Your question isn't off-topic if they use "tax home" as one of the criteria for exemption from the mandatory insurance requirement, as it appears from the info Sparks posted. No, having a US bank account doesn't exclude you from having your "tax home" in another country. I've done it more or less since the mid-'70s and still do it now. But as a retiree with all my income from US sources, I don't have the work-related documentation that used to support my "foreign tax home" status, so I feel I have to make a point of establishing it.

Note this sentence from the IRS "tax home" link above: "If you do not have a regular or main place of business because of the nature of your work, your tax home may be the place where you regularly live."

Obviously, as a retiree, I have no "regular or main place of business", so I try to document that Mexico is where I regularly live and spend money. If ever challenged by the IRS, I'd show my FM2, home ownership papers, utility bills, Mexican bank statements, and so on. I use my Mexico address for IRS, Social Security, and Medicare. My Social Security payments are direct deposited in my Mexican bank account, and I can document transfer of other retirement funds from my US account to my Mexico account. I also have passport stamps and always declare myself as a resident of Mexico on customs and immigration forms when entering the US. Sometimes it raises questions by C&I agents and even airlines, but I just answer truthfully and show my FM2 and BCS driver's license if asked. Probably none of this is necessary, but I've found that consistency is the key when dealing with the US government.

I am not sure I understand what you mean "exempt monies in a US bank from US tax laws". If you are talking about dividends and interest from money deposited in US institutions, it is subject to tax for all US citizens no matter where they live. In fact all income to US citizens is subject to US tax laws. There is a foreign earned income exclusion for some kinds of income from other countries. If you want to legally avoid US taxes, you have to renounce your citizenship, not just move out.

__________________
Will

http://www.theprescotts.com/cronologia/

Expatriate medical insurance concerns in the era of Obamacare | HRreview

That is a useful link. They talk about both US citizens who are expatriates in other countries as well as citizens of other countries who are expatriates in the US. They do not always make clear in that article which group they are talking about. It usually is clear from the context, but you have to be careful when reading it.

__________________
Will

http://www.theprescotts.com/cronologia/

The way I understand how the Supreme Court ruled is, the government can NOT "force" us to buy the insurance... but the government CAN levy a "tax" for citizens who can financially afford to pay for health insurance (assuming their employers aren't providing it for them) but who refuse to pay for any insurance coverage. The reason behind this logic is that if people who CAN afford it don't have it, THAT costs the taxpayers more money. So, the government can charge that "tax" and this is considered legal. (And for people in a lower income bracket who can't afford the high-priced coverage, supposedly there will be some kind of financial help for those people.) Anyway, that's how I understood the ruling. Hope I explained it right.

I live in France and my husband is French, so I have very good coverage here. I won't be returning to live in the States again full-time, most likely - my husband's work and children are here, and we're nearing his retirement age and the benefits (and health care) here are so much better than we could afford in the US (I'm a self-employed writer so I was one of those that couldn't afford health care premiums when I still lived in the US prior to 2007). So I am also wondering how this law will affect someone like me - I'm not living abroad for a year or two, I'm here for good! So far this is not clear to me at all, what the impact is on us expats. I have a 10-year residency card (the French "green card") to prove I'm a resident in France, and I'm even going for dual citizenship (I'd never renounce my US citizenship but if I can have both, why not?) I have used my foreign address on my IRS returns - so I'd think all of that would be enough to prove I live abroad, yes?

The article was written in 2010 - but here seem to be the relevant passages discussed: (Italics mine)

The requirement to purchase coverage affects U.S. citizens and U.S. visa holders only if they actually live in the U.S. This is because these individuals are most likely to receive treatment in the U.S. Therefore, actual citizenship does not matter in this mandate. Instead, it is their legal residency that will be considered.

As in years past, all U.S. citizens living abroad, whether they have dual citizenship or not, will be required to file normal U.S. taxes. As a result of the US Healthcare Reform, a new IRS code has been added (Section 5000A (f)(4)), which states simply that U.S. Expatriates will be treated as having the minimum essential coverage under the new law. They may be exempt from the coverage mandate, if they are already eligible for the IRS foreign income exclusion which currently stands at earnings up to USD 91,000.

This seems to be the most current info available.

__________________
"What potent blood hath modest May". - Ralph Waldo Emerson

According to this anyone over 65 with Medicare is covered. Only people under 65 have to worry about where they live


The term “minimum essential coverage” means any of the following:
(A) Government sponsored programs
Coverage under—
(i) the Medicare program under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
(ii) the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act,
(iii) the CHIP program under title XXI of the Social Security Act,
(iv) medical coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including coverage under the TRICARE program;
(v) a health care program under chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, as determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary,
(vi) a health plan under section 2504(e) of title 22, United States Code (relating to Peace Corps volunteers); 2 or
(vii) the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program of the Department of Defense, established under section 349 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995

__________________
Sparks Mexico Web

Sparks,

That is not really true. There are many people who receive SS and do not have Medicare. Part A (the hospital part) is free to anyone over 65 and who apply for it. Part B (the medical part) currently costs about $95 per month and you can request that it be taken directly out of your SS. Again, you don't have to have it.

I have kept my Medicare because for $95 per month it's really cheap Major Medical. I can see no reason not to consider Medicare enough to fulfill the Obamacare requirement.

I would think that the government would have a hard time telling everyone that the program that they support doesn't qualify to fill the requirement.

I think, just like in Mexico, we need to wait and see just what the bureaucracy comes up with as far as proving residencies and processes.

I think that there will be a lot of legal rumblings before all is settled. Hey, the Governor of LA has refused to sign his state up for it. That should be a real "States Rights" fun and games.

Are you saying, then, that you'd first consider going back to the USA for medical care under Part B, rather than use Mexican sources? Under what circumstances would that be?

The reason I ask is I am still about 2.5 years away from Medicare and would like to collect opinions on the subject.

I am not that objective because I now carry, in the USA, long term care insurance thru AARP and are not sure if I am going to give that up when we make the move, but the circumstances are different. If, at a later time, God willing, I will need that type of facility care, I believe my kids would rather I be back in the USA and near them, than in Mexico.

__________________
"What potent blood hath modest May". - Ralph Waldo Emerson

If I were to have need of long term (3 mos to the rest of my life) intense medical care then I'd probably go back to the states. This would not be a first or even a second step but my funds would vanish and I'd still need care.

Mexican health care, even what I have to pay for myself, is still much less costly than that in the US. My wife just had surgery that we priced in the US at between 12K and 15K including doctor and hospital. That total surgery was done here for less that 5K. And the surgeon even came to our home (1.5 hours away) many times for after care.