place of Trump's cult. Excuse for my bad English, I'm not from your 1st countries.

I'm not a Trump fan, I'm all for universal healthcare. Right now, it's not available in the US... People do need some access to healthcare (unfortunately, accidents and illnesses happen). If they're not eligible to Medicaid/Medicare/etc., I feel it's reasonable to ask the sponsor to demonstrate how they'll take care of the immigrant.  I've seen multiple posters over the years delaying/avoiding treatment because they could not afford it. 

 

US healthcare is a big mess, but I feel that the new requirement will protect the immigrant.

[geowrian 22,337]

1 minute ago, Lemonslice said:

I'm not a Trump fan, I'm all for universal healthcare. Right now, it's not available in the US... People do need some access to healthcare (unfortunately, accidents and illnesses happen). If they're not eligible to Medicaid/Medicare/etc., I feel it's reasonable to ask the sponsor to demonstrate how they'll take care of the immigrant.  I've seen multiple posters over the years delaying/avoiding treatment because they could not afford it. 

 

US healthcare is a big mess, but I feel that the new requirement will protect the immigrant.

^100%

(I can't say if that post was directed at me at all, but it likely would be the first time somebody associated me with Trump!).

[Just Paul 4,595]

2 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

I feel that the new requirement will protect the immigrant.

Exactly.  It the petitioner can't take care of  the beneficiary's healthcare then there is risk to the immigrant.

[fewstee 46]

I'm mostly worried about the specifics as I planned on using assets to sponsor my wife. If the underlying goal is to restrict immigration it's possible they would increase the asset requirement. Otherwise I can afford the $200/month it is for a catastrophic plan.

[Lemonslice 4,922]

1 minute ago, fewstee said:

I'm mostly worried about the specifics as I planned on using assets to sponsor my wife. If the underlying goal is to restrict immigration it's possible they would increase the asset requirement. Otherwise I can afford the $200/month it is for a catastrophic plan.

They might ask you how you would pay for chronic illness treatments / when and how you're planning to find a non-catastrophic plan. It will be interesting to see how they will assess the different situations.

[ADW & JOP 146]

Not a Trump supporter and from a country with universal healthcare, I agree with this policy.

 

The other day, my wife and I were wondering why we haven't received our joint tax refund for this year. Our accountant contacted IRS and they explained it has been withheld due to Shared Responsibility. We both have healthcare insurance so we are sorting this out with the IRS right now. However, if taxpayers are expected to have healthcare insurance or make a shared responsibility payment , I see no reason why this should not be considered for prospective immigrants.

 

Reviewing his previous post, one can understand why he feels this way about the administration trying to "curb legal (immigration)".

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by ADW & JOP

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

I think many of us that are not Trump supporters feel this is reasonable, within the constraints of the system (I’m sure most of us would prefer a public healthcare system of some form). And I get really annoyed - it doesn’t happen that often but it happens - when people game the system (like those who juggle their newly enlarged households to get the ACA subsidies for parents, and I don’t care if it’s technically legal, it’s gaming the system). The public charge requirement as existing is pretty low as it is, and one bad uninsured medical event can easily top the current annual income requirement.