Mega Thread for All questions regarding Public Charge

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

3 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

Why what?

Why is it awful?

[Dave&Kal 26]

Just now, SusieQQQ said:

Why is it awful?

You really need me answering that?  Even though this rule has nothing to do with me but my heart goes with all those who might be unfairly affected with these new cruel rules!

 

 

[jb914 33]

The summary above fails to mention that the 447 page rules change states that DHS is considering including CHIP (Childrens Health Insurance Insurance Program) in the list of non-monetized benefits that will indicate current public charge status.

 

Also, many states administer ACA insurance and Medicaid and CHIP through the same online portal and/or health plan, and do not necessarily instruct recipients as to whether their health insurance is actually Medicaid or CHIP. So, many people receiving Medicaid or CHIP will not be aware.

 

Further, there is a distinction between current public charge and likely future public charge. Even though benefits received before the rules change will not be considered as meaning the applicant is a current public charge, everything is on the table in considering whether they will be a likely future public charge.

 

Excerpt from the 447 Page Rules Change PDF:

 

"In addition to the public benefits listed in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), DHS is considering adding to the list of included benefits. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), formerly known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), provides low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid but still need assistance to pay for healthcare. CHIP is administered by states in accordance with federal requirements. Eligibility for CHIP is based on income levels and the upper income level varies by state. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 46 States and the District of Columbia cover children up to or above 200 percent the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and 24 of these states offer coverage to children in families with income at 250 percent of the FPL or higher. States may get the CHIP enhanced match for coverage up to 300 percent of the FPL."

[jb914 33]

Ah nevermind, I see there is a Megathread.

 

[Boiler 43,462]

7 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

You really need me answering that?  Even though this rule has nothing to do with me but my heart goes with all those who might be unfairly affected with these new cruel rules!

 

 

How is it unfair?

 

How is it cruel?

[aznhouston 124]

Oh CNN again, gimme a break.

[Dave&Kal 26]

Just now, Boiler said:

How is it unfair?

 

How is it cruel?

What such rules bring is not stopping new poor immigrants out, it just helps them save more money to build the walls they cant find money for! Dont even think the money saved is going to be pumped into our pockets! Do you think the tax cuts was to help people or the rich? 

[Boiler 43,462]

2 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

What such rules bring is not stopping new poor immigrants out, it just helps them save more money to build the walls they cant find money for! Dont even think the money saved is going to be pumped into our pockets! Do you think the tax cuts was to help people or the rich? 

Not sure what that means...

[jb914 33]

Also, the real takeaway here is that children will be harmed. Already, agencies are seeing sharp reductions in WIC/SNAP/Health Insurance applications.

Pregnancies are not always planned, and birth control does not always work, so you cannot blame people for not always being 100% prepared when they have a child.

 

And it is telling that the same Republican Party that is intent on preventing women from terminating unwanted pregnancies, is now also intent on preventing children from receiving any public support, if one of their parents happens not to be a US citizen.

 

Force the parents to have the child, and then also prevent them from receiving any assistance?

Edited September 24, 2018 by jb914

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Not sure what that means...

Read the older related news to find the clue.

Anyway, please dont deraiil this thread into political arguments. You like the new rules, then start a new thread praising it and have some fun. I am just intending to share some news in relation to the topic.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

4 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

What such rules bring is not stopping new poor immigrants out, it just helps them save more money to build the walls they cant find money for! Dont even think the money saved is going to be pumped into our pockets! Do you think the tax cuts was to help people or the rich? 

You must have a screw loose or something because this regulation is ONLY tightening  down on laws already on the books in regards to this. 

 

If you can't afford to support your future husband, wife, or family member without public assistance then you do not need to bring someone into this country. That is pretty plain and simple to me. How can you not realize that?

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

1 minute ago, Dave&Kal said:

Read the older related news to find the clue.

Anyway, please dont deraiil this thread into political arguments. You like the new rules, then start a new thread praising it and have some fun. I am just intending to share some news in relation to the topic.

**Newsflash**

 

Your post already got moved to the existing megathread that VJ had for new regulations concerning public charges. I would have done it myself if I saw it earlier. So even if you start a new thread/post about it then it will end up back here again.

[Dave&Kal 26]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You must have a screw loose or something because this regulation is ONLY tightening  down on laws already on the books in regards to this. 

 

If you can't afford to support your future husband, wife, or family member without public assistance then you do not need to bring someone into this country. That is pretty plain and simple to me. How can you not realize that?

You seem to have screws too tight! It is NOT only that!

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

**Newsflash**

 

Your post already got moved to the existing megathread that VJ had for new regulations concerning public charges. I would have done it myself if I saw it earlier. So even if you start a new thread/post about it then it will end up back here again.

I just noticed it is moved ! That might have caused some kind of confusion for some though. Since what i was reffering to was specific to the news i posted before.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

7 minutes ago, jb914 said:

Also, the real takeaway here is that children will be harmed. Already, agencies are seeing sharp reductions in WIC/SNAP/Health Insurance applications.

Pregnancies are not always planned, and birth control does not always work, so you cannot blame people for not always being 100% prepared when they have a child.

 

And it is telling that the same Republican Party that is intent on preventing women from terminating unwanted pregnancies, is now also intent on preventing children from receiving any public support, if one of their parents happens not to be a US citizen.

 

Force the parents to have the child, and then also prevent them from receiving any assistance?

If you have a child and one of the of the parents is a PR then this shouldn't be a problem. But I have seen first hand how illegal parents we still receive SNAP benefits for a USC child.  All the while I have four kids with my PR wife and we don't qualify for anything. But CA will go out of their way to help Illegals qualify.