Aubrey

It probably won't be that bad if I can add by wife to my employer sponsored plan (no SS) come open enrollment period. However, I'd be in a pickle if they don't allow me to add her without a SS number.
 
Immigration is not a qualifying life event for adding someone to your insurance https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualifying-life-event/
 
I think they ought to fix that before making such changes. However, the government isn't known for making logical decisions.

Rephrased:
 
Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me (with health insurance),
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

To be fair, I've been a little concerned about insurance through the process and I think I was going to probably purchase by own even though I'm a completely healthy person. I work in healthcare so I know how a person can have an appendix burst from one day to the next and require surgery. 
 
However, I do think this is gonna separate a lot of low income families, and it makes no sense to me considering a lot of US born citizens are uninsured themselves due to the broken healthcare system in America. Thinking that barring LEGAL immigrants is gonna somehow solve those issues, instead of actual restructuring the healthcare system is ridiculous, and won't solve any of the high costs of Healthcare in America. 
 
Until I see straightforward guidelines as to how this is gonna be implemented, what I see is just another attempt to make things messy and difficult for legal immigration. Quite the dirty thing to do imho

Sound totally reasonable to me....
 
one question tho, how do I purchase insurance when my SS number may not arrive until after the 30 day post date of entry? 
 
Having already visited a few times, seems you can’t do a right lot of anything without a SS number 🤷‍♀️ And it’s evident USCIS is notorious for exceeding expected timeframes 

I wonder how the thirty days will work with K-1. We can't add them to our insurance at work until we are married, right ? 

So how many here who are petitioning for relatives still think Trump's making America great again?
 
Asking for 320 million friends. 
 

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/4/20899610/trump-deny-visas-uninsured-low-income-immigrants
 
Mods feel free to move this if it's in the wrong forum.

I agree, great post, Nab.
For those who asked about why someone posts this type of question in an immigration forum, please scroll up to the top of the page and read the title of this forum: 'Finding Work in America'. Finding or going to work after someone arrives in the US is a continuation of the process of immigrating to a new country and is a valid topic for discussion. While the individual involved may just be lazy as suggested, it may also be that there is a cultural aspect involved and the issue concerns the US/Immigrant couple making a life together after the immigrant arrives in the US. Immigration isn't just the nuts and bolts of the process to get here and stay here - it is also about the people involved in the relationship.

Okay so I'll admit I am a health nut and pay attention to the news. I'm not gullible but I've watched first hand how environmental substances can harm your health.
This affects all of us! So I'm posting this link with the hope of helping even a few who watch it!
http://www.cnn.com/S.../toxic.america/

Uh, yeah, they've both been hung, beaten, had laws made against them to discriminate, lost jobs and opportunities due to who they are... totally different...

My mis-statement does not equate misunderstanding the Constitution. I was attempting to remind you that we have guaranteed rights in our Constitution, not the "right to pursue" them as you were trying to argue. I know full well that the equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment, tyvm.
The U.S. Supreme Court's opinions do not "make" laws, but they clarify or overturn them as unconstitutional. Clarification can expand protection of a group under a law, or it could state that it does not apply to a group. It HAS made decisions on marriage before, an it CAN decide cases of this matter. It DOES matter "what's right" under the law.
Equal protection also can be considered based on the rights of people between states. When a person is considered married legally in one state and not another, that can be a foundation for an opinion by the SC. When a couple must spend $1000's to write contracts to gain the same rights as a couple allowed to marry, THAT can be considered.
I've said enough on this topic. But I think that people like you who argue against this are just as bad as those who supported segregation and opposed voting rights for women and minorities. Discriminating against gays/lesbians is equivalent and you should be ashamed for supporting discriminatory practices.

Uh, yeah, they've both been hung, beaten, had laws made against them to discriminate, lost jobs and opportunities due to who they are... totally different...

You clearly don't understand the law or our Constitution. Half-quoting the Declaration of Independence is no basis for your ridiculous attempt at an argument.
We have a Bill of Rights. In it there is a thing called the equal protection clause. This is the very basis for which Prop 8 was overturned. Read about it. Understand it. Your definitions of what you think are "rights" versus "wants" are not the same as those defined by the laws of the U.S. and the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Marriage is considered a right according to the past opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court (see Loving v. Virginia) and protected citizens from discrimination regarding the right to marry. "Conditions" must fall within reason under the law and allow for equal protection under the law. A federal judge overturned Prop 8 based on the fact that it denied equal protection based on religious beliefs (which the government cannot discriminate by). It will now likely go to the Supreme Court, if they accept the case.

You clearly don't understand the law or our Constitution. Half-quoting the Declaration of Independence is no basis for your ridiculous attempt at an argument.
We have a Bill of Rights. In it there is a thing called the equal protection clause. This is the very basis for which Prop 8 was overturned. Read about it. Understand it. Your definitions of what you think are "rights" versus "wants" are not the same as those defined by the laws of the U.S. and the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Marriage is considered a right according to the past opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court (see Loving v. Virginia) and protected citizens from discrimination regarding the right to marry. "Conditions" must fall within reason under the law and allow for equal protection under the law. A federal judge overturned Prop 8 based on the fact that it denied equal protection based on religious beliefs (which the government cannot discriminate by). It will now likely go to the Supreme Court, if they accept the case.

It is a federal issue. Federal judges have repeatedly overturned laws that discriminate people's civil liberties regarding marriage (not just for homosexual marriages, but in the past for interracial marriages, etc). The federal government has not made a distinction between marriage and civil unions for the purpose of laws (such as in other countries, where you're in a union according the government and a marriage according to your faith), and as such, citizens are guaranteed equal protection under federal law. States may not violate equal protection.
You can continue to argue this, but the precedent on this matter is pretty clear. It doesn't become less of a federal issue just because you wish it wasn't.

I have to agree about the OT forum to those who say it's a cesspool. I regularly see racist or sexist comments that are clearly intended to flame someone. And that attitude spills into other subforums. I get so tired of the people who spam VJ all day and are part of their little clique dominating the forums and being so rude to anyone that dare respond to them.
I think that the community feel of VJ falls flat because of the treatment that's allowed to persist towards newer members and the hate that fills OT. Rather than calling older members to post in OT, I think that moderation efforts need to zap topics much more frequently that are filled with these inflammatory comments and threads started only for that purpose. Not just because OT is an ugly place to try to visit, but because members feel that they can mistreat others in immigration-related forums because it's allowed in OT.
It's a lot like a classroom. Crazy stuff can happen outside the classroom, but once you step inside it should be a safe learning environment for everyone, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or what clique you belong to. Good schools create that environment. Bad ones allow the cursing, teasing, and harassment to happen openly in their classrooms.

I have to agree about the OT forum to those who say it's a cesspool. I regularly see racist or sexist comments that are clearly intended to flame someone. And that attitude spills into other subforums. I get so tired of the people who spam VJ all day and are part of their little clique dominating the forums and being so rude to anyone that dare respond to them.
I think that the community feel of VJ falls flat because of the treatment that's allowed to persist towards newer members and the hate that fills OT. Rather than calling older members to post in OT, I think that moderation efforts need to zap topics much more frequently that are filled with these inflammatory comments and threads started only for that purpose. Not just because OT is an ugly place to try to visit, but because members feel that they can mistreat others in immigration-related forums because it's allowed in OT.
It's a lot like a classroom. Crazy stuff can happen outside the classroom, but once you step inside it should be a safe learning environment for everyone, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or what clique you belong to. Good schools create that environment. Bad ones allow the cursing, teasing, and harassment to happen openly in their classrooms.

I've posted a poll for members opinions on what they'd like from OT. Remember you don't have to be a current user of OT to vote!
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/257772-ot-and-you/

You very lightly mention that people move on from VJ, but fail to address that the reason many seasoned vets have moved on because this place has become a 'cesspool'. Their concerns are not addressed. Ewok just lets them go, allowing the bullies to proliferate, and even appointing one a junior woodchuck mod. Just to shrug one's shoulders over the emigration from this site, to me, is evidence that you don't actually care.

These stats don't even count the stay at home parents, the recent college graduates who've been looking for work all this time and don't qualify for UI, or those technically unemployed but still able to do some kind of work at regular hours for less than a living wage but trying to make a contribution like babysitters, house sitters, craft makers, ect...
I recently applied for 2 jobs at a TV station where someone I went to college with works and gives me the inside scoop. He told me 81 people have applied for the video journalists job I applied for and that position just opened this week. I also applied for the part time morning production specialist position just to get my foot in the door. I was really bummed recently when I saw a job I applied for at another TV was just taken down this week and I was well qualified for it with over seven years experience and a college degree in the field and I didn't even get a call for an interview. Employers here tell us there are 200 applicants for every one job.

I don't see anything wrong with a survivor dancing to "I WILL SURVIVE" with his daughter and grandkids. He clearly is celebrating his life that he somehow managed to survive that place.
We all look back at our own history in different ways. Some people throw divorce parties. Some people throw a party when someone dies to celebrate their life. It's his personal story in this case, he clearly wasn't trying to represent those who perished. Let him be.

I don't see anything wrong with a survivor dancing to "I WILL SURVIVE" with his daughter and grandkids. He clearly is celebrating his life that he somehow managed to survive that place.
We all look back at our own history in different ways. Some people throw divorce parties. Some people throw a party when someone dies to celebrate their life. It's his personal story in this case, he clearly wasn't trying to represent those who perished. Let him be.