Health Insurance for Parents on B2 doing AOS while in U.S

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

13 hours ago, databit said:

I don't know why people here are saying your parents can get ACA  (Obamacare) health coverage from the marketplace. People must earn (as of 2109) a MINIMUM income of $12,140 per person. It is NOT an option for people who earn nothing. 

You'e wrong. Please read this: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/how-immigrants-are-getting-health-coverage/

 

"

The ACA called for expansion of Medicaid to all adults with income up to 138 percent of the poverty level, and no exchange subsidies for enrollees with income below the poverty level, since they’re supposed to have Medicaid instead. But Medicaid isn’t available in most states to recent immigrants until they’ve been lawfully present in the U.S. for five years. To get around this problem, Congress included a provision in the ACA to allow recent immigrants to get subsidies in the exchange regardless of how low their income is.

Low-income, lawfully present immigrants – who would be eligible for Medicaid based on income, but are barred from Medicaid because of their immigration status – are eligible to enroll in plans through the exchange with full subsidies during the five years when Medicaid is not available. Their premiums for the second-lowest-cost Silver plan are capped at 2.08 percent of income in 2019 (this number changes slightly each year).

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/how-immigrants-are-getting-health-coverage/"
 

Edited October 17, 2019 by USS_Voyager

[databit 328]

 

 

"Their premiums for the second-lowest-cost Silver plan are capped at 2.08 percent of income in 2019 (this number changes slightly each year)."

 

Thanks. Therefore, since the parents must stay within the limits specified for "low income status," OP should probably NOT claim the parents as tax dependents, if OP has a healthy household income. OP needs a good tax consultation.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

6 hours ago, USS_Voyager said:

You'e wrong. Please read this: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/how-immigrants-are-getting-health-coverage/

 

"

The ACA called for expansion of Medicaid to all adults with income up to 138 percent of the poverty level, and no exchange subsidies for enrollees with income below the poverty level, since they’re supposed to have Medicaid instead. But Medicaid isn’t available in most states to recent immigrants until they’ve been lawfully present in the U.S. for five years. To get around this problem, Congress included a provision in the ACA to allow recent immigrants to get subsidies in the exchange regardless of how low their income is.

Low-income, lawfully present immigrants – who would be eligible for Medicaid based on income, but are barred from Medicaid because of their immigration status – are eligible to enroll in plans through the exchange with full subsidies during the five years when Medicaid is not available. Their premiums for the second-lowest-cost Silver plan are capped at 2.08 percent of income in 2019 (this number changes slightly each year).

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/how-immigrants-are-getting-health-coverage/"
 

This is (part of) what the now-blocked healthcare requirements were trying to prevent? Immediate access of subsidies?

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

25 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

This is (part of) what the now-blocked healthcare requirements were trying to prevent? Immediate access of subsidies?

I don't think so. This is part of the ACA, which is a law passed by Congress. An executive order from the President cannot change the law passed by Congress. I believe the "now-blocked" healthcare requirements cannot state that non-subsidy premium plan will get more of a "positive factor" in consideration, which to me is still like a cheesy way to circumvent legislative power of Congress by the Executive branch (which is why I think the Executive branch will lose in court). If they want to change the law, change the law the right way, which is something they were unable to do for the last 3 years despite in control of all 3 branches of the government (yes, that includes the Supreme Court). 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

24 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

I don't think so. This is part of the ACA, which is a law passed by Congress. An executive order from the President cannot change the law passed by Congress. I believe the "now-blocked" healthcare requirements cannot state that non-subsidy premium plan will get more of a "positive factor" in consideration, which to me is still like a cheesy way to circumvent legislative power of Congress by the Executive branch (which is why I think the Executive branch will lose in court). If they want to change the law, change the law the right way, which is something they were unable to do for the last 3 years despite in control of all 3 branches of the government (yes, that includes the Supreme Court). 

What, you dare dispute a president who in his own words possesses “great and unmatched wisdom”? 😂

 

Yeah I don’t know enough about the legal side to know how interpreting public charge can or cannot be judged in light of laws about other things. (I do personally think the current public charge guidelines are too low, but there has to be a better way to do it. I guess we need someone with even greater and more unmatched wisdom to figure it out.)

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

8 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

I do personally think the current public charge guidelines are too low, but there has to be a better way to do it.

Oh yea, and I agree. The laws just state: "Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible". It left the agencies to determine what the amount of money should be. So far, the 125% of poverty line or whatever is just a random number that USCIS picks. They can easily pick 300% and that would be more like it. 

[Villanelle 4,122]

The 125% is in line with poverty guidelines for other federal programs like SNAP and Medicaid. If they are going to raise it they would in essence be raising what is considered to be poverty level in the US-  which if they do would cause many more people to be eligible for welfare programs if all the federal agencies use the same calculations. IMO thats why the proposed changes kept the 125% as a min. 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

19 minutes ago, Villanelle said:

The 125% is in line with poverty guidelines for other federal programs like SNAP and Medicaid. If they are going to raise it they would in essence be raising what is considered to be poverty level in the US-  which if they do would cause many more people to be eligible for welfare programs if all the federal agencies use the same calculations. IMO thats why the proposed changes kept the 125% as a min. 

There is no legal reason they need to keep it at the same % though afaik, its being used for a totally different reason, and imo the mere fact that the number is the borderline for welfare should tell you it’s too low for immigration public charge concerns.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Well my point is more- if the government is saying  X is an acceptable amount of income for it's citizens to be considered poor and need aid then demanding intending immigrants make more then X is basically saying poor people not welcome. Give me your tired, your weak, your poor- I mean your upper middle class and above. If it's acceptable for citizens to live at X poverty levels then they can't demand a higher standard for immigrants with out acknowledging it's too low for it's own citizens. Citizens are supposed to be treated better than immigrants according to the government.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

2 hours ago, Villanelle said:

Well my point is more- if the government is saying  X is an acceptable amount of income for it's citizens to be considered poor and need aid then demanding intending immigrants make more then X is basically saying poor people not welcome. Give me your tired, your weak, your poor- I mean your upper middle class and above. If it's acceptable for citizens to live at X poverty levels then they can't demand a higher standard for immigrants with out acknowledging it's too low for it's own citizens. Citizens are supposed to be treated better than immigrants according to the government.

Well, if you consider that citizens can qualify for welfare but immigrants aren’t supposed to be a public charge, then yes they are treated differently and always have been ever since the initial public charge rules came into being.

[USS_Voyager 1,972]

2 hours ago, Villanelle said:

Give me your tired, your weak, your poor-

First of all, I support that, and the US does have a program for that. It's called "Refugee". 

 

2 hours ago, Villanelle said:

If it's acceptable for citizens to live at X poverty levels then they can't demand a higher standard for immigrants with out acknowledging it's too low for it's own citizens.

Of course it is not acceptable for citizens or anyone for that matter, to live at the poverty levels. The goal of the government should be to strike for so that no one has to live below the poverty level. Now whether or not we'll get there is a different story. But I see nothing wrong from demanding family reunion immigrants to be able to take care of themselves so they do NOT fall below the poverty line. And how can they do that if they come in at or below the poverty line? Of course the government (any government) can demand a higher standard for immigrants. Look at the immigration system in Canada. What do they have? A merit-based / points-based system. Everyone is ranked and given a score depending on your age, your educational levels, your experiences.... and the top whatever percentage get in, the rest don't. 

[Villanelle 4,122]

I feel like Im still not explaining my POV correctly. Im saying if the government acknowledges the poverty guidelines are too low- they have to acknowledge it across the board. No politician is going to go before Congress and make speeches about how 125% of the chart is too low and it should be 300% because anything under 300% is not enough to cover basic needs and make ends meet; and then turn to their constituents and say oh ya'll are under 300%? Between 125-300? Oh ignore what I said, you dont need any welfare aid! You only need welfare if you are under 125%. 126% and above is enough for you to not need aid. 

[Ontarkie 14,372]

~~Moved to Moving Here and Your New Life, from Bringing Family of USC - as the discussion is about health insurance.Please stick to the OP's questions. There are many threads out there to continue any further discussion that is not directly to the OP.~~

Edited October 18, 2019 by Ontarkie