Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes and it's absurd this is some boo-hoo story just because the guy is from Mexico and isn't an American.
The wife and family have the same choices to make as anyone else, remove the feeding tube, put him in a hospice or nursing home, or seek more affordable care elsewhere.
Just because he's not a citizen doesn't entitle him to remain in a very costly acute care hospital forever and at taxpayer expense and just because he's not a citizen doesn't mean hospital employees should work for free. He needs to leave just like any US citizen would have to leave the hospital. Acute care hospitals are not nursing homes or hospice care.
It sounds like the wife just doesn't feel like spending money on him.
Yes, it does. Otherwise, she would arrange to have him treated elsewhere, the same as citizens under similar circumstances. I have a relative who was recently admitted to a rehabilitation facility after surgery, ONLY because her insurance would cover the costs. It boils my blood that non-citizens are treated better than citizens. What the hell is wrong with this country?
And illegals plus legal immigrants are sending billions of dollars out of the country every month...
And what does that have to do with this case?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
...Going without insurance was a gamble this guy and his wife chose to make. They aren't indigents because they were allowed to immigrate legally - but did they choose not to buy medical insurance so they could send $1000 to friends and family back home every month?...
Ahh, that is the reason, so speculation can start that it is their fault for lack of insurance coverage. His wife is a U.S. citizen (the adult son of the Polish woman is as well). Are you aware that the major medical insurance providers require a Social Security number to add coverage to the person? Young couples also don't often consider medical coverage as something that is needed on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
...His legal status doesn't have to be the issue here, he doesn't qualify for Medicaid and Medicare, immigrants are not given welfare benefits until they're here 5 years except of course when they give birth, and that of course is immediate...
Why doesn't his status have bearing here? I just think of a comparable situation (God have mercy) in my own family. We do have an insurance plan from my employment (but no ability to change any provisions individually to what is offered), which only added traumatic coverage a matter of 7 months ago.
What if I ran out under the previous coverage, does my wife or kids have to go back to Mexico because they are Mexicans without access to further medical benefits here? The financial pressure is on his wife, whom as a U.S. citizen is in the same position as some of the other accounts voiced here. They didn't feel (or didn't have access) that more complete coverage was necessary?
Quote:
...Mostly likely as legal immigrants, both he and his wife had legal employment and could have bought into their employers health insurance plan but they didn't expect to have to pay their own way here so they didn't. They came for a free ride, not to be responsible.
Ahh, that is the reason, so speculation can start that it is their fault for lack of insurance coverage. His wife is a U.S. citizen (the adult son of the Polish woman is as well). Are you aware that the major medical insurance providers require a Social Security number to add coverage to the person? Young couples also don't often consider medical coverage as something that is needed on their own.
Why doesn't his status have bearing here? I just think of a comparable situation (God have mercy) in my own family. We do have an insurance plan from my employment (but no ability to change any provisions individually to what is offered), which only added traumatic coverage a matter of 7 months ago.
What if I ran out under the previous coverage, does my wife or kids have to go back to Mexico because they are Mexicans without access to further medical benefits here? The financial pressure is on his wife, whom as a U.S. citizen is in the same position as some of the other accounts voiced here. They didn't feel (or didn't have access) that more complete coverage was necessary?
Pure speculation again, blame the victim...
Yes the wife is a USA citizen, obviously in a good financial position to sponsor an immigrant. Why wasn't she required to provide her immigrant a health insurance plan? I believe the laws on family sponsorship definitely need to be sharpened, why are people bringing in loved ones they won't support? The very minimum should be a requirement to have the immigrant on a good health insurance plan and we can avoid this kind of thing.
Why does this USA citizen wife think she's somehow special? A USA citizen with an American spouse may have to face life-long debt, foreclosure of a house for failing to have health insurance but once it's a non-citizen involved, they expect to have a full ride and have taxpayers pay for everything.
This couple doesn't even have the excuses many illegals have for failing to purchase insurance. They obviously were not indigent. And yes, even full-fledged Americans are seeking medical care in Mexico if they aren't covered by insurance here because it's much more affordable over there. Since this guy is a citizen of Mexico, why shouldn't this couple consider that alternative?
And yes, what you arrange as far as a health care plan for your immigrants is your responsibility. If you fail to provide for them and they're your immigrants, exactly who do you expect to do your job for you? They're not my immigrants, why should I have to pay for them?
Yes the wife is a USA citizen, obviously in a good financial position to sponsor an immigrant. Why wasn't she required to provide her immigrant a health insurance plan? I believe the laws on family sponsorship definitely need to be sharpened, why are people bringing in loved ones they won't support? The very minimum should be a requirement to have the immigrant on a good health insurance plan and we can avoid this kind of thing.
Why does this USA citizen wife think she's somehow special? A USA citizen with an American spouse may have to face life-long debt, foreclosure of a house for failing to have health insurance but once it's a non-citizen involved, they expect to have a full ride and have taxpayers pay for everything.
This couple doesn't even have the excuses many illegals have for failing to purchase insurance. They obviously were not indigent. And yes, even full-fledged Americans are seeking medical care in Mexico if they aren't covered by insurance here because it's much more affordable over there. Since this guy is a citizen of Mexico, why shouldn't this couple consider that alternative?
And yes, what you arrange as far as a health care plan for your immigrants is your responsibility. If you fail to provide for them and they're your immigrants, exactly who do you expect to do your job for you? They're not my immigrants, why should I have to pay for them?
Yes the wife is a USA citizen, obviously in a good financial position to sponsor an immigrant. Why wasn't she required to provide her immigrant a health insurance plan? I believe the laws on family sponsorship definitely need to be sharpened, why are people bringing in loved ones they won't support? The very minimum should be a requirement to have the immigrant on a good health insurance plan and we can avoid this kind of thing.
Why does this USA citizen wife think she's somehow special? A USA citizen with an American spouse may have to face life-long debt, foreclosure of a house for failing to have health insurance but once it's a non-citizen involved, they expect to have a full ride and have taxpayers pay for everything.
This couple doesn't even have the excuses many illegals have for failing to purchase insurance. They obviously were not indigent. And yes, even full-fledged Americans are seeking medical care in Mexico if they aren't covered by insurance here because it's much more affordable over there. Since this guy is a citizen of Mexico, why shouldn't this couple consider that alternative?
And yes, what you arrange as far as a health care plan for your immigrants is your responsibility. If you fail to provide for them and they're your immigrants, exactly who do you expect to do your job for you? They're not my immigrants, why should I have to pay for them?
Medical insurance is not currently a requirement for immigration (apparently you also missed that a Social Security number is often required for coverage, and that he only was issued a number just a week ago). Your opinions on what coverage someone should have aren't valid against his legally recognized status to be in the United States. Of course you have all of the coverage you have mentioned yourself, so that if anything happens to you it won't be a financial burden to me as a taxpayer?
Here is a brief synopsis how comments have evolved on the thread here:
"He's an illegal, so he should be deported"
"He was an illegal, so he should be deported"
"He has legal residence, but since his wife can't pay the bill he should be deported"
"He should have had medical coverage and didn't, so he should be deported"
"He should be deported so that he is not a financial burden to me as a taxpayer"
Medical insurance is not currently a requirement for immigration (apparently you also missed that a Social Security number is often required for coverage, and that he only was issued a number just a week ago). Your opinions on what coverage someone should have aren't valid against his legally recognized status to be in the United States. Of course you have all of the coverage you have mentioned yourself, so that if anything happens to you it won't be a financial burden to me as a taxpayer?
Here is a brief synopsis how comments have evolved on the thread here:
"He's an illegal, so he should be deported"
"He was an illegal, so he should be deported"
"He has legal residence, but since his wife can't pay the bill he should be deported"
"He should have had medical coverage and didn't, so he should be deported"
"He should be deported so that he is not a financial burden to me as a taxpayer"
Any common theme present?...
But it certainly should be. I said the laws regarding family sponsorship need to be reformed, most definitely need to be reformed as many legally sponsored immigrants quickly become public wards. Like this one.
Why bother pretending there is any financial responsibility required to sponsor an immigrant when obviously there is not?
If this woman couldn't afford this guy she should have left him where he was, and not brought him here for us to pay for.
They need to require that sponsors of immigrants be held responsible for their financial support. He may be here legally but as his spouse isn't willing to pay for him, he should be tossed back.
It won't be the first time a hospital shipped an illegal alien and his hospital bed to his country of origin. One case I remember they shipped the machines that kept him alive too just to get rid of him. Everyone has to obey the laws except illegal aliens.
Man's Medical Crisis Precedes Immigration Status (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/health/mans-medical-crisis-precedes-immigration-status-9-26-2011 - broken link)
"Banner Good Samaritan is giving her 7 days to decide what to do with her husband -- take him to hospice, which she can't afford, or have him moved to a hospital in Mexico.
Banner issued the following statement: "Banner Health recognizes that the situation involving Mr. Jesus Cornelio, his wife Evelyn and their family is challenging. Our focus remains on ensuring the best options for the ongoing care of Mr. Cornelio."
Evelyn Cornelio will have to make her decision by October 4th."
Medical insurance is not currently a requirement for immigration (apparently you also missed that a Social Security number is often required for coverage, and that he only was issued a number just a week ago). Your opinions on what coverage someone should have aren't valid against his legally recognized status to be in the United States. Of course you have all of the coverage you have mentioned yourself, so that if anything happens to you it won't be a financial burden to me as a taxpayer?
Here is a brief synopsis how comments have evolved on the thread here:
"He's an illegal, so he should be deported"
"He was an illegal, so he should be deported"
"He has legal residence, but since his wife can't pay the bill he should be deported"
"He should have had medical coverage and didn't, so he should be deported"
"He should be deported so that he is not a financial burden to me as a taxpayer"
Any common theme present?...
No, medical insurance is not a requirement. But, the ability to support oneself, and not become a public charge, certainly is. If his citizen wife cannot afford to pay for his medical treatment, he is no longer in compliance with his immigration agreement, and should therefore be returned to his country of origin.
Quote:
Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident.
Quote:
Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:
Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care.
No, medical insurance is not a requirement. But, the ability to support oneself, and not become a public charge, certainly is. If his citizen wife cannot afford to pay for his medical treatment, he is no longer in compliance with his immigration agreement, and should therefore be returned to his country of origin...
Your premise is based on the incorrect belief that he made the binding contract (when he cannot, at a point where he didn´t have status in the United States) for his legal residence, not his wife being his sponsor. Just as the other personal accounts related here (and the son of the Polish woman), she is a U.S. citizen that has to come up with a way to pay the bill. There have been previous cases that have ruled the failure of the sponsor does not invalidate the legal residency of the immigrant.
Until 1992, someone with Down Syndrome couldn´t be sponsored for immigration to the United States. Now that it is possible, are the Down Syndrome immigrants drafting a legal contract with the U.S. government that they can support themselves not to be a public charge? Even if this couple would divorce, his wife is still responsible for the financial burden he could be, for the limit of the terms that she drafted to the government. Sponsors are warned to that effect, so she is put in the same position as if he were a child in her guardianship.
EDIT:
Quote:
Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident.
At the the point he was eligible and admitted his sponsor was financially solvent to the requirements. Such estimations are not based on any future odd thing that could happen to the immigrant. There probably needs to be some example cases posted as precedence for the measures of deportation, which I have only been slightly aware of a couple within the last several years.
Last edited by IBMMuseum; 10-01-2011 at 02:45 PM..
Your premise is based on the incorrect belief that he made the binding contract (when he cannot, at a point where he didn´t have status in the United States) for his legal residence, not his wife being his sponsor. Just as the other personal accounts related here (and the son of the Polish woman), she is a U.S. citizen that has to come up with a way to pay the bill. There have been previous cases that have ruled the failure of the sponsor does not invalidate the legal residency of the immigrant.
Until 1992, someone with Down Syndrome couldn´t be sponsored for immigration to the United States. Now that it is possible, are the Down Syndrome immigrants drafting a legal contract with the U.S. government that they can support themselves not to be a public charge? Even if this couple would divorce, his wife is still responsible for the financial burden he could be, for the limit of the terms that she drafted to the government. Sponsors are warned to that effect, so she is put in the same position as if he were a child in her guardianship.
When the sponsor fails to live up to his or her financial responsibility to his or her immigrant, yes the immgrant should be returned home. Otherwise having a sponsor way is just a joke and the agreement to be held responsible is nothing but a sham.
The sponsor should be responsible, should be held permanently responsible for any and all immigrants they choose to bring in.
If the laws on family sponsorship were actually binding, you would suddenly see a whole lot fewer people wanting to bring in immigrants. All that family reunification would come to a sudden stop. As it is, people like to sponsor right and left because it's no skin off their teeth, they know they never have to really pay a dime if their immigrant needs it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
