New Healthcare Requirements for US Immigrants

[vkrishn 97]

This law puts a disadvantage to parent/parents coming on IR5 basecause

 

1. A son or daughter has to get Private insurance where premium lets say in CA would cost 1K-2K per month. 

2. Medical cost for parents with pre-existing condition with the premium might come to $30K-40K per year leaving the son/daughter to bear that cost. 

3. Parents will not be able to use Medi-cal which is part of covered CA as they will be deemed public charge (not completely sure if thats the case since medi-cal is state funded and not federal). 

 

Most of the insurance you get through work can add spouse and kids as part of your coverage and cannot add parents. So if parents can get any of the state sponsored subsidy then Trump is basically saying, either you need to be wealthy to afford $50K per year of medical costs for old parents to keep them with you or move with them out of the country? 

 

 

[Boiler 45,711]

5 minutes ago, vkrishn said:

This law puts a disadvantage to parent/parents coming on IR5 basecause

 

1. A son or daughter has to get Private insurance where premium lets say in CA would cost 1K-2K per month. 

2. Medical cost for parents with pre-existing condition with the premium might come to $30K-40K per year leaving the son/daughter to bear that cost. 

3. Parents will not be able to use Medi-cal which is part of covered CA as they will be deemed public charge (not completely sure if thats the case since medi-cal is state funded and not federal). 

 

Most of the insurance you get through work can add spouse and kids as part of your coverage and cannot add parents. So if parents can get any of the state sponsored subsidy then Trump is basically saying, either you need to be wealthy to afford $50K per year of medical costs for old parents to keep them with you or move with them out of the country? 

 

 

There is no requirement for a son or a daughter to fund premiums, Parents are by definition adults and should consider their options.

 

Pre existing conditions can not be factored in to premiums under the ACA, now somebody with issues will probably be looking at a more expensive plan and have more deductibles's and incidentals to but that is no different to anybody else.

 

The logic of expecting the Public Purse to fund somebody wishing to bring Parents to the US escapes me. I wonder if the residents of CA are aware of their generosity.

 

 

[vkrishn 97]

25 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There is no requirement for a son or a daughter to fund premiums, Parents are by definition adults and should consider their options.

 

Pre existing conditions can not be factored in to premiums under the ACA, now somebody with issues will probably be looking at a more expensive plan and have more deductibles's and incidentals to but that is no different to anybody else.

 

The logic of expecting the Public Purse to fund somebody wishing to bring Parents to the US escapes me. I wonder if the residents of CA are aware of their generosity.

 

 

While there is no "law" to fund premiums, ultimately son or daughter has to fund parent (single) or parents who are 65+ and not in a position to work to get an employer sponsored one. The reason to bring them here is to be close to us in our household but at the same time penalzing the US citizen to fork out $50K or more to keep them in the US sounds ridiculous. The idea that spouse can be added to your employer's healthcare plan or being covered there and parents left out and addition of new rule applicable to only new/potential immigrants baffles me. Wonder why they didn't think the present LPR using state sponsored subsides aren't "public" charge. Add the current LPR to the public charge. Make it the same for all immigrants. I bet the entire immigrant community would go up in arms if spouse who is trying to immigrate to the US had to go through private insurance only.  Paying the highest Tax in CA isn't enough for Trump but make sure you pay another $40K-$50K more per year to keep your parent with you. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by vkrishn

[Boiler 45,711]

A penalty is where you are being asked to pay more than the real cost, in reality and currently there is a limitation on how much extra can be charged for the elderly, 3x I think, so under ACA rules they are subsidised twice, once because of their age and second because of pre exisiting conditions not attracting additional premiums.

 

There is nothing to stop an Employer subsidising Parents premiums, in fact I have seen a couple of posters mention that they have been able to take advantage, now quite why an Employer would want to is indeed another matter.

 

If you have issues with the high taxes in CA well that is another matter.

 

Usually when people retire they are looking to minimise their costs, can many afford the cost of moving to and retiring in the US, I assume not, can many USC's not afford the cost of retiring in the US absolutely

[geowrian 22,337]

3 hours ago, vkrishn said:

This law puts a disadvantage to parent/parents coming on IR5 basecause

No new law was passed. Congress was not involved in the process.

 

3 hours ago, vkrishn said:

1. A son or daughter has to get Private insurance where premium lets say in CA would cost 1K-2K per month. 

2. Medical cost for parents with pre-existing condition with the premium might come to $30K-40K per year leaving the son/daughter to bear that cost. 

3. Parents will not be able to use Medi-cal which is part of covered CA as they will be deemed public charge (not completely sure if thats the case since medi-cal is state funded and not federal). 

 

Most of the insurance you get through work can add spouse and kids as part of your coverage and cannot add parents. So if parents can get any of the state sponsored subsidy then Trump is basically saying, either you need to be wealthy to afford $50K per year of medical costs for old parents to keep them with you or move with them out of the country?

In addition to the above points, what is the solution? Either somebody specific has to be responsible for them, or the government has to do so. The latter is just not something most people want (at least on a federal level) and is not the law today, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Individual states can have their own rules.

Long-term, addressing the issue of costs is what's really needed. But unless/until that happens, somebody has to pay up.

To be clear, I disagree with IR-5 being exempt from this, although I'm not particularly concerned as they do tend to look closely at healthcare costs for parents already, especially recently.

 

As for point #3 - Medi-Cal usage is permitted as it provides that via state funds for the first 5 years of permanent residency. CA and NY are the only 2 states I know of that do this as a general rule (some states provide state-funded options for pregnancy and other specific circumstances).

 

2 hours ago, vkrishn said:

The reason to bring them here is to be close to us in our household but at the same time penalzing the US citizen to fork out $50K or more to keep them in the US sounds ridiculous.

As noted, it's not a penalty. It's just the cost of living in the US.

[Sweetdreaming 397]

3 hours ago, vkrishn said:

This law puts a disadvantage to parent/parents coming on IR5 basecause

 

1. A son or daughter has to get Private insurance where premium lets say in CA would cost 1K-2K per month. 

2. Medical cost for parents with pre-existing condition with the premium might come to $30K-40K per year leaving the son/daughter to bear that cost. 

3. Parents will not be able to use Medi-cal which is part of covered CA as they will be deemed public charge (not completely sure if thats the case since medi-cal is state funded and not federal). 

 

Most of the insurance you get through work can add spouse and kids as part of your coverage and cannot add parents. So if parents can get any of the state sponsored subsidy then Trump is basically saying, either you need to be wealthy to afford $50K per year of medical costs for old parents to keep them with you or move with them out of the country? 

 

 

i mean pretty much. But the question is are you able to fund your medical expenses and not expect those of the country youre choosing to move into subsidize you when you havent ever contributed to the pot ?

[vkrishn 97]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

No new law was passed. Congress was not involved in the process.

 

In addition to the above points, what is the solution? Either somebody specific has to be responsible for them, or the government has to do so. The latter is just not something most people want (at least on a federal level) and is not the law today, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Individual states can have their own rules.

Long-term, addressing the issue of costs is what's really needed. But unless/until that happens, somebody has to pay up.

To be clear, I disagree with IR-5 being exempt from this, although I'm not particularly concerned as they do tend to look closely at healthcare costs for parents already, especially recently.

 

As for point #3 - Medi-Cal usage is permitted as it provides that via state funds for the first 5 years of permanent residency. CA and NY are the only 2 states I know of that do this as a general rule (some states provide state-funded options for pregnancy and other specific circumstances).

 

As noted, it's not a penalty. It's just the cost of living in the US.

I should have stated the "law" as the new "rule". Its a modification of what is currently followed.  Interesting that a parent of USC is considered an "immediate relative"  like a spouse or child of USC (assuming less than 21 yrs old). They can be added to your employer sponsored insurance while your parent cannot. 

Current immigrants who are a "public" charge are exempted from the new rule and only the forward looking ones have to oblige(which makes no sense to me and if you are doing it then make it fair and square). Imagine that they bring a rule that spouse of USC immigrating from another country(who is also an immediate relative) has to buy private insurance for the next 5years costing the USC atleast 25K per year just for premiums alone and there is no way to add spouse or child to USC's employer insurance then would that be acceptable? Won't the population go up in arms? Would you expect the spouse and the child to "fend" for themselves and pay up for insurance or do you expect the USC to help them? 

 

 

Point being that on one end you term the parent as an immediate relative but they aren't provided the same benefits as a spouse or child and in that case the petitioner needs to take care of them. 

 

[vkrishn 97]

47 minutes ago, skjourney said:

i mean pretty much. But the question is are you able to fund your medical expenses and not expect those of the country youre choosing to move into subsidize you when you havent ever contributed to the pot ?

Why isn't that applied for spouse or child of USC? Why isn't the same rule applied to them and not let them get added to USC petitioner's employer sponsored insurance? 

[Boiler 45,711]

1 minute ago, vkrishn said:

Why isn't that applied for spouse or child of USC? Why isn't the same rule applied to them and not let them get added to USC petitioner's employer sponsored insurance? 

If you can get your Parents added great, like I said it is unusual, but not completely unknown.

[Sweetdreaming 397]

1 minute ago, vkrishn said:

Why isn't that applied for spouse or child of USC? Why isn't the same rule applied to them and not let them get added to USC petitioner's employer sponsored insurance? 

maybe ask employers ? I have no idea if theres anything stopping them offering insurance to employees parents, but obviously it would cost employers a lot of money, and most parents dont want to burden their children with their health care.

[Boiler 45,711]

1 minute ago, skjourney said:

maybe ask employers ? I have no idea if theres anything stopping them offering insurance to employees parents, but obviously it would cost employers a lot of money, and most parents dont want to burden their children with their health care.

There is nothing to stop an Employer including Parents in schemes they offer.

[SalishSea 17,952]

6 minutes ago, vkrishn said:

Point being that on one end you term the parent as an immediate relative but they aren't provided the same benefits as a spouse or child and in that case the petitioner needs to take care of them.

Best to take that up with insurance companies.  It has nothing to do with the federal government.

[Sweetdreaming 397]

Just now, Boiler said:

There is nothing to stop an Employer including Parents in schemes they offer.

thanks then it isnt a "rule" - at least not from the government.

[Boiler 45,711]

9 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Best to take that up with insurance companies.  It has nothing to do with the federal government.

No an Insurance Company issue, would be down to the Employer.

[SalishSea 17,952]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

No an Insurance Company issue, would be down to the Employer.

Ah, yes!  Of course you're right, Boiler.  Can't see it becoming a widespread practice.  I have above-average quality insurance, and the amount my employer pays on behalf of myself and my husband is staggering.