Healthcare Law in the U.S.

Obama Care an Expats with link to full text below. What it doesn't say is how you prove to the IRS that you live outside the US

CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE

(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

------------------------------------

(f) Minimum essential coverage
For purposes of this section—

(1) In general
The term “minimum essential coverage” means any of the following:

-----------------------------------------------

(4) Individuals residing outside United States or residents of territories
Any applicable individual shall be treated as having minimum essential coverage for any month—

(A) if such month occurs during any period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1) which is applicable to the individual, or

(B) if such individual is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for such month

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/html/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleD-chap48.htm

Axixic wrote:

Parker wrote:Does anyone know if the government will regulate these premiums because if they don’t who will even be able to afford them?

Well, the Libertarian view would be that, left unregulated, market forces will determine premiums. But I guess that only provides comfort if one subscribes to a Libertarian viewpoint.

If the insurance companies refused patients with pre-existing conditions before how does this law change the attitude of wanting them? I mean couldn’t they have done this before and charge exorbitant prices. My thoughts are the rules of “supply & demand” are not going to work on this issue.

I had health care via my employer since I was 25 years old; they were generous to continue my coverage after I retired. I've never had to think twice about going to a doctor or buying medication.

However, growing up poor, both parents working menial jobs, neither with health care, here's what I remember:

My mother ignoring symptoms until she landed in the ER;
My father having to pull a double shift if there was a doctor bill for anyone in our family (3 kids);
My chronic bouts with tonsillitis my whole childhood because my family simply could not afford a tonsilectomy.

It's better we as a nation extend health insurance to everyone.

There is no essential difference in this individual mandate than the requirement that everyone's paycheck is subject to Social Security, aka as FICA on your paystub, and it stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Only thing I can think of is using your Mexico address on your 1040 rather than some US address. There is no box on a 1040-ES to state you are a "U.S. Citizen or Resident Alien Abroad"


http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97324,00.html/

hound dog wrote:BY the way, speaking of U.S. citizens or other foreigners living in Mexico, on the Guadalajara news this morning, I heard that the Seguridad Popular will no longer enroll foreigners unless they become Mexican citizens. I don´t know if this is just local to Guadalajara or a nationwide administrative decision. This exclusion woud make sense since that program is for the poor here in Mexico and extranjeros hardy fit that bill in general - especially those here only temporarily.

Perhaps IMSS will follow this path in the near future. Private insurance will be the way to go here in Mexio as it should be if possible.

This was an article in El Financiero with an overview of the Seguro Popular, and a sort of update on it's current status in terms of financial stability. It gives each of the presidential candidates' proposals for how they would continue the Seguro Popular if he/she comes out the winner. I don't have time to translate it, but perhaps someone else can do it. I'd post under it's own heading as well.

http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/item/26279/26
TITLE: Seguro Popular termina el sexenio sin una buena salud

Link for a translated version:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elfinanciero.com.mx%2Fitem%2F26279%2F26&act=url

Keep in mind this is a Goggle Translation and will have some errors.

For Parker: "Well at 11am 6/28/12 it is at 58.7 agree and 37.8 disagree."

Hours later with close to 200,000 votes, it has settled at 57.5% (for) to 39% (against). Please take note of John's original comment that a majority were against.

mielicita wrote:

hound dog wrote:BY the way, speaking of U.S. citizens or other foreigners living in , on the Guadalajara news this morning, I heard that the Seguridad Popular will no longer enroll foreigners unless they become Mexican citizens. I don´t know if this is just local to Guadalajara or a nationwide administrative decision. This exclusion woud make sense since that program is for the poor here in and hardy fit that bill in general - especially those here only temporarily.

Perhaps IMSS will follow this path in the near future. Private insurance will be the way to go here in Mexio as it should be if possible.

This was an article in El Financiero with an overview of the , and a sort of update on it's current status in terms of financial stability. It gives each of the presidential candidates' proposals for how they would continue the if he/she comes out the winner. I don't have time to translate it, but perhaps someone else can do it. I'd post under it's own heading as well.

http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/item/26279/26
TITLE: termina el sexenio sin una buena salud

Hey would someone who has access on TOB please post this re Seguro Popular????? Many thanks. And the post with the Google Translation. thanks to Neil.

Interesting article! Apparently every six years the incoming presidente can make significant changes in SP. That doesn't make the program sound very stable.

Thanks for posting this article.