Lawsuits filed against the insurance rule

[USS_Voyager 1,971]

56 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.

The proclamation was about one very specific thing: a requirement for health insurance of potential immigrant prior to issuance of an immigrant visa and/or green card. The reason according to Trump is: uninsured immigrants created the bulk of “uncompensated healthcare” on US hospitals. There is no evidence to back that up whatsoever, zero, none. There is evidence to the contrary actually, that is uninsured US citizens is the population that creates the bulk of “uncompensated healthcare” in the US. 

I am fine with the existing public charge clause,

just not with throwing health insurance on top of it with no directions and no plans (much like their replacement plans for Obamacare. Disaster!). 

[luckytxn 2,263]

2 hours 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. 

When the government required every resident to buy insurance and the supreme court said that it was OK to force commerce on the populace. It was actually only under Obama that forced commerce was ruled on so you are correct that before Obama the forced commerce was not around but it is now. So if American citizens are forced to have it then any legal or illegal aliens should be forced to. I told my wife her family will have to get insurance when they come here and to let her 7 brothers and sisters that are coming to know.

[Lemonslice 4,546]

9 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

When the government required every resident to buy insurance and the supreme court said that it was OK to force commerce on the populace. It was actually only under Obama that forced commerce was ruled on so you are correct that before Obama the forced commerce was not around but it is now. So if American citizens are forced to have it then any legal or illegal aliens should be forced to. I told my wife her family will have to get insurance when they come here and to let her 7 brothers and sisters that are coming to know.

We had to get car insurance, I wonder which politician fault it is... 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

When the government required every resident to buy insurance and the supreme court said that it was OK to force commerce on the populace. It was actually only under Obama that forced commerce was ruled on so you are correct that before Obama the forced commerce was not around but it is now. So if American citizens are forced to have it then any legal or illegal aliens should be forced to. I told my wife her family will have to get insurance when they come here and to let her 7 brothers and sisters that are coming to know.

How are you guys bringing over 7 siblings?

 

[Boiler 43,381]

6 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

The proclamation was about one very specific thing: a requirement for health insurance of potential immigrant prior to issuance of an immigrant visa and/or green card. The reason according to Trump is: uninsured immigrants created the bulk of “uncompensated healthcare” on US hospitals. There is no evidence to back that up whatsoever, zero, none. There is evidence to the contrary actually, that is uninsured US citizens is the population that creates the bulk of “uncompensated healthcare” in the US. 

I am fine with the existing public charge clause,

just not with throwing health insurance on top of it with no directions and no plans (much like their replacement plans for Obamacare. Disaster!). 

The one thing I feel fairly certain about is nobody has a clue what the figures are, how could they, they are not recorded. You could make some assumptions.

 

We can look to other Countries, Canada for example, or Australia or New Zealand and there regulations are much more challenging than these.

 

Let us just look at Parents which has been a common issue on VJ, and what is the norm when this is raised, crickets. When is the most expensive time for most people as far as healthcare is concerned, the last few years.

 

I did look up how much the healthcare costs would be on my Exchange for someone who is 80 and it was $25,000 a year for someone in moderate health, that is in effect subsidized as premiums for the elderly are limited to 3x the cost for the young. I hate to thing what a true actuarial figure would be.

 

I know people who are spending much more that that on care home for elderly parents and that is not covered in the above figures.

 

So if someone really wanted to do an actuarial cost to support a Parent who realistically is not going to work, pay into the system, then we must be looking at 7 figures under the current public charge provisions.

 

I can see the logic of many people sponsoring Parents, the Parents have no resources or none that can be traced, the I 864 is not enforced, as and when they need treatment they can usually get something and you can not get blood out of a stone. And what they can get is probably much more than they would get in their home country.

 

How many times have we read on here that there Parents are healthy etc, well so were mine, and my Grandparents, until they were not, time catches up with all of us and certainly in the US those cost issues are horrendous and everything I have seen suggests the costs will only increase.

 

Anyway if you want to bring a Parent over what should you be most concerned about, the current regulations being enforced.

 

 

[USS_Voyager 1,971]

7 hours ago, luckytxn said:

When the government required every resident to buy insurance and the supreme court said that it was OK to force commerce on the populace

Uhm, sir, that never happened. As someone pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court NEVER said it was ok to force commerce on the populace. Im fact, quite the opposite, SCOTUS ruled that the government cannot force anyone to buy anything. It was true for Obamacare, you could choose not to buy health insurance, but you have to pay a penalty. Same goes for car insurance, you can choose not to get car insurance, the state just won’t let you register your car.

[yuna628 9,527]

11 hours ago, Boiler said:

The one thing I feel fairly certain about is nobody has a clue what the figures are, how could they, they are not recorded. You could make some assumptions.

 

We can look to other Countries, Canada for example, or Australia or New Zealand and there regulations are much more challenging than these.

 

Let us just look at Parents which has been a common issue on VJ, and what is the norm when this is raised, crickets. When is the most expensive time for most people as far as healthcare is concerned, the last few years.

 

I did look up how much the healthcare costs would be on my Exchange for someone who is 80 and it was $25,000 a year for someone in moderate health, that is in effect subsidized as premiums for the elderly are limited to 3x the cost for the young. I hate to thing what a true actuarial figure would be.

 

I know people who are spending much more that that on care home for elderly parents and that is not covered in the above figures.

 

So if someone really wanted to do an actuarial cost to support a Parent who realistically is not going to work, pay into the system, then we must be looking at 7 figures under the current public charge provisions.

 

I can see the logic of many people sponsoring Parents, the Parents have no resources or none that can be traced, the I 864 is not enforced, as and when they need treatment they can usually get something and you can not get blood out of a stone. And what they can get is probably much more than they would get in their home country.

 

How many times have we read on here that there Parents are healthy etc, well so were mine, and my Grandparents, until they were not, time catches up with all of us and certainly in the US those cost issues are horrendous and everything I have seen suggests the costs will only increase.

 

Anyway if you want to bring a Parent over what should you be most concerned about, the current regulations being enforced.

 

 

Well, while I would argue that certainly an older person could potentially have more health problems in the future relating to great expense... there is no statistical way to judge that. I am far younger than an old person and thankfully since I had insurance, I was covered from some very expensive problems this year that certainly well-exceeded your $25,000 estimate from your exchange. My dad's stuff probably came to around $400,000-$500,000+ this year (have yet to see how much the helicopter cost). Yes he is elderly, but what happened to him is likely not typical to happen to any other elderly person I know. It was not due to his age, he was merely a ticking timebomb that went off. He had no idea it was going to happen, and no doctor ever picked up on it. No one can ever know the day when they will suddenly discover a chronic health problem, or cancer, or a tumor, or a variety of other conditions - young or old.

 

The law states that subsidized  and unsubsidized plans are available for anyone to use so long as they are legal in this country. A person looking to cover their elderly parent may certainly have trouble adding them without getting severe runaround, and so the exchange becomes a good option, if not designed for them. There is nothing in the law that has changed, and yet such proclamation compounds the issue by saying this is off limits. A thing cannot be illegal and yet legal at the same time. To be fair I am often given pause when I see VJ threads (think there was a recent one with the 86yr old MiL) and think to myself, what is this poster getting themselves into. I know it is partially love and partially not thinking clearly, but who am I to judge it? But.. the poster should know all the facts, that what they are thinking of doing is pretty unrealistic under normal circumstances.

 

Yes I would love a world where everyone understands the burden and is responsible and gets insurance for the people they bring, but it is not this world. USCs do not have to that on any day, and so millions remain uninsured and it is hard to ignore the quandary this creates in ignorance of the law. The government is not to save us from stupidity. Furthermore, as you've seen in threads yourself, confusion is only increasing, no one knows how to exactly prove what it is these policies want, and some are running towards junk insurance, which is a joke. This will not save the system from 'burdens'.

[Boiler 43,381]

I know more about the UK balance of costs but it is not going to be that different, spent time in UK hospitals and who do you see mainly, elderly. I know there are people on here who work in the US health system and I am sure they would say the same.

 

Ditto going to your GP. Look around the waiting room.

 

Which segment of the population is more likely to be on multiple drugs?

 

The figures are out there most medical expenditure is in the last few years of life.

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

14 hours 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.

You mean like DACA?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

You mean like DACA?

 

   Yes people keep saying that. Is the implication that it is acceptable for Trump to circumvent the law because Obama did? Seems hypocritical.

[USS_Voyager 1,971]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Yes people keep saying that. Is the implication that it is acceptable for Trump to circumvent the law because Obama did? Seems hypocritical.

Exactly, two wrongs don't make a right. 

[Dashinka 23,190]

16 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

Exactly, two wrongs don't make a right. 

So DACA should be eliminated?

[90DayFinancier 910]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So DACA should be eliminated?

No Congress should fix it

[USS_Voyager 1,971]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So DACA should be eliminated?

Yes, and the kids should be given actual green cards that they can apply to be citizens after 5 years like everybody else, through an Act of Congress and signed by the President into laws. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by USS_Voyager

[Dashinka 23,190]

12 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

Yes, and the kids should be given actual green cards that they can apply to be citizens after 5 years like everybody else, through an Act of Congress and signed by the President into laws. 

I agree, Congress should act.  Unfortunately, the House is otherwise engaged at the moment.