If there's no other benefit, then we should continue to treat US citizens better than they treat us as good hosts, to maintain the moral high ground on the issue, and to demonstrate our ideals about unrestricted travel.

That just seems like an incredibly naive approach to foreign policy.

For bad behaviour, you don't help it by there being no repercussions or consequences. Maybe a lesson will be learned, and that will allow a more mature approach next time. It works for children.

Because the potential effect is that every EU nation ends up with their citizens needing visas to go to the US. The status quo is that most EU citizens get visa-free travel to the US, but some don't. I'm sure people hope the result is that all EU citizens get visa-free movement, but the opposite seems like a possibility.

(I'm not taking sides, as I don't know enough. But there is a big potential downside here).

As the top post explains, EU citizens already need a ESTA "thing" (some on here call it visa some don't). For some reason the article ignore the US ESTA entirely and calls the EU ESTIA a visa. So the US is already imposing identical restrictions and then some more for citizens of done specific EU countries.

ESTA doesn't require a consular visit, right? It seems like there is a real difference here.

There is no difference. The ESTA is an e-visa for $14 and valid for two years. The ETIAS is an e-visa for €7 and valid for three years. Neither requires a consular visit, they are completed online.

For the implementors, “visa” is a 4-letter word because it would eliminate all kinds of reciprocity agreements where EU nationals get visa-free travel.

Usually they claim some loophole like you don’t need it to hitchhike/drive, just to board a commercial plane/ship/bus in.

Those flying in a private jet need not worry about such issues.

Did you even read my full response or the top post in this thread?

Neither does the ETIAS system that the EU is introducing. The article for some reason decided to ignore the existence of ESTA altogether and then call the identical (but cheaper) ETIAS system a visa.

"There is a separate dispute between EU and US, because US imposes visas on five EU states (Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania and Cyprus). According the EU law, all EU countries should be treated equally or otherwise reciprocal measures should apply. There have been calls within the EU to respond tit for tat and impose EU visas on US citizens, if the issue does not get resolved soon."

That is what I, and presumably several other commentators, have been responding to.

Edit: I see that one post referred to the ETIAS initiative. But what you’re saying makes perfect sense now. I’m only talking about the visa. My apologies.

I’m willing to accept visas to the US if it means some other EU countries get the chance of not needing visas to the US any more. Anything that strengthens EU unity is positive in my book.

I'm in favour of EU solidarity. My parent split the 2 issues out and stated they were in favour of both. It also isn't the stated reason why ETIAS was introduced, so its unclear to me if this could actually lead to equal treatment of EU citizens.

Why not? the US has the death penalty, I wouldn't support the death penalty for an American in Europe. I'm not entitled to free medical care in the US, I would have no problem with an American using my health service, if needed.

If it is just a tit for tat, that just makes everyone worse off. The supposed stated aims (security) seem suspect between 2 blocs that really should be able to work together.

Most countries with free healthcare systems like you describe don't officially give that benefit to visitors from the US or other countries, with certain common exceptions like travel within the EU/EEA and people with some form of long-term residence permission like a work permit.

They will of course allow anyone to access the system. And often they don't charge because they don't want to deal with the paperwork. But they're even more often officially supposed to charge.

My (American) father once needed emergency healthcare in France. He eventually received a bill from the French government in the mail back in the US. It was way cheaper than in the US, certainly, but it was not a zero balance due either. (And yes he paid.)

But how did he pay? Did the bill assume he could pay like a local?

I never asked. Since all of his accounts are denominated in USD and based in the US, I assume he filled out and returned a credit card authorization form (and just ate his card's 3% foreign transaction fee).

Interesting. I know non-EU people end up in messes when they get a speeding ticket for their rental car and can't exactly IBAN/SEPA money over in 5 minutes or less.

I went with the next best option: Ignore it, but it was more of a "warning ticket" that they could investigate further and issue a real ticket if I didn't pay.

Every time I've bought travel insurance, it comes in two flavours: One that doesn't cover the USA, and one that does.

Unsurprisingly, the one that provides cover in the US is significantly more expensive.

Typical HN smugness in the comments. The original reply is probably referring to Schengen areas and is confused about why on earth ETIAS should apply to them

>"I believe in freedom of movement between EU nations"

Are you talking about me?

I can't find your quotation anywhere and I made a similar remark.

"I benefit from freedom of movement within the EU" ???