New Healthcare Requirements for US Immigrants

[JohnL 4]

I thought that marriage was a qualifying event  to add somebody to your insurance.  I also think that using the ACA Affordable Care Act is prohibited for new immigrants.  They think that getting a tax credit makes you a public charge.

[yuna628 9,689]

7 minutes ago, erinandahmet said:

What is "shared responsibility"? Is this related to the penalty that was supposed to go away? 

I have to say, that my insurance would not allow me to add my husband when he came and I had to pay a 9 month penalty that year. They said he had to wait until open enrollment since it was past the 60 days after we got married. 

It is always best to add the spouse to coverage as soon as possible. Wait too long, and yes, you'll be endanger of having to sit out a while.

1 minute ago, JohnL said:

I thought that marriage was a qualifying event  to add somebody to your insurance.  I also think that using the ACA Affordable Care Act is prohibited for new immigrants.  They think that getting a tax credit makes you a public charge.

It is, however if the couple waits too long to apply for coverage, they may have to wait it out. The ACA is LEGAL for immigrants to use. You just may not use the subsidy according to the new policy.

[erinandahmet 9]

12 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It is always best to add the spouse to coverage as soon as possible. Wait too long, and yes, you'll be endanger of having to sit out a while.

It is, however if the couple waits too long to apply for coverage, they may have to wait it out. The ACA is LEGAL for immigrants to use. You just may not use the subsidy according to the new policy.

I have insurance from work so I don't know how any of the ACA works. I wasn't able to add him when we got married because he was not in the country and didn't have a ssn. Then, when he did come, they said that we had to wait until open enrollment. It could be that the person with whom I spoke to was inept and incorrect. That's always possible. Some people say that moving is a qualifying event and they should have added him then. The penalty was a lot too. It was either 600 or 700. They didn't have this rule then so we just waited. I kind of feel like I got scammed by the insurance company actually. 

[artcodex 28]

31 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It is always best to add the spouse to coverage as soon as possible. Wait too long, and yes, you'll be endanger of having to sit out a while.

It is, however if the couple waits too long to apply for coverage, they may have to wait it out. The ACA is LEGAL for immigrants to use. You just may not use the subsidy according to the new policy.

Just to extend and clarify further. As an immigrant visa applicant you can use marketplace (ACA) insurance you just cannot use the subsidies because this would deem you a public charge. This however does not apply to green card holders where green card holders can use marketplace insurance and use the subsidies (as of now, this could change in future), since green card holders are not subject to same public charge regulations "Unless" they exit the country for a period of more then 180 days before returning.

[artcodex 28]

1 minute ago, artcodex said:

Just to extend and clarify further. As an immigrant visa applicant you can use marketplace (ACA) insurance you just cannot use the subsidies because this would deem you a public charge. This however does not apply to green card holders where green card holders can use marketplace insurance and use the subsidies (as of now, this could change in future), since green card holders are not subject to same public charge regulations "Unless" they exit the country for a period of more then 180 days before returning.

sorry one more point of clarification where I said "you just cannot use the subsidies because this would deem you a public charge", to be clearer this would be a large negative factor in deeming you a public charge, but the public charge review/test is very broad and does consider a multitude of different factors (so this is not the only and sole factor in the determination).

[artcodex 28]

26 minutes ago, erinandahmet said:

I have insurance from work so I don't know how any of the ACA works. I wasn't able to add him when we got married because he was not in the country and didn't have a ssn. Then, when he did come, they said that we had to wait until open enrollment. It could be that the person with whom I spoke to was inept and incorrect. That's always possible. Some people say that moving is a qualifying event and they should have added him then. The penalty was a lot too. It was either 600 or 700. They didn't have this rule then so we just waited. I kind of feel like I got scammed by the insurance company actually. 

Yes ACA seems to have little to do with anything in your case. I think just people responding and clarifying to the thread as a total (which is what I've been doing). It seems like you don't currently have any concerns with your health insurance status right now, just the issue you had when coming and the penalties involved.

[marko1111 12]

Well the new public charge rule just got thrown out in court, let’s hope same happens to this proclamation!

[designguy 1,179]

6 minutes ago, marko1111 said:

Well the new public charge rule just got thrown out in court, let’s hope same happens to this proclamation!

Is requiring immigrants to get healthcare such a bad thing?

[marko1111 12]

2 minutes ago, designguy said:

Is requiring immigrants to get healthcare such a bad thing?

No it’s a great thing, pushing trough a proclamation with no congressional approval and discussion ,with no clear guidelines and instructions how to implement it and as a clearly catch 22 nonsensical situation designed to push trough a political/election agenda is a very very bad thing and should be and hopefully will be thrown out in court.

 

 

[artcodex 28]

Yeah the concept is one thing, the implementation is another.

[designguy 1,179]

8 minutes ago, marko1111 said:

No it’s a great thing, pushing trough a proclamation with no congressional approval and discussion ,with no clear guidelines and instructions how to implement it and as a clearly catch 22 nonsensical situation designed to push trough a political/election agenda is a very very bad thing and should be and hopefully will be thrown out in court.

It's a fair comment. Unfortunately with the inability of either side of the aisle to get anything accomplished the only way really is through this type of proclamation. I am sure the administration was aware a block like this would be highly likely. So now it will get appealed, and maybe eventually make its way up to the Supreme Court (Like Executive Order 13780). At least having some sort of requirement in place, I believe, is better than none. But I agree that the implementation details are important and tough to roll out something like this with a months notice.

[marko1111 12]

1 minute ago, designguy said:

It's a fair comment. Unfortunately with the inability of either side of the aisle to get anything accomplished the only way really is through this type of proclamation. I am sure the administration was aware a block like this would be highly likely. So now it will get appealed, and maybe eventually make its way up to the Supreme Court (Like Executive Order 13780). At least having some sort of requirement in place, I believe, is better than none. But I agree that the implementation details are important and tough to roll out something like this with a months notice.

Ok design guy so for example me...I’m facing an interview in a month so i need to buy health insurance in America due to this rule, I’m currently overseas...ok so I call up a health insurance provider in Colorado, I have no social insurance number and no residency in America and can’t project income as I never lived there and I’m yet to find a job and I want to buy insurance, they look at me like I’m crazy, this is uncharted territory, nobody even knows if it’s possible, ok say somehow I obtain it but full price no subsidy then I pass my interview and enter US as a LPR...that moment I should have all the rights of any other LPR cause otherwise I would be a second class citizen so that would be unconstitutional ...so I either get a job and get insurance or buy the subsidized one that I was barred from before entering a moment ago....this is complete and utter nonsense...or say I want to prove means to buy health insurance...how much, there is no number...if I bring 10k usd am I ok or what?

 

So no nothing is better than this imho!

 

[JohnL 4]

On 10/4/2019 at 7:52 PM, payxibka said:

That has been a concern for years.  Why should the American taxpayers bear that cost?  

I do not know about other states, only Idaho.  Even legal immigrants do not qualify for Medicaid here until they have been here for 5 years.  illegals and legals can qualify for temporary Medicaid for  having a child or an extreme emergency, like an auto accident.  Children, no matter what their legal status qualify  for a form of Medicaid called CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program, but it is based on income.  I do not think anybody would want deny medical care in these instances.

[HRQX 4,145]

45 minutes ago, marko1111 said:

Well the new public charge rule just got thrown out in court, let’s hope same happens to this proclamation!

Not "thrown out"; it's a preliminary injunction. Way too early to predict, but SCOTUS fairly recently decided for the current administration's side in Trump v. Hawaii.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

3 minutes ago, JohnL said:

Even legal immigrants do not qualify for Medicaid here until they have been here for 5 years.

So what happens if a new, uninsured immigrant requires medical care within the first 5 years?  Who pays for it?