Refugees and Refugee Claimants To Be Denied Healthcare By Harper Government

[Nehkara]

Doctors stage sit-in over refugee health care cuts

About 80 doctors staged a sit-in at the Toronto office of federal cabinet minister Joe Oliver Friday, with the activists demanding to meet with the minister to raise concerns about changes to health care for refugees and refugee claimants.

Under the plan, some refugee claimants would only be entitled to urgent care — others would be denied all care unless they have a disease that would be a risk to the public, such as tuberculosis. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says the plan is to ensure refugees don’t get better health care than ordinary Canadians. He said the move would save the government about $100 million over the next five years.

"I just cannot understand how my government can take the most vulnerable of people and decide it's appropriate to make them more vulnerable," said Dr. Paul Caulford, a Scarborough, Ont., family physician, who has worked with immigrants and refugees for decades.

The new policy is set to take effect at the end of June. It means many refugee claimants will only be treated if they have an infection or disease that poses a risk to public health.

"Does this mean it's OK that a person seeking refuge in Canada dies from heart disease or from untreated diabetes, as long as they don't infect the rest of us with tuberculosis?" asked Dr. Tatiana Friere-Lizama, a perinatologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto.

This will save the Federal Government $20 million per year, or 0.007% of the total budget expenditure.

Sometimes I just think the Conservatives feel like picking on people. Maybe they find it fun or something.

[VO #23]

What does it mean to "ensure refugees don’t get better health care than ordinary Canadians"? Would they have access to some double secret probation health clinics that I've never heard of and wouldn't want me there anyways?

And why is our Immigration Minister saying stuff like this rather than doing his job by running a department that is mandated with setting immigration policies that will help refugees adapt to life in Canada?

It's just all so counter-intuitive on so many levels.

[moon]

It would be nicer if they just didn't allow the refugees into Canada in the first place but at least this is a step in the right direction.

[icecube]

A step in the right direction would be getting rid of all the #######s. I won't name any names, but one of them rhymes with Goon.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by moon

It would be nicer if they just didn't allow the refugees into Canada in the first place but at least this is a step in the right direction.

Our duties as good global citizens aside, I'd rather have a country filled with appreciative international refugees than sour, Canadian-born bigots. But maybe that's just me.

[STeeLy]

I don't tend to get into political debates.

But... isn't it that refugees in Canada used to get free healthcare, free dental and free optical? (There might be more?)

Legal immigrants to Canada only get basic healthcare.

Now, I'm not saying strip healthcare from refugees altogether, but they definitely should not get MORE than legal immigrants.

I'm ok with refugees having basic healthcare. If you give refugees more, I think the legal immigrants that have just landed should also get more.

[Canuck-Hater]

What will the excuses of the Harper apologists be this time...

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by moon

It would be nicer if they just didn't allow the refugees into Canada in the first place but at least this is a step in the right direction.

Breivik, is that you?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by moon

It would be nicer if they just didn't allow the refugees into Canada in the first place but at least this is a step in the right direction.

It must be especially annoying for you, living in the noted refugee-hotbed of Lethbridge, Alberta.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I don't tend to get into political debates.

But... isn't it that refugees in Canada used to get free healthcare, free dental and free optical? (There might be more?)

Legal immigrants to Canada only get basic healthcare.

Now, I'm not saying strip healthcare from refugees altogether, but they definitely should not get MORE than legal immigrants.

I'm ok with refugees having basic healthcare. If you give refugees more, I think the legal immigrants that have just landed should also get more.

It's my understanding that refugees only get free services for one year upon entry, but I see your point.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I don't tend to get into political debates.

But... isn't it that refugees in Canada used to get free healthcare, free dental and free optical? (There might be more?)

Legal immigrants to Canada only get basic healthcare.

Now, I'm not saying strip healthcare from refugees altogether, but they definitely should not get MORE than legal immigrants.

I'm ok with refugees having basic healthcare. If you give refugees more, I think the legal immigrants that have just landed should also get more.

Up to and including June 29, 2012, the services covered by the IFHP for all eligible beneficiaries will continue to include:

basic coverage (i.e., treatments normally covered by provincial or territorial health insurance plans);
supplemental coverage (i.e., health-care benefits similar to those provided through provincial social assistance plans, such as drugs and dental and vision care); and
costs related to the Immigration Medical Examination (IME).

SOURCE: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugee...healthcare.asp

[driveway]

I'm fine with refugees having greater access to health care for a limited period of time upon their arrival than legal immigrants.

Refugees, by definition, are arriving here under difficult circumstances, often without many (or any) resources. I think it is beneficial to us to provide a superior level of care and support to them while they are establishing themselves here in Canada.

I'd rather support a refugee for a year and have them find solid work and begin the process of assimilation rather than provide them with little to no support and have them become a sustained drain upon the social net.

The assumption I'm making, of course, is that legal immigrants have more resources at their disposal when they immigrate. I know this is a generalization, but I feel it's a reasonable assumption.

Also, moon: stop cheering for the Flames, you embarrass me.

[corporatejay]

I think the worst part is that it will save the government $100 million over 5 years. that's 20 million a year, which i'm sure we can all agree is a pretty insignificant amount of money for our government and means the world to these people who obviously need it so desperately. I'll be phoning my MP tomorrow.

[REDVAN]

So, basically, the government doesn't want to pay for non-Canadian's healthcare.

The doctors, by ethical morality, must treat a sick person, regardless of their nationality.

The doctors have to continue treating ill non-Canadians, they just won't get paid for it.

Therefore, at the end of it all, this is just doctors being greedy, as always.

[CaptainCrunch]

I believe this is being put in place to stop some 65 year old with a preexisting medical condition from coming to Canada to take advantage of our system.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

So, basically, the government doesn't want to pay for non-Canadian's healthcare.

The doctors, by ethical morality, must treat a sick person, regardless of their nationality.

The doctors have to continue treating ill non-Canadians, they just won't get paid for it.

Therefore, at the end of it all, this is just doctors being greedy, as always.

I often donate days of work and just give the money back to the place I work for. It's not like I have to feed my family, pay my student loans or feed my massive porn addiction.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I believe this is being put in place to stop some 65 year old with a preexisting medical condition from coming to Canada to take advantage of our system.

Refugees cost us money, that is a fact. Refugees who are denied services that you and I take for granted because we have jobs, training etc end up costing us more money, that is a fact.

Canada has public health care. Not giving someone care they need does what? Makes them sicker. Unless I totally misunderstand how doctors, hospitals and medicine works, people who are sicker take more resources to treat.

If these people were not eventually going to get treatment, then doing it this way makes a little bit of financial sense, but since they are (in the vast majority of cases), then it doesn't make sense at all.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Refugees cost us money, that is a fact. Refugees who are denied services that you and I take for granted because we have jobs, training etc end up costing us more money, that is a fact.

Canada has public health care. Not giving someone care they need does what? Makes them sicker. Unless I totally misunderstand how doctors, hospitals and medicine works, people who are sicker take more resources to treat.

If these people were not eventually going to get treatment, then doing it this way makes a little bit of financial sense, but since they are (in the vast majority of cases), then it doesn't make sense at all.

Yes I get that but should we be treating people who come here with prexisting conditions and want in because of a free healthcare system?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yes I get that but should we be treating people who come here with prexisting conditions and want in because of a free healthcare system?

In all honesty, what else are we supposed to do?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yes I get that but should we be treating people who come here with prexisting conditions and want in because of a free healthcare system?

You have 2 choices (well 3 if you want to stop accepting refugees).

1. You treat problems now, before they get worse.
2. Person gains landed immigrant status (as the majority of refugees do), you treat a potentially worsened condition.

Unless you take option 3, there is no way to stop paying for the things you have a concern about. By refusing treatment now, you have a potentially higher bill to treat them later. I guess unless they die, that is.

edit: Also, denying them services at one point will potentially serve to drive them to another organization who helps these people and consume their funding, which often comes from the government coffers anyway (directly or indirectly through tax breaks due to donation).