SailNet Community banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,167 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The US government has announce a new requirement to make all people entering the USA in visas have medical insurance.

To come in by boat you need a B1B2 visa so now you will need to show intention to buy insurance or the ability to self-insure.

Problem is that all travel insurance to the USA I found excludes 2 causes: Heart attacks and cancers. I guess as they say the underlying causes are pre-existing.

And what else do you really need insurance for?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-to-require-immigrants-to-prove-they-can-afford-health-insurance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
The US government has announce a new requirement to make all people entering the USA in visas have medical insurance.

To come in by boat you need a B1B2 visa so now you will need to show intention to buy insurance or the ability to self-insure.

Problem is that all travel insurance to the USA I found excludes 2 causes: Heart attacks and cancers. I guess as they say the underlying causes are pre-existing.

And what else do you really need insurance for?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-to-require-immigrants-to-prove-they-can-afford-health-insurance

I guess the solution is simple, simply don't go. :grin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,155 Posts
Our chief executive thinks the Central American immigrants read the daily paper on their pads. Believes this this will decrease immigration. The impact on cruising sailors is unintentional blowby. Unfortunately you aren’t a sufficient economic driver to be meaningful in the big picture so don’t expect this to change anything.
Would however note behavior both I and my wife have experienced for decades now. A person is diagnosed with an illness requiring expensive care. They fly to the US and upon getting off the plane “suddenly “ have an acute flair. Given any hospital or physician who takes Medicare/Medicaid is required by law to treat whoever walks through the door in acute need and at least stabilize them while making fiscal arrangements for continued care so these people get admitted. You can’t discharge them until it’s safe to do so. My wife worked in a neonatal unit. These people and their new offspring would cost tens of thousands of dollars per individual per day. I would see similar behavior in my field. The whole thing snowballs as the primary caregiver isn’t able to work so subsidies follow including to the rest of the family unit that travelled in with the individual who needed care. Typically it isn’t an uneducated indigent population but rather middle class or upper middle class working this scenario. They’re rules to prevent women near the end of term from getting on a plane to visit the US. They are impossible to follow.
Once the index case is cured, or pregnancy delivered and child no longer requires expensive neonatal care they leave back to their home country. Our tax payer dollars and scarce icu beds are used to continue this behavior. In short we are being “gamed”. It does cost us significant money. It’s an intelligent way to behave if you’re a sick foreigner and can’t get services in your home country.
This rule change is a clumsy fix to a real problem. As usual he’s playing to his crowd not doing the heavy lifting to really address the issue intelligently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,155 Posts
Would suggest the less flashy fix would be to generate a bill for the totality of the event including both medical care and the various housing and living expense subsidies. Present that bill to the home country. If they are already receiving US aid subtract those expenses from the aid. That would place the burden of preventing those events on the home country not having US citizens having to deal with the consequences.
Such events are rare with illegal immigrants as they must endure honorific conditions to get here. So the ill are more unlikely to start their journey and if commenced less likely to survive it. Rather in my experience these people have had the funds to get here via plane so are traveling in accordance to law on tourist visas.
 

·
bell ringer
Joined
·
4,817 Posts
The US government has announce a new requirement to make all people entering the USA in visas have medical insurance.
How interesting as they don't require us citizens to have health insurance.

Sounds like a way to keep the foreign boat scum away :wink
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,155 Posts
Mideast and Africa with a few from SE Asia seem to be the sources we’ve seen. Rich get services at home or elsewhere. As said seems to be a mostly middle class group.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
Mideast and Africa with a few from SE Asia seem to be the sources we’ve seen. Rich get services at home or elsewhere. As said seems to be a mostly middle class group.

Could those same people go to Canada, the UK, France or Germany to " Game" the system? Or is it just the U.S. laws that make it more possible?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,167 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I doubt cruisers sail a the way to the US to game the system.

It will just cost us a few extra thousand dollars for insurance that's worthless as it doesn't cover MI, cancer or the leading causes of acute care needed for cruising age folks.

I totally agree with it as a requirement to enter any country on vacation.... It's just the exclusions make it a BS.


Mark
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
12,234 Posts
Mideast and Africa with a few from SE Asia seem to be the sources we’ve seen. Rich get services at home or elsewhere. As said seems to be a mostly middle class group.
My wife is a newborn nursery RN in a large City hospital which specializes in newborn and neonatal care.

The scenario you just presented is a very common one and a change she has seen over the last 15 years. Many foreigners well to do coming with the specific reasons of having babies here.

Of course all babies born in US are considered US citizens by birth.

I am sure this occurs in other specialties as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,800 Posts
I know someone (extremely liberal btw) that actually accommodates foreigners coming to deliver their babies, obtain US citizenship for them and go home. She feels she is saving them and houses them, while they are here. Free natal care, as they just don’t pay. While the Southern boarder gets all the political attention, immigration is an outdated mess.

I support this proposal, just like many other countries require, eg Cuba. Buy it temporarily at the boarder, if you don’t have it. Of course, we need to establish something to buy. The birthright citizenship needs to change too.

Don’t misunderstand my overall position, we need significant immigration to continue to expand our economy (for now). It just needs to be much smarter. Both parties agree with this.

However, artificial intelligence is going to eliminate 80% (guessing to make a point) of all jobs at some point. I bet as soon as the next 50 years. Prepare for it. There will be a very new dynamic when work ethic will have little to do with economic self reliance for most. We are at the very front edge of it now. Fascinating thought, if you can prevent contemporary politics from polluting one’s thinking.

This future should eliminate political parties too, IMO. They are simply legalized racketeering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
I doubt cruisers sail a the way to the US to game the system.

It will just cost us a few extra thousand dollars for insurance that's worthless as it doesn't cover MI, cancer or the leading causes of acute care needed for cruising age folks.

I totally agree with it as a requirement to enter any country on vacation.... It's just the exclusions make it a BS.


Mark
In case you didn't know, there are high-deductible insurance policies. The cost of those policies are much lower because they only pay after the deductible is met. Think of them as "hit by a bus" policies. If you get hit by a bus and need a lot of medical care, they keep you from going bankrupt. If you want someone to pay for your flu shot, then these high-deductible insurance policies are not for you.

I haven't read all the specifics of what will be implemented. Perhaps the law requires a certain level of basic coverage and a high-deductible policy is not permitted.

However, the new rule also permits those individuals who can demonstrate that they have finances capable of paying their medical expenses to receive a visa. So, does that mean if you can show a bank account with a certain sum that you are OK? Or does it mean that if you can post some sort of bond (put money in escrow) that you are OK? I imagine that is spelled out in the rule or will be. You might even be able to use your boat as proof of financial ability to pay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,800 Posts
The ACA (aka Obamacare) does mandate insurance for US citizens or you pay a fine, with your taxes. I also believe this act eliminated much of the hit by bus policies, as they don’t provide a designated minimum level of coverage.

For those with the resources to self insure the little stuff, I always thought the major medical style plans made sense. Very high deductible plans still exist, but once you’ve met the deductible, they still cover much more than the old safety net plans did.

The argument, of course, is you reduce cost for everyone, if you get all the healthy people paying premiums. There is a logic to it, if not the kind of freedom some want.
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
8,391 Posts
The US government has announce a new requirement to make all people entering the USA in visas have medical insurance.

To come in by boat you need a B1B2 visa so now you will need to show intention to buy insurance or the ability to self-insure.

Problem is that all travel insurance to the USA I found excludes 2 causes: Heart attacks and cancers. I guess as they say the underlying causes are pre-existing.

And what else do you really need insurance for?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-to-require-immigrants-to-prove-they-can-afford-health-insurance
I would suggest you take anything you hear on Fox news with less than a grain of salt. They have a rather biased stance on reporting and almost as low a credibility rating as Breitbart News Network.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I would suggest you take anything you hear on Fox news with less than a grain of salt. They have a rather biased stance on reporting and almost as low a credibility rating as Breitbart News Network.
So to be clear, are you suggesting that this BS, or just your opinion?
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
8,391 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,167 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Think of them as "hit by a bus" policies.


However, the new rule also permits those individuals who can demonstrate that they have finances capable of paying their medical expenses to receive a visa. So, does that mean if you can show a bank account with a certain sum that you are OK?.
A) Being hit by a bus would be subject to a third party personal injury claim... The chance of a pedestrian being found liable is negligible.
But I get your point and that could be the perfect type of policy.

B) yes, proof of funds is very interesting. I wonder what the number would be? As a heart attack us not covered under any travelers policy, and I understand a 'normal' MI in the USA gas a bill of over $50,000 it could be a pretty big number.
$50k, if I recall was based on 5 days inpatient and tests, stabilisation but not stents and invasive procedures.

I'm sure the US doesn't want to stop all tourist visa travel just illegal and medical travel. So proof of $15,000 funds would stop the scams and happens to be what Canada requires.
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top