New Healthcare Requirements for US Immigrants

[Boiler 45,525]

3 minutes ago, artcodex said:

Just to add parent category is affected but not actually bound by the new rule to obtain healthcare proof, they just need to show ability to pay for health costs (what this means remains to be seen, but they do not have to produce proof of health coverage for visa interview).

You could certainly argue that they always have had to.

 

US is to my knowledge the only Western country that has let this slide. A M4All scheme would logically make elderly migration all but impossible.

[artcodex 28]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

You could certainly argue that they always have had to.

 

US is to my knowledge the only Western country that has let this slide. A M4All scheme would logically make elderly migration all but impossible.

Sure most other countries do require proof of healthcare when first moving there since they have socialized systems. I think the bigger thing though is they did have constructs in place to allow for private insurance availability or better guidance on solving the healthcare requirements.

 

I think it's one thing to require private insurance, it's another when the whole current U.S. healthcare industry is setup to make it really difficult to actually obtain private healthcare insurance when abroad even if you have the funds to do so. There are options but they are limited.

[Boiler 45,525]

7 minutes ago, artcodex said:

Sure most other countries do require proof of healthcare when first moving there since they have socialized systems. I think the bigger thing though is they did have constructs in place to allow for private insurance availability or better guidance on solving the healthcare requirements.

 

I think it's one thing to require private insurance, it's another when the whole current U.S. healthcare industry is setup to make it really difficult to actually obtain private healthcare insurance when abroad even if you have the funds to do so. There are options but they are limited.

Insurance is not a practical solution for elderly Medical costs, that is why the US had Medicare, also why I think the current system is likely to fold at some point as it becomes more and more divorced from practicality. Always amused me that the US actually pays more from Governmental sources that these so called socialised countries.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

You could certainly argue that they always have had to.

 

US is to my knowledge the only Western country that has let this slide. A M4All scheme would logically make elderly migration all but impossible.

I don't know of any Western country with the jacked health care insurance mess of the US, so there is that.

Edited October 21, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Sadly while these types of insurances somehow work for some when carefully allowed with state regulations, they are basically junk for many and in a lot of cases extremely risky. It has caused the potential death and prolonged suffering of many who signed up and had no idea the coverage was pretty bad. https://khn.org/news/sham-sharing-ministries-test-faith-of-patients-and-insurance-regulators/  https://www.wellsteps.com/blog/2019/01/06/medishare-insurance-medishare-review/  Some are a little more compliant for the ACA than others and some  are tailored towards those of different faiths.

 

As for immigration law compliance, well... it's hard to interpret the meaning of what such 'cost sharing' insurances could fall under. The 'proclamation' had the list but it's not extremely descriptive. Religious-based plans were found exempt from the ACA (so they didn't need to meet the ACA compliance test for being adequate). 

 

 

Yes, we need to see what State and dshs come up with, and what survives legal challenge.

 

It seems funny though that you can immigrate on a tourist policy, after you immigrate there is nothing that says you cannot quit the policy so what is the point? 

 

Edit: cut the paragraph with criticism of the health insurance system. The root cause of this policy is refusnik immigration restrictionist view in the government.

Edited October 21, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Shanshanjamrock 44]

  I reasent got medical  due to hardship, I hope to get a new job soon but am filing for my mom so  she  can come up and 

help me with the kids my question is the fact that I have medical will that affect my mother filing process  will they like little denied her

[ram1009 43]

I've asked many times if a K1 bride is eligible for Medicare if the petitioner is qualified.  Nobody seems to know the answer.  I know that wives of Medicare recipients are qualified if they are US citizens but I don't know who to ask about immigrants.

[Boiler 45,525]

Ask them, my recollection was that they needed to a LPR for 5 years.

[SalishSea 17,836]

7 minutes ago, ram1009 said:

I've asked many times if a K1 bride is eligible for Medicare if the petitioner is qualified.  Nobody seems to know the answer.  I know that wives of Medicare recipients are qualified if they are US citizens but I don't know who to ask about immigrants.

Medicare?  You must be confused.  Medicare is an age-based program.

 

Wives (USC or otherwise) need to meet the age requirements, just like everyone else.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Jorgedig

[ram1009 43]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

Medicare?  You must be confused.  Medicare is an age-based program.

I'm 73 and my fiance is 69.  I'm not confused.

[SalishSea 17,836]

Just now, ram1009 said:

I'm 73 and my fiance is 69.  I'm not confused.

Okay.  You hadn’t clarified that.  Very few “k-1 brides” would qualify as such.

[ram1009 43]

1 minute ago, Jorgedig said:

Okay.  You hadn’t clarified that.  Very few “k-1 brides” would qualify as such.

I agree.  Presumably, that's why information is so scarce.

[SalishSea 17,836]

22 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Ask them, my recollection was that they needed to a LPR for 5 years.

This is what I'm finding online as well.  After five years, she should be eligible to enroll in self-premium paid medicare.

[90DayFinancier 910]

On 10/21/2019 at 12:02 PM, yuna628 said:

Sadly while these types of insurances somehow work for some when carefully allowed with state regulations, they are basically junk for many and in a lot of cases extremely risky. It has caused the potential death and prolonged suffering of many who signed up and had no idea the coverage was pretty bad. https://khn.org/news/sham-sharing-ministries-test-faith-of-patients-and-insurance-regulators/  https://www.wellsteps.com/blog/2019/01/06/medishare-insurance-medishare-review/  Some are a little more compliant for the ACA than others and some  are tailored towards those of different faiths.

 

As for immigration law compliance, well... it's hard to interpret the meaning of what such 'cost sharing' insurances could fall under. The 'proclamation' had the list but it's not extremely descriptive. Religious-based plans were found exempt from the ACA (so they didn't need to meet the ACA compliance test for being adequate). 

 

 

We will have to see what we have by Nov 3 with

"other plans deemed adequate by the Secretary of Health and Human Services."

 

Side bar: After railing for years against the individual mandate, this administration seems bent on making sure immigrants have healthcare. 

[SalishSea 17,836]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Side bar: After railing for years against the individual mandate, this administration seems bent on making sure immigrants have healthcare. 

I was musing over this irony as well......