Medicaid For GC with No Work History

N

Neeta123

New Member
I am a U.S Citizen and I sponsored my elderly parents (>65) for their Green Card in Texas. Most of the posts on this site tell me that my parents cannot get any Medicaid benefits. I am aware that affidavit of support was signed in the application. However, on this web site, I noticed some positive posts indicating that they may qualify for Medicaid (and NOT medicare).

Can anyone share any information? Thanks!
 
Thank you very much BigJoe.
Big Joe and any others who can help, Hi...I am just starting on this and have no clue. I checked visitor plans which run upto $700-800 and do not cover any pre-existing conditions. We are in Texas. Has anyone else been in this situation? Elderly parents with Green Card, no work history, pre-existing conditions, difficult to get health insurance, tried for Medicaid?
1. For Taxes, should I file them as dependents?
2. If yes, then if they are dependents, then can they be eligible for Medicaid? For the website you sent me, where do I start?
 
They need to be permanent residents for at least 5 years to qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Or get citizenship.
 
Neeta123 said:
Has anyone else been in this situation? Elderly parents with Green Card, no work history, pre-existing conditions, difficult to get health insurance, tried for Medicaid?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it usually leads to disaster (financially or healthwise), or sending them back to the original country for treatment. That's why we often warn people here against bringing their old parents to the US.
 
I always bought 100K insurance for my parents. I think it is especially important for you since you have signed the affidavit of support.
 
Thanks All. This 5 year period from GC to Citizenship is a barrier that has to be crossed. Any one that has been in my situation, what did you all do?

HumHongeKamyab - Which insurance did you buy? Insurance name, premium, from where did you purchase it, duration etc? Any guidance you can provide is much appreciated.
 
HumHongeKamyaab said:
I always bought 100K insurance for my parents. I think it is especially important for you since you have signed the affidavit of support.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this gets you about 60 days of low-grade hospitalization. A major surgery and 10 days in hospital can easily plow through $100K in coverage.
 
hi guys,,,
I advice you if you can go for 100k insurance it is the best choice.Medicaid is a federal government program.It provides healthcare coverage to certain categories of people who have low income and few assets.if they are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Old Age Pension (OAP) state supplemental payments they will be eligible for Medicaid.
 
Neeta123, I am research this as well for my parents. I found out that there is high risk pool that every state has. This high risk pool for Texas is http://www.txhealthpool.org/
This is expensive from what I hear but it may be the cost of reaching the 5 year mark until they qualify for Medicaid which needs 5 year wait from what I read.
Please post your response and let's share information here.

Thanks!
Mahesh
 
Remember that Medicaid benefits are based on HOUSEHOLD income. If they are living with you or you are providing some of their support or are claiming them on taxes, your income will most likely make them ineligible. Also any funds they receive from pensions count against income limits and they can have very few assets. Any assets given away count against those assets.

Also few doctors accept Medicaid patients.
 
This is Exploiting the loop hole and you skim off tax payers money. How do you expect for us taxpayers to pay for your parents who hadnt contributed a single penny.
They are your parents, why dont you take care of them, or leave them where they are and help them financial, and pay for their treatment abroad.

Hard working people are finding a tough time these days, and people like these are one of the causes.

Every drop counts !
 
solid_traveling said:
This is Exploiting the loop hole and you skim off tax payers money. How do you expect for us taxpayers to pay for your parents who hadnt contributed a single penny.
They are your parents, why dont you take care of them, or leave them where they are and help them financial, and pay for their treatment abroad.
Click to expand...

Just trying to nit pick ... if it goes overboard, tell me.

What's wrong in applying for aid? I see the following scenarios when it should not be done
a) applicant has declared sponsorship and has not yet fulfilled the terms of that
b) applicant went bankrupt

I see the following scenarios when it can be done, without qualms
a) sponsor has finished the terms of the sponsorship, AND
b) parent has naturalized (not still on GC)

If the whole country is built on the model of parents living separately from their children, why would you penalize new immigrants as long as they have satisfied the immigration requirements. If you want the sponsorship to be longer, I am ok with that. If you want separate rules for new immigrants vs "mature immigrants", I am ok with that. What I am not ok is subjectively applying rules ... if a person needs aid, the person needs aid, and should get aid as per the laws.
 
If they knew they could not be self sufficient in the US, they should not have come. Do you realize that the payments for SSI and Medicaid are so low that the individuals will be living in subsidized housing (if available) and eating in soup kitchens since food stamps do not go that far. If a child contributes to his parents income, it counts to their assets and will eliminate them from the programs. Don't even think about lying about income. Any of their assets will need to be accounted for so they cannot give them away. I would hope that they want better for their parents than living in a slum infested with druggies and prostitutes and depending on the charity of others. They would have been better off left in their home country than living with the contempt and scorn of hard working individuals who are tired of supporting immigrants who have never contributed to the US. If they had worked, they would have had savings or Social Security to draw on.

If the parents were capable of meeting naturalization requirements, they shouldhave been off the sofa and working. Many US citizens work into their 70s and 80s. Why should someone come to the US and think they can do otherwise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are so many people who win diversity lottery, are they all qualified meet this test of self sufficiency? There are so many people who enter as refugees, are they qualified to support the society? There are so many illegals, how is their impact not considered?

I support anyone taking government benefits as long as they are eligible and as long as they are not lying / forging documents to show that eligibility. If there is a legal avenue to get help, we should show it.

However, there are bigger questions that our corrupt politicians will not resolve, so yes, there will be soup kitchens for as many years we will live. And even after that. But the solution to fixing them lies elsewhere. If / when you fix the politicians, first you cut down the abuse, then reduce the benefits (for such immigrants first if needed). It is not hard to calculate what the benefits of each action will be (within 5% accuracy I will say) but the demagoguery is what is killing the country, not individual benefits.
 
sanjoseaug20 said:
There are so many people who win diversity lottery, are they all qualified meet this test of self sufficiency? There are so many people who enter as refugees, are they qualified to support the society? There are so many illegals, how is their impact not considered?
Click to expand...

For DV applicants, yes. They are subject the same requirements of not being a public charge as any other permanent resident. For refugees, they get a year to support themselves before they file the I-485. And illegals - surely you are joking?

I support anyone taking government benefits as long as they are eligible and as long as they are not lying / forging documents to show that eligibility. If there is a legal avenue to get help, we should show it.
Click to expand...

The point is, there typically aren't legal ways - and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'm not sure why American taxpayers such as myself should subsidize elderly parents who have not contributed to the system when there are contributors and taxpayers who are suffering.

the demagoguery is what is killing the country, not individual benefits.
Click to expand...

Medicare and Social Security consume approximately 60% of the budget and it is rising. Any road to fiscal solvency will require serious cuts to government transfer programs.
 
TheRealCanadian said:
For DV applicants, yes. They are subject the same requirements of not being a public charge as any other permanent resident. For refugees, they get a year to support themselves before they file the I-485. And illegals - surely you are joking?
Click to expand...

I am sorry I do not know the laws about specific category of visas and when they are allowed to be public charge and when not.
But the point is ... once a person has satisfied the requirements, they should be allowed to get the benefit given to all people in that same category.
What you need to look at is the laws and their implementation, not an individual trying to get the best benefits as allowed under the law.
So if 60% of the benefits are in one category, then figure out how you are going to fix it. But do not say that this one person is going to make that number 60.001% and hence that is bad. The 60% is the problem, not the 0.001%. Yes, each 0.001% adds up to 60, but the idea is to make macro changes ...

So if a state program offers medicaid for GC holders ... why would we rabble rouse against an individual, you should be telling the state to stop it, but telling the individual on which forms to fill up to get the aid, and also provide a list of most preferred states to get such an aid.

To give an example on similar lines ... I so much like the Arizona (and now Georgia I believe) program to fix the illegal problem as best as they can. However, as hypothetical, if Maine gives a drivers license to anyone without any proof, while I not like the person who was trying to abuse it to get a DL, the fact remains that the bigger problem is the state.

To give another example ... what is wrong in publishing a list of states where radar detectors are allowed. We all know what they are used for, at least in 99.99% of the cases. The problem again is only partly with an individual using it, but the bigger problem is with the state.
 
TheRealCanadian said:
Medicare and Social Security consume approximately 60% of the budget and it is rising. Any road to fiscal solvency will require serious cuts to government transfer programs.
Click to expand...

Real, don''t take it personally ... but the above sentence is an example of how various politicians demagogue ...

Medicare and Social Security ... consume ... 60%. Wow!!
#1. 60% ? That sounds so high.
Why is it lower in other countries? Why cant we bring it down to lower number? Simple answer - political patronage to insurance companies, pharma and so on.
#2. Transfer payments .... you mean to say all 60% is transfer?
Is it that none of these people have paid into the system? While you can say the younger generation is paying for the older one, but the older ones already paid ... they might be consuming more than what they are eligible for, so let's go and rationalize that. But surely all 60% can not be transfer !!

I know you did not mean it this way, but please note that the politicians use a confusing set of statements much like this to give the impression of something draconian while serving the interests of their friends and their real paymasters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top