New Healthcare Requirements for US Immigrants

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

Do I believe the rule is being implemented fro the wrong reasons?

Ah ha, what are those reasons ?

 

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

It does annoy me that USCs and existing residents are not required to have coverage while new immigrants are, but that doesn't make the latter wrong either.

No, it just makes it discriminatory and probably illegal. You can’t have a law that make a certain group of people do something and another law that allows another group of people not do that very thing. 

The easiest way to fix this is, in my opinion, to reinstate the individual mandate. Somewhere, Mr. Obama is having a laugh 😂 of a life time.

 

[s.ramos510 14]

Will this new law affect any CR1 entering before 11/3/2019? 

[geowrian 22,337]

17 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

No, it just makes it discriminatory and probably illegal. You can’t have a law that make a certain group of people do something and another law that allows another group of people not do that very thing. 

The easiest way to fix this is, in my opinion, to reinstate the individual mandate. Somewhere, Mr. Obama is having a laugh 😂 of a life time.

Counterpoint: Where is the law that all USCs have to get vaccinated?

 

(To be clear, I fully support such a law...but realize that the rules for incoming immigrants are different than those of USCs).

Edited October 7, 2019 by geowrian

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

14 minutes ago, s.ramos510 said:

Will this new law affect any CR1 entering before 11/3/2019? 

No

[HRQX 4,145]

22 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Counterpoint: Where is the law that all USCs have to get vaccinated?

Yup; many SCOTUS decisions have upheld the vast power that was granted to Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution). The power of Congress "to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in" is absolute, being an attribute of the United States as a sovereign nation.

 

From the INA: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Edited October 7, 2019 by HRQX

[Nitas_man 3,100]

2 hours ago, Cilllah said:

My partner is still on his parents insurance but this will drop off when we get married. He had medical issues so it made sense to stay on. 

You’re being snookered if you think this makes sense or is normal or is OK and I wouldn’t let one of my own daughters get involved with such until he grows up, is on his own, and supports himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Nitas_man

[Bill Hamze 89]

Under the new rules, are petitioners and immigrant spouses (assuming they are married) allowed to take tax credits after buying a ACA plan on the exchange?

 

Or does that fall under "subsidized" plans, which is not included in the proclamation?

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Bill Hamze

[Nitas_man 3,100]

34 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Counterpoint: Where is the law that all USCs have to get vaccinated?

No “law” but they don’t have to let you attend school either

 

If my 5-6 yr olds gotta be all up to date on vaccines for KG/1st grade in order to enroll.........getting vaccinated for immigration seems aligned

[geowrian 22,337]

3 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

No “law” but they don’t have to let you attend school either

 

If my 5-6 yr olds gotta be all up to date on vaccines for KG/1st grade in order to enroll.........getting vaccinated for immigration seems aligned

Agreed. But I was speaking on a federal level of requirements.

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

25 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Counterpoint: Where is the law that all USCs have to get vaccinated?

 

6 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Yup; many SCOTUS decisions have upheld the vast power that was granted to Congress

Uhm nope. Vaccination is not a federal matter (for now). Up till now, local municipalities and states have control over vaccination laws and in fact, all of the states require children to be vaccinated in order to attend schools as a public health issue. What you see those anti-vaxers on the news are people who claim religious exemptions.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21414.pdf

47 minutes ago, geowrian said:

realize that the rules for incoming immigrants are different than those of USCs

I have a feeling that this time, it is not up to you or me or Trump, but SCOTUS

 

[Nitas_man 3,100]

12 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Agreed. But I was speaking on a federal level of requirements.

CDC sets the vaccination requirements, not the individual states.

CDC IS federal

Edited October 7, 2019 by Nitas_man

[Nitas_man 3,100]

1 hour ago, USS_Voyager said:

Somewhere, Mr. Obama is having a laugh 😂

 

 

I believe you might be right

 

This double standard is going to come back to haunt the republican party next year.  

[Nitas_man 3,100]

24 minutes ago, Bill Hamze said:

Under the new rules, are petitioners and immigrant spouses (assuming they are married) allowed to take tax credits after buying a ACA plan on the exchange?

 

Or does that fall under "subsidized" plans, which is not included in the proclamation?

 

It seems to fall under subsidized as it is worded

Definitely that new affidavit of self sufficiency specifically asks about subsidized health insurance premiums.

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

It is good that a government is perhaps making sponsors aware that they should be taking more responsibility in the care of their loved ones - but when it comes to the language regarding the ACA... they're going to have a problem. Because of confusion and fear, I believe this will lead more immigrants and their families to run away from the exchange that they have a legal right to use. It will endanger lives and place greater financial strains. And it will be challenged in court making this an even greater quandary.

Thank you for taking your time to write such a detailed and accurate post

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

The subsidy, again, according to SCOTUS is not a means tested benefit

Hi, can you please provide a link/reference to this decision?