M_&_R

Actually, I have to disagree with your attitude. Why should petitions at CSC be approved in 47 days and petions at VSC must wait 5,6,7 months?

Sure. I was married to my high school sweet heart for 8 years....she was unfaithful...We owned 2 homes, 2 vehicles and had 2 children together....10 months later, she wanted to get remarried.....My sister married her husband after 3 weeks, and after 27 years of marriage and 7 children and several grandchildren later...they are still happily married, and both are very devote Catholics. Either you keep your vows or you don't.

Hi Dan and Rheamy -I just want to share my thought here - no bad intentions but merely sharing my thought ok? Anyway, here's my thought - i agree that the OP shouldn't prey himself over negative emotion. It will just consume his well being and sanity. But I do not agree to just letting it go. The OP should do something if not to stop, atleast to prevent further fraud his wife may cause in future time. I don't just want to let karma do the job on that we must first do. I am not sure whats the impact in reporting to the ICE, but I think he really should. If everyone just let it go, marriage and / or visa fraud will just go on and on.

I agree - there's no indication anything was done in an illegal manner here. There are many ways this information could have been obtained that are perfectly legal.
M

I agree - there's no indication anything was done in an illegal manner here. There are many ways this information could have been obtained that are perfectly legal.
M

I'm glad to hear that in your experience this isn't a problem. That's progress. But your personal experience doesn't mean there isn't a gap, any more than others' personal experience means there *is* one - you argued that yourself, that one person's evidence can't be generalized to the population as a whole. Yours can't either, although it's great that yours is better than others'.
Again, I agree that the original stat is flawed. And even in the doc I posted, the numbers can be skewed by the top percent or two, who are likely to be male because women simply haven't had as much time on the playing field to get to that point.
However, I disagree that there is no gap at all. I think that's a little bit myopic.
M

I'm glad to hear that in your experience this isn't a problem. That's progress. But your personal experience doesn't mean there isn't a gap, any more than others' personal experience means there *is* one - you argued that yourself, that one person's evidence can't be generalized to the population as a whole. Yours can't either, although it's great that yours is better than others'.
Again, I agree that the original stat is flawed. And even in the doc I posted, the numbers can be skewed by the top percent or two, who are likely to be male because women simply haven't had as much time on the playing field to get to that point.
However, I disagree that there is no gap at all. I think that's a little bit myopic.
M

I'm a female working in technology. There's a gap. http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/stem_data.pdf
I agree the calculation without regard to actual job performed makes little sense. But that doesn't mean that a gap does not in fact exist.
M

I'm glad to hear that in your experience this isn't a problem. That's progress. But your personal experience doesn't mean there isn't a gap, any more than others' personal experience means there *is* one - you argued that yourself, that one person's evidence can't be generalized to the population as a whole. Yours can't either, although it's great that yours is better than others'.
Again, I agree that the original stat is flawed. And even in the doc I posted, the numbers can be skewed by the top percent or two, who are likely to be male because women simply haven't had as much time on the playing field to get to that point.
However, I disagree that there is no gap at all. I think that's a little bit myopic.
M

I'm a female working in technology. There's a gap. http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/stem_data.pdf
I agree the calculation without regard to actual job performed makes little sense. But that doesn't mean that a gap does not in fact exist.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

The most important thing for a baby is to have a loving and stable home. Of course you want your baby to have his father. And even more so, you want him to grow up happy and secure.
It sounds like you are in a situation where having the baby's father with you will lead to a less stable and supportive environment for your baby.
That totally sucks. But remind yourself, if you feel you are denying the baby his father, that having at least one parent at her best and totally capable of providing love and support to him without the distraction and drain of a difficult relationship is even more important.
If he drains you, he takes you away from your baby. You can't have that, mom. You know your priorities.
And yes, I'd be concerned that he'd take the baby away.
Only you can decide if you're ready to walk away or just take a step back and reassess. But yes, you definitely have indicators that it's a good idea to at least do the latter.
I have a year old baby. I've raised him this first year on my own. And part of me is glad that it was just me and him, as hard as it's been, because there are no other demands on me and nobody else's needs to consider but his and my own. He's unbelievably happy and secure, and I think having me at my best rather than distracted by relationship issues has contributed to that.
Best of luck,
M

The most important thing for a baby is to have a loving and stable home. Of course you want your baby to have his father. And even more so, you want him to grow up happy and secure.
It sounds like you are in a situation where having the baby's father with you will lead to a less stable and supportive environment for your baby.
That totally sucks. But remind yourself, if you feel you are denying the baby his father, that having at least one parent at her best and totally capable of providing love and support to him without the distraction and drain of a difficult relationship is even more important.
If he drains you, he takes you away from your baby. You can't have that, mom. You know your priorities.
And yes, I'd be concerned that he'd take the baby away.
Only you can decide if you're ready to walk away or just take a step back and reassess. But yes, you definitely have indicators that it's a good idea to at least do the latter.
I have a year old baby. I've raised him this first year on my own. And part of me is glad that it was just me and him, as hard as it's been, because there are no other demands on me and nobody else's needs to consider but his and my own. He's unbelievably happy and secure, and I think having me at my best rather than distracted by relationship issues has contributed to that.
Best of luck,
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I do see a judgment here, twice - "you're looking to not pay for something you got." That's not how I read this. He didn't know if she was eligible. He DID ask, and was told no. He accepted that and was looking for alternate methods when *they* contacted *him* to say oh you're in luck, we found a way to get you covered. He thought, "oh, thank goodness" - not knowing that the way they did it was to falsify a piece of information that he clearly gave them *accurately*.
Now, the issue is that if he had researched alternative ways, he would have gotten *assistance* with the situation, as someone in need of help because he did not have coverage. Anyone who has ever had a lapse in coverage knows that medical providers will work with patients of lesser means to assist them in meeting their obligations. Typically, they charge them quite a bit less.
That didn't happen for OP, because medicaid told him he was covered. So his wife's care was billed at full price.
Whatever you might think about the fact that different people pay different amounts for the same services, it's a fact. And the fact is, OP would have been billed less for everything had he used alternative resources to pay for the pregnancy.
So now OP has been billed at the "insured" rate and is being told he has to pay back at that rate. When it's not his fault that he was billed at that rate - he was honest and legitimately believed he was covered. Now what he has to pay back is way more than what his bills would have been had medicaid stayed with their original judgment of turning him down.
That is, in fact, not fair to OP, as it was Medicaid's mistake.
He's not looking not to pay for the care. He's looking to pay what he *legitimately* owes - which is the reduced rate offered to under- or un- insured patients. There's nothing wrong with that.
Just my 2 cents.
M

I disagree. Reading this thread without having seen the others, I assumed OP was a typical fiancee anxious about his petition, and had actually encountered "doomsaying" from VJ members based on his conviction. Poor OP, I sympathize. However, after reading the compilation posted by "Columbo" my opinion changed - OP wants to get to the US by any means he can find and feels he has found a way to use the girlfriend to do so. Now I don't feel bad for the OP. I just feel bad for the girlfriend.
OP didn't say "I'm in love and want to be with her at some point no matter what it takes" (like most of us). Rather, OP said he wanted to get to the US for his job, and because he was unhappy with his life in the UK. Now he sees a way to use his girlfriend to make it happen. It was "Columbo's" post that made this clear. So yeah, he did prove something.
M