Lawsuits filed against the insurance rule

[USS_Voyager 1,971]

As expected, a number of lawsuits were filed yesterday by a number of individuals and organization against the new "insurance rule", for sure will delay the implementation of such rule until court battles have settled. 

 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/31/19103090.pdf

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

As expected, a number of lawsuits were filed yesterday by a number of individuals and organization against the new "insurance rule", for sure will delay the implementation of such rule until court battles have settled. 

 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/31/19103090.pdf

I love the optics outlined in paragraph 1.

It reminds me that good law and good theater are both good performing arts.

[luckytxn 2,263]

3 hours ago, USS_Voyager said:

As expected, a number of lawsuits were filed yesterday by a number of individuals and organization against the new "insurance rule", for sure will delay the implementation of such rule until court battles have settled. 

 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/31/19103090.pdf

More bull #######. These rules were in place already under other presidential regimes and was enforced under Clinton, Bush and Obama and was Ok by everyone so the only reason peoples panties are in a twist over it now is because Trump is POTUS. So the fake outrage is ludicrous.

[90DayFinancier 910]

26 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

More bull #######. These rules were in place already under other presidential regimes and was enforced under Clinton, Bush and Obama and was Ok by everyone so the only reason peoples panties are in a twist over it now is because Trump is POTUS. So the fake outrage is ludicrous.

Not true, you must be thinking of the public charge rule also a proclamation under challenge from the courts.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Sounds pretty much like the spirit behind the document I had to sign promising that my fiancé wouldn’t become a public charge back in 2011.  Great idea to protect our country.

 

i can’t remember... was Trump in charge back then?

[USS_Voyager 1,971]

1 hour ago, luckytxn said:

More bull #######. These rules were in place already under other presidential regimes and was enforced under Clinton, Bush and Obama and was Ok by everyone so the only reason peoples panties are in a twist over it now is because Trump is POTUS. So the fake outrage is ludicrous.

We’re talking specifically about the “health insurance” proclamation here. Show me when under Clinton or Bush or Obama that the government ever required health insurance specifically before they will issue an immigrant visa?

 

Public charge is a whole different thing. It’s a pillar of immigration policy ever since we had Ellis Island. I was there couple weeks ago, walking around the exhibits and there it was, the  “public charge” rule, in place since 1896. But nobody ever required potential immigrants to have health insurance PRIOR to coming to the US. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

We’re talking specifically about the “health insurance” proclamation here. Show me when under Clinton or Bush or Obama that the government ever required health insurance specifically before they will issue an immigrant visa?

 

Public charge is a whole different thing. It’s a pillar of immigration policy ever since we had Ellis Island. I was there couple weeks ago, walking around the exhibits and there it was, the  “public charge” rule, in place since 1896. But nobody ever required potential immigrants to have health insurance PRIOR to coming to the US. 

What's wrong with this?  If a USC is required to carry health insurance, why not a legal immigrant?  Makes a lot of sense to me.

[laylalex 7,249]

10 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

What's wrong with this?  If a USC is required to carry health insurance, why not a legal immigrant?  Makes a lot of sense to me.

I thought USCs aren't required to carry health insurance -- even before they stripped out the individual mandate, a person could always choose to pay the penalty on their taxes.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

What's wrong with this?  If a USC is required to carry health insurance, why not a legal immigrant?  Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

  Immigration law is the realm of congress. They could certainly address this as part of immigration reform if that is what they choose to do. However the president doesn't just get to make this stuff up. Hence he gets sued. Again.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

35 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Immigration law is the realm of congress. They could certainly address this as part of immigration reform if that is what they choose to do. However the president doesn't just get to make this stuff up. Hence he gets sued. Again.

Oh, kinda like DACA?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

38 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I thought USCs aren't required to carry health insurance -- even before they stripped out the individual mandate, a person could always choose to pay the penalty on their taxes.

Yeah back in the day.  They’re gone as of 2019 it seems.

[yuna628 9,530]

57 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

What's wrong with this?  If a USC is required to carry health insurance, why not a legal immigrant?  Makes a lot of sense to me.

I've talked about this alot in the other threads going on and on about it.. 

 

A USC has never been required to have health insurance. Never was back then and never was now. SCOTUS defined that very clearly. Nor did the 'penalty' when it existed ever really have any teeth, and if anything gave some an incentive to not have insurance.

 

Now we can certainly say that it's a good thing that spouses and children buy insurance for whatever immigrant family members they bring over, but the point of the argument about health insurance was, at least from the R perspective, was that it was not up to the government to force a person to obtain health insurance. That is somewhat why I believe that some or part of the various policies trying to be implemented will have a difficult time getting through. There are other really terrible points, such as the LAW still saying to this day that immigrants are eligible for the ACA (subsidized or unsubsidized) and this completely butting heads with that. The ACA is not means tested benefits, and nothing has been changed to reflect it. It remains the law and the DHS policy on calling a subsidy in the realm of ''public charge'' doesn't change that.

 

Once you get past these issues, there is the path of implementation. It is one thing to want to make a change such as this, and quite another to not prepare properly for it. Insurance companies still continue to mislead people about how one can obtain insurance, and can provide a real barrier to some in trying to do so for immigrant family members. The proclamation which this thread is about actually obfuscated it further by neither defining or clarifying what exactly is expected of applicants and the DoS were clearly not ready for it.

 

[Boiler 43,543]

The current regulations allow a lot of latitude and the proposed clarification strikes me as being quite generous as to what can be shown to meet the existing public charge requirements.

[90DayFinancier 910]

14 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The current regulations allow a lot of latitude and the proposed clarification strikes me as being quite generous as to what can be shown to meet the existing public charge requirements.

This is  a "clarification" ?klar som lera- clear as Mud. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

30 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I've talked about this alot in the other threads going on and on about it.. 

 

A USC has never been required to have health insurance. Never was back then and never was now. SCOTUS defined that very clearly. Nor did the 'penalty' when it existed ever really have any teeth, and if anything gave some an incentive to not have insurance.

 

Now we can certainly say that it's a good thing that spouses and children buy insurance for whatever immigrant family members they bring over, but the point of the argument about health insurance was, at least from the R perspective, was that it was not up to the government to force a person to obtain health insurance. That is somewhat why I believe that some or part of the various policies trying to be implemented will have a difficult time getting through. There are other really terrible points, such as the LAW still saying to this day that immigrants are eligible for the ACA (subsidized or unsubsidized) and this completely butting heads with that. The ACA is not means tested benefits, and nothing has been changed to reflect it. It remains the law and the DHS policy on calling a subsidy in the realm of ''public charge'' doesn't change that.

 

Once you get past these issues, there is the path of implementation. It is one thing to want to make a change such as this, and quite another to not prepare properly for it. Insurance companies still continue to mislead people about how one can obtain insurance, and can provide a real barrier to some in trying to do so for immigrant family members. The proclamation which this thread is about actually obfuscated it further by neither defining or clarifying what exactly is expected of applicants and the DoS were clearly not ready for it.

 

We need to get this level clarity into the State department.