JAJ

Birthplace not citizenship is what eligibility for the Diversity Lottery.

British citizens born in Northern Ireland are eligible, but so are British citizens born in Australia, Germany, Hong Kong etc.

Bob

maine has one, mass has one, but you've got to usually have been an lpr for x amount of time before they kick in, and be dirt poor...

adiestubbs

I wonder the reason why they do this? Does not make sense to me, especially NI. I see the ROI is on the list of those who can apply as well. I would hazard a guess that this (NI) would have been added on behalf of the nationalist community. And i cant imagine how Australia is on the list!!

nun

Moving to MA might be an option, by this summer the state will require residents to have medical insurance. For those that carn't get it through employment the state has negotiated with some insurance companies to provide affordable plans, I think the monthly premiums will be in the $200 range and that includes drug coverage. I assume there are pretty heafy co-pays and deductables though.

krizzy

You don't have to be dirt poor in MA Bob...a lot of things can make you able to claim Mass health...single mum...homeless...low wages...long term illness..etc...baby and mum have Mass health and she is not on a low wage...

krizzy

Same in MA...my daughter is paying $7 a week through her union...

Tracym

There are some plans. But as others have said, they are generally not for the purposes of paying for people who have just arrivedAny.

Any "means-tested" program (meaning you're poor) program could recoup the costs from the sponsor anyway, that is exactly what sponsorship is intended to avoid.

Some states DO have programs (I'm sure eligibility varies) that are designed for hard to insure people, such as those with pre-existing conditions. But the ones I've seen, you still have to pay for the insurance, and it is not cheaper - set at 130% or something of what the average person would have to pay for insurance.

So expecting the government to take care of this is probably not the most likely scenario.

scrubbedexpat099

Mass keeps on getting mentioned but that seems the exception that proves the rule.

I have a feeling that Georgia is most unlikely to have such an arrangement, I know Colorado does not.

If they are just retired, in their 60's, then visiting is the way to go.

Unless of course they are extrememly wealthy, in whuch case they could invest some dosh in an EB5 and still afford medical insurance.

Bob

I was talking about ME, don't really know the MA situ....though I do know if your self-employed, you'll probably be on the cuff and might not get it, that was the situation for a couple guys here at work, which is why they ditched being contract for full time.

nun

The MA law is for all residents and I agree that it isn't the rule.....yet, but CA is doing something similar and I think that many more states will do something similar as an attempt to control costs and reduce the numbers of the uninsured

Elvira

Personally I would not want to rely on any kind of healthcare safety net set up for the uninsured. It'll be the first to go if the economy tanks and/or if taxpayers find it's too expensive... After all, what's in it for them (the majority anyway).

Bob

It's on the verge of tanking in ME...people want it, but don't want to pay for it, it's costing the state about twice the cost to insure a person who would be insured through work, averaging around $1500-2500 a person a month for the state...for those who qualify for it.

scrubbedexpat099

I did read a long article about this in the SF Chronicle, there was also an article on CA tax flows and obviously the two are linked. Apparently there has been a bubble in State tax due to the numbers of people cashing in on stock options, this article was pointing out how the tax revenue was generated and how basically susceptable the State tax base is to any downturn. The Polticians obviously want to spend it like it will last forever.

The CA proposal, well I can not remember all the details and it is out there somewhere anyway, but it just did not add up.

One bit I do remember was part of the cost would be raised by a tax on Medical services. Which is basically a tax on the Insurance Premiums of those in Private schemes. And they did not seem to take into account the no doubt many employers who would be more the delighted to get out of providing this as a benefit if they could.

paddingtongreen

I don't know if this helps, but before medicare included drug coverage, i had a Bluecross plan that cost about $200 - $220 per month and include some drug coverage. Ther was a total $500 limit in their payout on non-generic drugs. I payed, i think, $20 on formulary, $25 on non-formulary, and $5 on generics. After their $500 was gone, I paid full price on non-generics but still only $5 on generics.

Now, BC gets the part D money from the government (who have taken it out of my Social Security) and provides the Medicare Part D coverage.

There are companies that have set up Part D programs for nothing more than the Part D cash they get from the government. I think they take $74 a month for Part D. I don't know if those companies can or will take on people who are not covered by Part D, for the same cash payment.

I am currently paying BC, $229 per month and the gov is handing over another $74, so the total for health and drugs, is in the region of $300. Add to that the copays etc, and it adds up. I don't have dental or eye care in there. that's separate. I haven't done my taxes yet, so I don't know the total from last year.

krizzy

My daughter just told me her healthcare is now free where she works...its not great...but they can grade up...better than nothing....