New Healthcare Requirements for US Immigrants

[Crazy Cat 41,822]

13 minutes ago, Rose711 said:

Have there been any studies done to show the burden of healthcare from legal immigrants on the US taxpayer? I haven’t seen the numbers anywhere.

 

I haven't seen the studies, but the White House announcement regarding this yesterday stated:

"Immigrants admitted into the country are nearly three times more likely to lack health insurance than United States citizens, and contribute to the problem of uncompensated healthcare costs."

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by missileman

[Hank_ 9,174]

36 minutes ago, Sarah n Ryan said:

So if I understand correctly than I can show proof at AOS interview or the packet that I am sifting through now? 
I know we will have the new form for “totality” as we will apply after October deadline and I believe on that form is where I can show proof ?  
Sorry for sounding ignorant but we are just now receiving visa. 
Thanks Hank 

 

Hey, this is going to be new for all of us .. USCIS was not made to enforce existing law previously in this regard.

[Crazy Cat 41,822]

By the way, the health care insurance aspect is also part of the new I-944.

 

[Rose711 35]

Thanks!  I was just looking for the data to read it myself. I thought  maybe someone had the studies that showed the about of cost that legal immigrants have on the healthcare system, maybe compared to citizens, current green card holders and undocumented immigrants.

17 minutes ago, missileman said:

I haven't seen the studies, but the White House announcement regarding this yesterday stated:

"Immigrants admitted into the country are nearly three times more likely to lack health insurance than United States citizens, and contribute to the problem of uncompensated healthcare costs."

 

 

[JFH 12,190]

I’m pleased to see this is being taken more seriously. Not only does the taxpayer need a break from supporting people who choose to live here without insurance (I am not including people who were born here and can’t get insurance - that’s another matter), but petitioners need to be made more aware of the impact of bringing people into this country. 

 

We see many threads on here where K-1 petitioners are stressing about meeting the poverty guideline for the I-134 and in my opinion that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the problem they have afraid of them. If they are barely making the poverty level for themselves, how the heck can they add another person - who cannot work - into the household AND cover their health insurance? We know that there are people being brought in with no health insurance and no means to pay it and it’s just irresponsible of the petitioner to put their fiancé/spouse/parents in that position. 

 

I think this will see a decrease in K-1s but an increase in CR-1s (which I think is a good thing in itself, however it comes about) as CR-1s are married and therefore can be added to the spouse’s plan immediately and are also eligible to work right away and can take advantage of the plan offered by their own employer. 

 

I also see this impacting IR-5s quite significantly. Especially from the countries where chain migration for multiple family members is more prevalent. For too long brand new USCs have been throwing I-130s into the mail before the ink is dry on the certificate of citizenship, wanting to bring in parents and siblings without any financial planning as to how they will be cared for. 

 

Many have the impression that “it’s America, so it’s a better life”. It is if you work for it. As I often say to people back home “it’s a great place to live if you have the means, it’s the worst place in the western world to be poor”.

[Crazy Cat 41,822]

4 minutes ago, JFH said:

We see many threads on here where K-1 petitioners are stressing about meeting the poverty guideline for the I-134 and in my opinion that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the problem they have afraid of them. If they are barely making the poverty level for themselves, how the heck can they add another person - who cannot work - into the household AND cover their health insurance? We know that there are people being brought in with no health insurance and no means to pay it and it’s just irresponsible of the petitioner to put their fiancé/spouse/parents in that position. 

This is 100% true........this should force people to think...

[geowrian 22,337]

2 hours ago, Sarge2155 said:

It depends on who the carrier is, but it is most certainly asked for. I was able to add my wife without an SSN, but had to jump through many hoops to do so. It's a catch-22 dealing with the SSN. Without a SSN you are effectively dead in the water!!!

It is something asked for. it is not something required. Yes, sometimes a few hoops have to be jumped through because people don't know better (mainly those in HR who haven't dealt with the situation before).

[elfuego 1]

I went through the process some years back and adding my spouse to my employer's insurance was an obvious thing to do. You already have to meet the income guidelines to be approved. However where I can see this becoming a problem is not with spouses but parents. Most employer-based insurance plans do not allow you to add your parents. They also are not eligible for eligible for Medicare since they have not paid into the system. Since the marketplace will also be closed off,  this means the only option for those wanting to sponsor parents is a direct purchase from an insurance carrier. It could also mean a short-term plan depending on the time of year. Definitely something to consider depending on costs and situation.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

The White House statement obviously propagandizes various aspects (Medicaid being received by members of “non citizen headed households” is obviously being received by citizens within that household for example, citizens who might be more of a burden without the non-citizen’s income) so I’m not going to happily quote verbatim “reasons” from that document. Fact remains, costs need to be paid and this is something that needs to be dealt with. 

 

On SSNs, it’s just untrue that they are needed for health insurance. H and O dependents generally do not have SSNs, at entry or ever, yet are on their principal’s health insurance. It’s all about what HR is used to doing I guess.

 

34 minutes ago, JFH said:

I’m pleased to see this is being taken more seriously. Not only does the taxpayer need a break from supporting people who choose to live here without insurance (I am not including people who were born here and can’t get insurance - that’s another matter), but petitioners need to be made more aware of the impact of bringing people into this country. 

 

We see many threads on here where K-1 petitioners are stressing about meeting the poverty guideline for the I-134 and in my opinion that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the problem they have afraid of them. If they are barely making the poverty level for themselves, how the heck can they add another person - who cannot work - into the household AND cover their health insurance? We know that there are people being brought in with no health insurance and no means to pay it and it’s just irresponsible of the petitioner to put their fiancé/spouse/parents in that position. 

 

I think this will see a decrease in K-1s but an increase in CR-1s (which I think is a good thing in itself, however it comes about) as CR-1s are married and therefore can be added to the spouse’s plan immediately and are also eligible to work right away and can take advantage of the plan offered by their own employer. 

 

I also see this impacting IR-5s quite significantly. Especially from the countries where chain migration for multiple family members is more prevalent. For too long brand new USCs have been throwing I-130s into the mail before the ink is dry on the certificate of citizenship, wanting to bring in parents and siblings without any financial planning as to how they will be cared for. 

 

Many have the impression that “it’s America, so it’s a better life”. It is if you work for it. As I often say to people back home “it’s a great place to live if you have the means, it’s the worst place in the western world to be poor”.

Fabulous summary.

 

Parents are probably the biggest category by number to be affected. A lot of diversity visa applicants will probably be affected too, despite the fact that DV immigrants on average have better qualifications and jobs than family based visas, because they generally do not have jobs lined up before they arrive and most do not have family sponsors.

Edited October 5, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[shallot343 116]

1 hour ago, Nitas_man said:

You CAN add your spouse pending SS number and in fact it’s legally required that they open enrollment for your spouse for life event change (marriage). You actually have a limited number of days to do so.

It is treated as enrolling a newborn.  It would be good to have a quiet talk with HR about that.  When pressed they somehow remember the rules and will get that done for you.

We got married 6 months ago so the special enrollment period is long past (it think it was 60 days after the “qualifying life event”) and when i tried to add him initially  neither HR nor my insurance company seemed to know how to manage it. i let it go since our timeline was so uncertain anyway but I really shot myself in the foot!

 

Thats good to know —helpful for others though unfortunately that method is dead in the water for us re: this new requirement 

 

hopefully 6months ish of comprehensive travel insurance with proof my upcoming enrollment period will be sufficient =\

[Boiler 45,461]

7 minutes ago, elfuego said:

I went through the process some years back and adding my spouse to my employer's insurance was an obvious thing to do. You already have to meet the income guidelines to be approved. However where I can see this becoming a problem is not with spouses but parents. Most employer-based insurance plans do not allow you to add your parents. They also are not eligible for eligible for Medicare since they have not paid into the system. Since the marketplace will also be closed off,  this means the only option for those wanting to sponsor parents is a direct purchase from an insurance carrier. It could also mean a short-term plan depending on the time of year. Definitely something to consider depending on costs and situation.

Parents can buy through the marketplace.

 

It is amazing how many people bringing Parents go very silent when this issue comes up.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

3 minutes ago, shallot343 said:

We got married 6 months ago so the special enrollment period is long past (it think it was 60 days after the “qualifying life event”) and when i tried to add him initially  neither HR nor my insurance company seemed to know how to manage it. i let it go since our timeline was so uncertain anyway but I really shot myself in the foot!

 

Thats good to know —helpful for others though unfortunately that method is dead in the water for us re: this new requirement 

 

hopefully 6months ish of comprehensive travel insurance with proof my upcoming enrollment period will be sufficient =\

It happens.  I had to push it but they came around.  Best of luck to you guys moving forward

[RedroseMT 37]

What will be with those who use “ free services for undocumented people “ - why would they be so protected ? I know this is off topic but how much tax payers money could be saved if something would be done about that . 

Edited October 5, 2019 by RedroseMT

[elfuego 1]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Parents can buy through the marketplace.

 

It is amazing how many people bringing Parents go very silent when this issue comes up.

That may be true but here is the caveat:

 

'While lawful immigrants qualify for ACA subsidies, they'll be stuck in a catch-22 because subsidized coverage does not qualify as insurance under the proclamation,' tweeted Larry Leavitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care policy think tank."

 

In other words, those using the marketplace should be very careful with their selections.

[Boiler 45,461]

2 minutes ago, elfuego said:

That may be true but here is the caveat:

 

'While lawful immigrants qualify for ACA subsidies, they'll be stuck in a catch-22 because subsidized coverage does not qualify as insurance under the proclamation,' tweeted Larry Leavitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care policy think tank."

 

In other words, those using the marketplace should be very careful with their selections.

Subsidies is a separate issue and from the posts I have seen many would not qualify.