Trump's future immigration policies- speculation MEGATHREAD

[AshMarty 359]

18 hours ago, ChristianZane said:

I've read the complete opposite on other immigration forums; hospitals, courts, credit card companies will all pursue a sponsor of an immigrant for financial reasons, these folks (especially hospitals) will not easily roll over and write off hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, it doesn't happen.

https://www.njimmigrationattorney.com/blog/2014/10/does-the-affidavit-of-support-require-me-to-pay-medical-and-hospital-bills.shtml

 

http://www.i-864.net/blog/do-i-864-sponsors-have-to-pay-medical-bills

 

Here are two websites that breakdown the gray area of the responsibility of the sponsor. As @geowrian stated it isn't explicit that someone becomes public charge per the Department of State definition of what is considered a "public charge" from receiving medical care at a Hospital, as a hospital is not a government agency. A medical bill provided from a hospital is a private contract for services rendered.

[geowrian 22,336]

On 1/27/2018 at 4:55 PM, ChristianZane said:

I've read the complete opposite on other immigration forums; hospitals, courts, credit card companies will all pursue a sponsor of an immigrant for financial reasons, these folks (especially hospitals) will not easily roll over and write off hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, it doesn't happen.

I can’t speak for what you read, but I’m unaware of any private entity actually receiving reimbursement via order.

 

If I sponsor somebody and they choose to buy a bunch of stuff on a credit card, you think the credit card company can come after me personally for their purchases? It’s not going to happen. That’s not a public charge or means tested benefit covered by the I-864 contract.

[L_Rocker 0]

If Repub. win November than its gonna be a big immigration reform. Ending of Green cards for Parents, plus tougher path to Citizenship. Not sure about H1B visas though, highly unlikely to change.

He is targeting chain migration so green cards from families could be limited, lottery system might change drastically. Plus would be interesting to see how the govt. incorporates the decision from Supreme court which came last year with details.

[Hypnos 6,576]

The operative word being 'if'. 

 

Dems are heading towards taking back the House, with an outside chance of taking back the Senate too. 

 

They need only one to basically kneecap Trump's presidency for the remainder of his single term. 

[Russ&Caro 1,548]

I think the Democrats have sort of fumbled the votes of people who support DACA. I'm not nearly as optimistic about the Dem's chances of taking either chamber of Congress as I was 3 months ago. If they were not willing to use the political leverage they had in the budget negotiations to support a key constituency, then what reason do general supporters have to reward them with their votes?

[cyclone27 710]

Unlikely Dems will take back the house or senate. It’s more than likely the republicans gain more seats.

[Hypnos 6,576]

25 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

It’s more than likely the republicans gain more seats.

Based on wishful thinking, perhaps.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls shows a sample (based on scientific polling) of a generic ballot, and which party would win on that ballot.

 

The last 10 have been:

 

Democrat +4, +10, +8, +7, +7, +9, +6, +6, +7, +2.

 

Going back to January 2017, Republicans won this generic ballot only once, in April.

 

It's virtually certain the Democrats will gain seats in the House and Republicans will lose seats, the only question is how many, and will Democrats get 24 seats to take control of the chamber, making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House again.

 

In the Senate, it's not as good ground for Democrats. All House seats are up for election, but in the Senate the Democrats are defending 26 seats whereas Republicans are only defending 8. That alone gives Republicans a leg up.

 

The most likely outcome is that Democrats gain seats in the House, and may take control, but may lose seats in the Senate.

 

But the chances of Republicans gaining seats in both the House and Senate? Almost zero.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Hypnos

[missads 59]

On 1/28/2018 at 4:14 PM, AshMarty said:

https://www.njimmigrationattorney.com/blog/2014/10/does-the-affidavit-of-support-require-me-to-pay-medical-and-hospital-bills.shtml

 

http://www.i-864.net/blog/do-i-864-sponsors-have-to-pay-medical-bills

 

Here are two websites that breakdown the gray area of the responsibility of the sponsor. As @geowrian stated it isn't explicit that someone becomes public charge per the Department of State definition of what is considered a "public charge" from receiving medical care at a Hospital, as a hospital is not a government agency. A medical bill provided from a hospital is a private contract for services rendered.

 

Hospitals are sneaky about sticking you (the sponsor) with medical bills. When your loved one is admitted to a hospital, they give you a "consent" form to sign at the  time of check-in. They will say it just provides consent for the hospital to treat your family member. While that is true, what they don't tell you is that hidden in the fine print is a clause that says if something were to go awry (insurance decides not to pay up etc.) then *YOU* (the person who signed the consent form) are liable for paying off the hospital bill. Collection agencies come after you demanding payment (ask me how I know...)

 

However, there is a way around this trap. If you have two elderly parents, and one of them needs to get medical care, have the other parent sign the consent form. This is assuming the other parent doesn't have substantial monies/assets in their name. The worst the collection agencies can do is just send demand letters, and perhaps report it to a credit agency so it shows up on your parent's credit history. If your elderly parents don't plan to ever work or apply for credit etc. in the US, it really doesn't matter if they have less than perfect credit history. IMHO that is a more palatable solution than having your (the young, working sponsor's) credit history being affected.

 

Btw, don't feel sorry for the hospitals. They just write off their inherently inflated medical bills (e.g. $20 for a Tylenol) as charity and get a huge tax break from the government, that more than covers what they spent on your loved one's care.

 

It boils down to working the system. The system is inherently unfair to the poor, elderly, under-privileged. It is rife with corporate greed, trying to make as much money as they possibly can, with little regard to your situation. Unfortunately, you have to consider using counter-measures to protect yourself, or risk being bankrupted over a single medical emergency.

 

Full disclosure - this workaround was pointed out by a kind doctor at the very hospital where my parent was admitted during an unforeseen medical emergency (before we got coverage through Obamacare.) The travel insurance that we purchased declined to cover anything, under the excuse of it being a pre-existing condition (total BS.)  Doctors know better than anyone else how the system works. Use as you see fit.

Edited February 20, 2018 by missads

[AshMarty 359]

23 minutes ago, missads said:

 

Hospitals are sneaky about sticking you (the sponsor) with medical bills. When your loved one is admitted to a hospital, they give you a "consent" form to sign at the  time of check-in. They will say it just provides consent for the hospital to treat your family member. While that is true, what they don't tell you is that hidden in the fine print is a clause that says if something were to go awry (insurance decides not to pay up etc.) then *YOU* (the person who signed the consent form) are liable for paying off the hospital bill. Collection agencies come after you demanding payment (ask me how I know...)

 

However, there is a way around this trap. If you have two elderly parents, and one of them needs to get medical care, have the other parent sign the consent form. This is assuming the other parent doesn't have substantial monies/assets in their name. The worst the collection agencies can do is just send demand letters, and perhaps report it to a credit agency so it shows up on your parent's credit history. If your elderly parents don't plan to ever work or apply for credit etc. in the US, it really doesn't matter if they have less than perfect credit history. IMHO that is a more palatable solution than having your (the young, working sponsor's) credit history being affected.

 

Btw, don't feel sorry for the hospitals. They just write off their inherently inflated medical bills (e.g. $20 for a Tylenol) as charity and get a huge tax break from the government, that more than covers what they spent on your loved one's care.

 

It boils down to working the system. The system is inherently unfair to the poor, elderly, under-privileged. It is rife with corporate greed, trying to make as much money as they possibly can, with little regard to your situation. Unfortunately, you have to consider using counter-measures to protect yourself, or risk being bankrupted over a single medical emergency.

 

Full disclosure - this workaround was pointed out by a kind doctor at the very hospital where my parent was admitted during an unforeseen medical emergency (before we got coverage through Obamacare.) The travel insurance that we purchased declined to cover anything, under the excuse of it being a pre-existing condition (total BS.)  Doctors know better than anyone else how the system works. Use as you see fit.

As a Doctor of PT myself 

 

I work hours in hospitals system, with insurance, and patients. It is a lot more complicated then explained above. Two days a week I have to work with our medical doctors to explain their patients medical coverage in order to remind them how to document the correct way to get visits and medical equipment covered. 

 

There are insurance negotiations (for example Medicare pays pennies on the dollar for services after negotiated prices, insurance will pay a lot less than $20 dollars for Tylenol). By people doing the above it was only cause hospitals to inflate prices even more to make the money back on the people that are not paying bills, which then is paid by tax payers money and the people that are paying. Relying on the above system in only screwing over people later down the line. 

 

In a perfect world if everyone was insured it would be less expensive to buy insurance but for now half of people are are insured and willing to pay the bills. And they are paying for the other half that did not pay the medical bills or get medical coverage. Even stating that the above should be away around looking into health insurance in frustrating, and this will only stand with Emergency medicine.

 

For long term conditions (not medical emergencies) and up keep for long term conditions (such as diabetes, cancer, follow ups following a stroke or heart attack), medical facilities can refuse to see you without insurance or proof of funds. 

 

Working in the system yes, I find it frustrating but until everyone wants work on some way to improve it, this is how it works and it will only get more frustrating and go downhill if people feel they are above trying to use the system appropriately. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by AshMarty

[Umka36 781]

 

3 minutes ago, AshMarty said:

As a Doctor of PT myself.

 

I work hours in hospitals system, with insurance, and patients. It is a lot more complicated then explained above.

 

There are insurance negotiations (for example Medicare pays pennies on the dollar for services after negotiated prices, insurance will pay a lot less than $20 dollars for Tylenol). By people doing the above it was only cause hospitals to inflate prices even more to make the money back on the people that are not paying bills, which then is paid by tax payers money and the people that are paying. Relying on the above system in only screwing over people later down the line. 

 

In a perfect world if everyone was insured it would be less expensive to buy insurance but for now the half of people are are insured and willing to pay the bills. And they are paying for the other half that did not pay the medical bills or get medical coverage. Even stating that the above should be away around looking into health insurance in frustrating, and this will only stand with Emergency medicine.

 

For long term conditions and up keep for long term conditions (such as diabetes, cancer, follow ups following a stroke or heart attack), medical facilities can refuse to see you without insurance or proof of funds. 

 

Working in the system yes, I find it frustrating but until everyone wants work on something improving it, this is how it works and it will only get more frustrating and go downhill if people feel they are above trying to use the system appropriately. 

I highly doubt that individual cares as long as it benefits their parent.

[AshMarty 359]

2 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

 

I highly doubt that individual cares as long as it benefits their parent.

It is just frustrating because it screws over the next people that need to use the system. And feeling that people think its an okay for them to be the exception to break a system even further so there is no need to really try to use the system appropriately. 

 

Okay I am done with this rant because this is one reason why the system is broken in the first place.

[missads 59]

I don't want to get into an argument over the ethics of this. I'm just sharing information that someone might find useful. This is a forum for sharing information above anything else, is it not?

I did say "use as you see fit", it's up to the reader what they do with this information.

 

I agree it is a broken system. I also think that if someone wants to protect themselves against a broken system, then they have every right to look up information on this forum that might be useful.

 

I am not judging anyone, and I expect the same in return. I don't appreciate this individual (you know who you are) making snide comments every time I put out information on the forum.

 

Being aware of the clause in the consent agreement relating to financial liabilities might save a hapless family from going bankrupt. Give that a thought before getting up on your high horse and lecturing everyone.

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by missads

[AshMarty 359]

1 minute ago, missads said:

I don't want to get into an argument over the ethics of this. I'm just sharing information that someone might find useful. This is a forum for sharing information above anything else, is it not?

I did say "use as you see fit", it's up to the reader what they do with this information.

 

I agree it is a broken system. I also think that if someone wants to protect themselves against a broken system, then they have every right to look up information on this forum that might be useful.

 

I am not judging anyone, and I expect the same in return. I don't appreciate this individual (you know who you are) making snide comments every time I put out information on the forum.

 

Being aware of the clause in the consent agreement relating to financial liabilities might save a hapless family from going bankrupt. Give that a thought before getting up on your high horse and lecturing everyone.

 

The information you posted can only be useful in Emergency Medicine, and it is very misleading. If someone needs to see a cardiologist for an appointment after said emergency (heart attack) or oncologist (after said emergency visit for cancer finding). The Cardiologist or Oncologist  (not in the Emergency Department) can refuse to see you without insurance. Pharmacies won't fill scripts without payments, it is a poor plan for medical coverage for elderly. 

 

The poor and elderly in this country (who are USC) are the only ones in the country who are are guaranteed health insurance through either medicare or medicaid. So your above statement of elderly and poor being at the disadvantage is a mis-statement.  The working class is the most at disadvantage because they don't qualify for programs and health insurance is expensive. I would suggest you get more familiar with the medical system before you give out advice, as to not mislead people. 

[missads 59]

58 minutes ago, AshMarty said:

 

In a perfect world if everyone was insured it would be less expensive to buy insurance but for now half of people are are insured and willing to pay the bills. And they are paying for the other half that did not pay the medical bills or get medical coverage. Even stating that the above should be away around looking into health insurance in frustrating, and this will only stand with Emergency medicine.

 

 

I'm not saying that at all. I have advocated for people getting coverage, see my thread on Obamacare.

 

As you said yourself, we don't live in a perfect world. I'm just saying that when your insurance company decides to screw you over (usually travel insurance) or you are caught in some unfortunate situation whereby you don't have coverage (due to no fault of your own)  there are ways to protect yourself from the bill collection agencies.

 

To be clear, I think everyone should get (affordable) health coverage.

[AshMarty 359]

4 hours ago, missads said:

 

Hospitals are sneaky about sticking you (the sponsor) with medical bills. When your loved one is admitted to a hospital, they give you a "consent" form to sign at the  time of check-in. They will say it just provides consent for the hospital to treat your family member. While that is true, what they don't tell you is that hidden in the fine print is a clause that says if something were to go awry (insurance decides not to pay up etc.) then *YOU* (the person who signed the consent form) are liable for paying off the hospital bill. Collection agencies come after you demanding payment (ask me how I know...)

 

However, there is a way around this trap. If you have two elderly parents, and one of them needs to get medical care, have the other parent sign the consent form. This is assuming the other parent doesn't have substantial monies/assets in their name. The worst the collection agencies can do is just send demand letters, and perhaps report it to a credit agency so it shows up on your parent's credit history. If your elderly parents don't plan to ever work or apply for credit etc. in the US, it really doesn't matter if they have less than perfect credit history. IMHO that is a more palatable solution than having your (the young, working sponsor's) credit history being affected.

 

Btw, don't feel sorry for the hospitals. They just write off their inherently inflated medical bills (e.g. $20 for a Tylenol) as charity and get a huge tax break from the government, that more than covers what they spent on your loved one's care.

 

It boils down to working the system. The system is inherently unfair to the poor, elderly, under-privileged. It is rife with corporate greed, trying to make as much money as they possibly can, with little regard to your situation. Unfortunately, you have to consider using counter-measures to protect yourself, or risk being bankrupted over a single medical emergency.

 

Full disclosure - this workaround was pointed out by a kind doctor at the very hospital where my parent was admitted during an unforeseen medical emergency (before we got coverage through Obamacare.) The travel insurance that we purchased declined to cover anything, under the excuse of it being a pre-existing condition (total BS.)  Doctors know better than anyone else how the system works. Use as you see fit.

Here is an article that explain how the tax payers end up with 40 billion dollars worth of unpaid medical costs.

 

Community ERs are not getting rich, contrary to your personal beliefs. 

 

"hospitals provided about $40 billion in "uncompensated care" — that is, care they were not paid for. That was nearly 6% of their total 2010 expenses."

 

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/03/who-pays-when-someone-without-insurance-shows-up-er/445756001/