Us Expats And Health Care Reform

[venturalaw]

Not interested in arguing with you anymore. Believe what you want. I know the facts. The bill is law. Cheers.

Not interested?

Yes I know....Reason & logic has that effect..... your facts?...Hurry home dear we so look forward to paying for your pre-existing condition

Other than that yes the bill is law for now.....Many laws on the books that end up going nowhere...

Lets see how long the magic beans hold out to pay for this one.

Taxes? Good Luck sucking blood from stones

You and I certainly agree on this topic.

[flying]

You and I certainly agree on this topic.

[Jingthing]

The facts. Pre-Obama reform:

In 39 states, listed here , insurers can turn down anyone for virtually any reason. It can be because you have a pre-existing condition, like cancer or diabetes. And pregnancy almost always counts too, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents the state government officials who regulate insurance sold within their borders. So if you're pregnant and living in one of these 39 states, you're very likely out of luck in securing individual health coverage. You'll have to pay for your care out of your own pocket or seek out charitable assistance.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...e-barred-buyin/

[jazzbo]

When did ThaiVisa.com become Tea Party--SE Asia with its attendant Reason & Logic?

[flying]

The facts. Pre-Obama reform:

hahah from the Obama Meter site?? Perhaps we could find a less one sided ultra left site?

HIPAA and Creditable Coverage

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a law that provides some protection for you and your family members when you need to buy, change, or continue your health insurance. These protections include:

* Limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions.

* Prevents many health plans from discriminating against you by denying you coverage or charging you more for coverage based on your or a family member's health problems.

* Most of the time guarantees that if you lose your job and your coverage, you have the right to purchase health insurance for you and your family.

* Usually guarantees that if you purchase health insurance, you can renew your coverage regardless of any health conditions in your family.

Although HIPAA does not apply in all situations, the law may decrease your chance of losing your existing coverage, make it easier for you to switch health plans, and help you buy coverage if you lose your job-related health plan and have no other coverage available.

An important feature of HIPAA is known as “creditable coverage.”

Creditable coverage is health insurance coverage you had before you enrolled in your new health plan, as long as it was not interrupted by a period of 63 or more days. The amount of time you had “creditable” health insurance coverage can be used to offset a pre-existing condition exclusion period in your new health plan.

The bottom line: If you had at least a full year of health coverage at your previous job and you enrolled in your new health plan without a break of 63 days or more, your new health plan cannot subject you to the pre-existing condition exclusion.

Just your average About Health Insurance site

But again how does it justify not buying insurance till you needed it since yesterday.... but expecting others to foot your free ride up till yesterday? Suck it up....Insurance by definition should be bought BEFORE needed eh?

[samran]

When did ThaiVisa.com become Tea Party--SE Asia with its attendant Reason & Logic?

Grumpy old men are TV's main consumer base.

[venturalaw]

The facts. Pre-Obama reform:

hahah from the Obama Meter site?? Perhaps we could find a less one sided ultra left site?

HIPAA and Creditable Coverage

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a law that provides some protection for you and your family members when you need to buy, change, or continue your health insurance. These protections include:

* Limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions.

* Prevents many health plans from discriminating against you by denying you coverage or charging you more for coverage based on your or a family member's health problems.

* Most of the time guarantees that if you lose your job and your coverage, you have the right to purchase health insurance for you and your family.

* Usually guarantees that if you purchase health insurance, you can renew your coverage regardless of any health conditions in your family.

Although HIPAA does not apply in all situations, the law may decrease your chance of losing your existing coverage, make it easier for you to switch health plans, and help you buy coverage if you lose your job-related health plan and have no other coverage available.

An important feature of HIPAA is known as “creditable coverage.”

Creditable coverage is health insurance coverage you had before you enrolled in your new health plan, as long as it was not interrupted by a period of 63 or more days. The amount of time you had “creditable” health insurance coverage can be used to offset a pre-existing condition exclusion period in your new health plan.

The bottom line: If you had at least a full year of health coverage at your previous job and you enrolled in your new health plan without a break of 63 days or more, your new health plan cannot subject you to the pre-existing condition exclusion.

Just your average About Health Insurance site

But again how does it justify not buying insurance till you needed it since yesterday.... but expecting others to foot your free ride up till yesterday? Suck it up....Insurance by definition should be bought BEFORE needed eh?

Flying, you raised the point earlier more than once, and Jingthing has yet to address it. ENTITLEMENT! Jingthing, do you know the meaning of entitlement? What is your argument in support of said belief? Your mentor Nancy Pelosi believes that if you aspire to be an "artist or a photographer or, eh, a writer" then it is up to those of us who work to pay for your health care via higher taxes while you pursue your dream. This is the socialist lib agenda per se. The entire nation should be San Francisco. Memories of Timothy Leary.

How they can think that this is the way life should be is beyond me.

[Naam]

Not interested in arguing with you anymore. Believe what you want. I know the facts. The bill is law. Cheers.

i was quite surprised to learn that. what is the reason that the bill did not have to be passed by the senate?

[ray23]

One of the things that I am seeing here is the idea that health care was not available for the poor. I can only speak for California every County has hospitals that do offer care for those who don't have insurance or the money to pay. as well as free clinics. You won't be getting a private room, the staff's are small and over worked. But you will be cared for. That kind of sounds like the government hospital's in Thailand doesn't it.

By the way when medical care is needed they won't be checking your legal status either.

Good to see you posting Ventura

This was the wrong time for this we can't pay for it.

In the end how much was about health care and how much was about pork?

So in the end Obama can say he won, I don't think American people won a darn thing. they just got more debt.

I hope Ventura is right and this goes away as it stands now, there may be a time for this but it's not now.

[popeye33]

The facts. Pre-Obama reform:

hahah from the Obama Meter site?? Perhaps we could find a less one sided ultra left site?

HIPAA and Creditable Coverage

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a law that provides some protection for you and your family members when you need to buy, change, or continue your health insurance. These protections include:

* Limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions.

* Prevents many health plans from discriminating against you by denying you coverage or charging you more for coverage based on your or a family member's health problems.

* Most of the time guarantees that if you lose your job and your coverage, you have the right to purchase health insurance for you and your family.

* Usually guarantees that if you purchase health insurance, you can renew your coverage regardless of any health conditions in your family.

Although HIPAA does not apply in all situations, the law may decrease your chance of losing your existing coverage, make it easier for you to switch health plans, and help you buy coverage if you lose your job-related health plan and have no other coverage available.

An important feature of HIPAA is known as "creditable coverage."

Creditable coverage is health insurance coverage you had before you enrolled in your new health plan, as long as it was not interrupted by a period of 63 or more days. The amount of time you had "creditable" health insurance coverage can be used to offset a pre-existing condition exclusion period in your new health plan.

The bottom line: If you had at least a full year of health coverage at your previous job and you enrolled in your new health plan without a break of 63 days or more, your new health plan cannot subject you to the pre-existing condition exclusion.

Just your average About Health Insurance site

But again how does it justify not buying insurance till you needed it since yesterday.... but expecting others to foot your free ride up till yesterday? Suck it up....Insurance by definition should be bought BEFORE needed eh?

PLEASE STOP YOU 2, THE OTHER DUDE THINKS FIDEL CASTRO HAS GOT HEALTHCARE RIGHT!

if it was about cost, tort reform and portable insurance would have been a good place to start. BUT THATS NOT WHAT IT WAS ABOUT!

soon we in the usa will be calling each other COMRADE!

Edited March 28, 2010 by popeye33

[venturalaw]

One of the things that I am seeing here is the idea that health care was not available for the poor. I can only speak for California every County has hospitals that do offer care for those who don't have insurance or the money to pay. as well as free clinics. You won't be getting a private room, the staff's are small and over worked. But you will be cared for. That kind of sounds like the government hospital's in Thailand doesn't it.

By the way when medical care is needed they won't be checking your legal status either.

Good to see you posting Ventura

This was the wrong time for this we can't pay for it.

In the end how much was about health care and how much was about pork?

So in the end Obama can say he won, I don't think American people won a darn thing. they just got more debt.

I hope Ventura is right and this goes away as it stands now, there may be a time for this but it's not now.

Thanks ray23. I am hoping I am right too. It's a guess that the party dominance in Congress will shift to Republicans, but I believe a pretty good one. And, I do not believe that they would vote to fund a bill that clearly is not what the majority of Americans want.

[jazzbo]

as Kuhn V says: a bill that clearly (that) is not what the majority of Americans want? No...they want to stay home and watch this:

[Jingthing]

With universal, all citizen residents that have any money/wealth pay in with taxes, depending on the tax structure, VAT, etc. I have been very clear I personally am in favor of universal, with access to health care being a basic right of citizenship. That is the ideal of civilized advanced countries, all who can paying in, all citizens eligible for care.

With the Obama plan, employers pay in (as the employment model is kept intact) and private people pay in for private insurnace when they are above a certain money/wealth level. Of course many employers require an employee kick in as well. The goal of the Obama plan is for almost all US residents to get with the program, with as many people paying in as possible. Of course, that is a good goal, everyone should be in the pool, but that is only possible with universal. I think the Obama plan has a major flaw which I have mentioned before. There is not enough incentive for young/health people to buy in as the penalties are not harsh enough. So people will of course opt out, pay the fines, and buy the insurance when they need it. I agree that is a bad thing. The intent of the Obama plan is to mandate participation, but the details don't seem to support that strongly enough.

I understand the personal attack, but it isn't practical to expect expats to pay several thousands of dollars per year for US health insurance when they do not LIVE in the US. Also note it may not even be possible in some cases for them to do so, as they are not US residents and insurance companies typically restrict sales to state residents.

Of course, as expats, we know it is possible things will go badly for us personally in our foreign country, and repatriating is always a possibly. If it makes me a bad person to appreciate that I (and other expats) will have the OPTION to buy into private health insurance if we repatriate, then I am a bad person. I think it is a reasonable thing to hope to be able to do, to have the option to buy into a health care plan. Paying cash for care for anything at all serious is something only a tiny percentage of Americans can afford.

HIPA rules are related to Cobra which is related to employment plans ending. There are millions of people outside that system. They never had employer plan, they were independent workers, their Cobra time period expired.

Yes, I am a liberal, and do believe access to decent health care should be a right of citizenship as did Teddy Kennedy, not only for the lucky, rich, and healthy. The sick and poor need health more than others, and yet they are the most likely to be denied. Hundreds of thousands of Americans (based on the AMA) have already died prematurely due to the horrific bad access of the US system, rated 37th by the WHO mainly due to poor access. The care is excellent IF you get access to it. ER visits aren't good access. Chronic diseases that require prudent lifetime care are the biggest killers.

I am not interested in these right wing tea bagger parties here. Let me know when the tea bagger party is over and then I would be happy to respond to anything of substance, preferably related somehow to EXPAT issues. Cheers.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[jazzbo]

A BUPA plan could IMHO be structured to meet the definition in Essentail Benefits Package HR 4872 Section 122 particularly as BUPA policies are structured to have no annual or lifetime limits.

[venturalaw]

With universal, all citizen residents that have any money/wealth pay in with taxes, depending on the tax structure, VAT, etc. I have been very clear I personally am in favor of universal, with access to health care being a basic right of citizenship. That is the ideal of civilized advanced countries, all who can paying in, all citizens eligible for care.

With the Obama plan, employers pay in (as the employment model is kept intact) and private people pay in for private insurnace when they are above a certain money/wealth level. Of course many employers require an employee kick in as well. The goal of the Obama plan is for almost all US residents to get with the program, with as many people paying in as possible. Of course, that is a good goal, everyone should be in the pool, but that is only possible with universal. I think the Obama plan has a major flaw which I have mentioned before. There is not enough incentive for young/health people to buy in as the penalties are not harsh enough. So people will of course opt out, pay the fines, and buy the insurance when they need it. I agree that is a bad thing. The intent of the Obama plan is to mandate participation, but the details don't seem to support that strongly enough.

I understand the personal attack, but it isn't practical to expect expats to pay several thousands of dollars per year for US health insurance when they do not LIVE in the US. Also note it may not even be possible in some cases for them to do so, as they are not US residents and insurance companies typically restrict sales to state residents.

Of course, as expats, we know it is possible things will go badly for us personally in our foreign country, and repatriating is always a possibly. If it makes me a bad person to appreciate that I (and other expats) will have the OPTION to buy into private health insurance if we repatriate, then I am a bad person. I think it is a reasonable thing to hope to be able to do, to have the option to buy into a health care plan. Paying cash for care for anything at all serious is something only a tiny percentage of Americans can afford.

HIPA rules are related to Cobra which is related to employment plans ending. There are millions of people outside that system. They never had employer plan, they were independent workers, their Cobra time period expired.

Yes, I am a liberal, and do believe access to decent health care should be a right of citizenship as did Teddy Kennedy, not only for the lucky, rich, and healthy. The sick and poor need health more than others, and yet they are the most likely to be denied. Hundreds of thousands of Americans (based on the AMA) have already died prematurely due to the horrific bad access of the US system, rated 37th by the WHO mainly due to poor access. The care is excellent IF you get access to it. ER visits aren't good access. Chronic diseases that require prudent lifetime care are the biggest killers.

I am not interested in these right wing tea bagger parties here. Let me know when the tea bagger party is over and then I would be happy to respond to anything of substance, preferably related somehow to EXPAT issues. Cheers.

As stated earlier, free health care is available to all - at county hospitals and free clinics. What this bill covers in addition however, is for instance, free elective abortions. Do you believe this service too is a God-given right by virtue of one's U.S. residency (not necessarily citizenship)?

[Naam]

PLEASE STOP YOU 2, THE OTHER DUDE THINKS FIDEL CASTRO HAS GOT HEALTHCARE RIGHT!

depending on the perspective Castro got it right. besides Canada, Cuba is the only country in the Americas with universal health care for its citizens.

[popeye33]

PLEASE STOP YOU 2, THE OTHER DUDE THINKS FIDEL CASTRO HAS GOT HEALTHCARE RIGHT!

depending on the perspective Castro got it right. besides Canada, Cuba is the only country in the Americas with universal health care for its citizens.

you guys are hilarious! i was being fecetious. cuba cant even stock their hospitals with toilet paper.

DID YOU MISS THE PART WHERE THE HIGH RANKING KANADIAN OFFICIAL CAME TO AMERICA FOR HIS MEDICAL NEEDS.

[Jingthing]

A BUPA plan could IMHO be structured to meet the definition in Essentail Benefits Package HR 4872 Section 122 particularly as BUPA policies are structured to have no annual or lifetime limits.

I don't think a US coverage plan purchased abroad qualifies. The reason I feel this way is only that some weeks back I read a report that the house or senate had discussed allowing the option of letting Americans buy foreign sourced US insurance to meet the requirement (as it would be cheaper) and they rejected it. That's the only info I have heard on this issue and do not know if language about this is in the law, or not. That is the kind of on topic expat information this thread SHOULD be about.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

As stated earlier, free health care is available to all - at county hospitals and free clinics. What this bill covers in addition however, is for instance, free elective abortions. Do you believe this service too is a God-given right by virtue of one's U.S. residency (not necessarily citizenship)?

I don't accept your premise that universal access to care for all exists in the US. Neither does the AMA or any other CREDIBLE source. That is the main reason the democratic party took on this issue, to do the right thing, not the right wing thing (which seems to be to let the sickies die). So look for someone else to argue with you about your fictional assumptions, I don't have time for those kinds of games.

Abortion restriction was covered in the law. That is a tea bagger red herring, again, of no interest to me. Also not interested in discussing God in relation to this issue. Surely you can find a crackpot right wing US politics forum to vent your sore loser spleen on instead of polluting what should be an on topic expat focused take on this reform?

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[Naam]

PLEASE STOP YOU 2, THE OTHER DUDE THINKS FIDEL CASTRO HAS GOT HEALTHCARE RIGHT!

depending on the perspective Castro got it right. besides Canada, Cuba is the only country in the Americas with universal health care for its citizens.

you guys are hilarious! i was being fecetious. cuba cant even stock their hospitals with toilet paper.

DID YOU MISS THE PART WHERE THE HIGH RANKING KANADIAN OFFICIAL CAME TO AMERICA FOR HIS MEDICAL NEEDS.

you must have visited cuban hospital toilets quite often to have that insight.

[popeye33]

As stated earlier, free health care is available to all - at county hospitals and free clinics. What this bill covers in addition however, is for instance, free elective abortions. Do you believe this service too is a God-given right by virtue of one's U.S. residency (not necessarily citizenship)?

I don't accept your premise that universal access to care for all exists in the US. Neither does the AMA or any other CREDIBLE source. That is the main reason the democratic party took on this issue, to do the right thing, not the right wing thing (which seems to be to let the sickies die). So look for someone else to argue with you about your fictional assumptions, I don't have time for those kinds of games.

Abortion restriction was covered in the law. That is a tea bagger red herring, again, of no interest to me. Also not interested in discussing God in relation to this issue. Surely you can find a crackpot right wing US politics forum to vent your sore loser spleen on instead of polluting what should be an on topic expat focused take on this reform?

if the democratic party believed it was the right thing to do. it would have been accomplished months ago, they do control everything.

wasnt the abortion issue guy a democrat? i dont think mr stupak was a tea bagger. DONT LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YR ARGUMENTS MR J.

IT TOOK THEM SO LONG BECOZ IT TAKES TIME TO BRIBE, BULLY AND LIE ONES WAY TO GET THE VOTES.

Edited March 28, 2010 by popeye33

[Jingthing]

Not interested in discussing the legislative mess/sausage making that brought about this law. Again, please go to a US politics forum. It is the law now. Cheers.

[Jingthing]

wasnt the abortion issue guy a democrat? i dont think mr stupak was a tea bagger. DONT LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YR ARGUMENTS MR J.

There is indeed a small faction of anti women's choice democrats in the house led by Stupack. Stupack ended up voting FOR the law, not against. He was satisfied that his needs were met in regards to restricting taxpayers paying for abortions. Liberals like me don't like that, but that is the law so deal with it and move on. The teabaggers are still making this a red herring, when none exists. Please don't make this thread about abortion, that is an impossibly contentious issue and very tangential to this new law. Also, please cool it with the personal attacks. I didn't write this law and there are many things I don't like about it too. It is important though to all Americans.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[PeaceBlondie]

Can we please focus only on how the law affects USA citizens in Thailand?

[ray23]

Ok I came here retired from a Government position with availability and a small portion of health coverage paid. I had to let it go as it would not cover me here. I have Bupa now. So the question for me and was I think answered already is will I be penalized for not buying a health plan in America.

This might be the greatest thing since slice bread, wouldn't have any idea at this point. As I have no idea what is really in it. I do know student loans were covered in it. What in the world does that have to do with health care. To me that sends up huge red flags.

I don't object to health care being available. But, there are no free rides, this has to be paid for. America needs to shut down the printing presses, not add to that work load. People have to be working to pay for this. Is that why they set it for 2014, theory being there will be jobs by then?

How will that effect me as an expat, the paper my money will be worth more then the financial value. Been going that direction for five years now. The current bills need to be paid for before you add to them. In my house I don't add to my bills until I can pay for the ones I have now. Why should the government be any different?

I don't care what side of the aisle you are on that is a reality. This was just not the time and this did not create universal health care by any definition that I see that program's working in the countries that currently have the benefit.

So what do we really have I don't know and I don't anything else really knows either.

So I'm hoping to find what is really there, from the forum. This is a great resource for sorting things out. But until then I won't support something that is not out in the open. That would be just plain stupid on my part. This would not be the first law of the land that wasn't supported nor enforced. If every law in America was truly enforced there would not be one illegal alien in the Country. Nor would any American company hire one. That is just not the way it is is it?

It would not surprise me if this was not funded down line.

I really don't care about the politics. I do care what is in the law and how it is going to effect me and mine. I welcome any of that input and look forward to seeing it. America is a big place, California health care is available for the poor. Anyone notice it's broke? That is where my retirement comes from and you bet that concerns me.

Who has been mandated to pay for this the Federal Governments or the State Governments? The Feds have been famous for demanding things be done within the states and never funding them. I wish this was as simple as people being able to go to a doctor when they need to. But, it's not.

[venturalaw]

As stated earlier, free health care is available to all - at county hospitals and free clinics. What this bill covers in addition however, is for instance, free elective abortions. Do you believe this service too is a God-given right by virtue of one's U.S. residency (not necessarily citizenship)?

I don't accept your premise that universal access to care for all exists in the US. Neither does the AMA or any other CREDIBLE source. That is the main reason the democratic party took on this issue, to do the right thing, not the right wing thing (which seems to be to let the sickies die). So look for someone else to argue with you about your fictional assumptions, I don't have time for those kinds of games.

Abortion restriction was covered in the law. That is a tea bagger red herring, again, of no interest to me. Also not interested in discussing God in relation to this issue. Surely you can find a crackpot right wing US politics forum to vent your sore loser spleen on instead of polluting what should be an on topic expat focused take on this reform?

Since you don't want to answer the question, I'll take it that you do believe that elective abortions should be considered paid for by tax payers. After all, that would be a typical liberal position to take - cradle to grave entitlements. Some day you may grow up and learn that it is best to take care of oneself rather than rely upon government handouts.

Another misstatement by you - the democrats did not take over health care (remember it was suppose to be bipartisan) for the good of the people. As stated, the American people (not just the tea-baggers) were overwhelmingly against it (another fact that you liberals continue to ignore). They democtrats did it because they want control over people's lives. You see, the democrats feel that people are just to stupid to care for themselves, so they must take care of everyone. It's sick and it won't work. It never does. Grow up.

[Jingthing]

Can we please focus only on how the law affects USA citizens in Thailand?

Agreed.

It's sick and it won't work. It never does. Grow up.

Please take this kind of hostile off topic invective to a US politics forum. I will do my best to ignore your personal baits in future although it won't be easy. You aren't bringing anything productive to the discussion that anyone can't get watching Fox News propaganda. Please respect PB's moderating directive. Cheers.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[venturalaw]

Jingthing, since you refuse to acknowledge the backward, infantile toxicity of entitlement thinking, perhaps the quotes below from a true intellectual will provide some enlightenment, then again, perhaps not. But it's worth a try.

"Promoting dependency is the Democratic Party's vocation. The party knows that almost all entitlements are forever, and those that are not — e.g., the lifetime eligibility for welfare, repealed in 1996 — are not for the middle class. Democrats believe, plausibly, that middle-class entitlements are instantly addictive and, because there is no known detoxification, that class, when facing future choices between trimming entitlements or increasing taxes, will choose the latter. The taxes will disproportionately burden high earners, thereby tightening the noose of society's dependency on government for investments and job creation."

"The public will think the health-care system is what Democrats want it to be. Dissatisfaction with it will intensify because increasingly complex systems are increasingly annoying. And because Democrats promised the implausible — prompt and noticeable improvements in the system. Forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage to persons because of preexisting conditions, thereby making the risk pool more risky, will increase the cost of premiums. Public complaints will be smothered by more subsidies. So dependency will grow."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032410.php3

[venturalaw]

Can we please focus only on how the law affects USA citizens in Thailand?

Apologies for veering off topic. Sometimes one can become sidetracked when attempting to educate.

This is on point:

US Health Care Reform and Asian Expatriates

"Full-time expatriates living overseas are opted out

Breathe easy. American citizens living full time in Asia will not be required to purchase health insurance.

While the health care reform bill approved Sunday by the House of Representatives will affect many expatriates, the most-discussed provisions – the mandate to obtain insurance coverage, and the penalties imposed upon people who do not – will apply primarily to US citizens who live within the 50 states.

The bill, which President Barack Obama announced he would sign into law immediately, creates a coverage mandate. Specifically, the bill adds a new provision to the tax code which mandates that every US citizen obtain "minimum essential coverage" or be fined. But, as is often the case with complex legislation, the definitions exclude as much as they include.

In what will be the new Section 5000A (f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress declares that expatriates "shall be treated" as having minimum essential coverage. Thus if you are an expat, it doesn't matter whether you actually have health insurance or not. Congress says you do.

The rest of the article is located here:

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?opti...&Itemid=590

[jazzbo]

So as I referenced earlier, if you spend more than 35 days per year (Leap year 36) in the USA, you are NOT off-the-hook and you TTBOMK will have to purchase a qualifying Essential Benefits program or pay some penalty at least until you qualify for Medicare.

The question as I see it is what kind of insurance package can you purchase here ih Thailand or ex-USA anywhere that will qualify as per HR 4872 Section 122