Refugees and Refugee Claimants To Be Denied Healthcare By Harper Government

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by VO #23

My mistake. But the point still stands, if you want to be pedantic. How many 70 year old Hungarians with failing livers and the like are getting into Canada for the purposes of abusing our health care system? We have no idea, it's impossible to speculate an accurate number, but likely it's pretty low. We do have a good idea of what the whole operation costs. And considering our GDP and overall economic strength, it isn't very much, especially if/when the refugees as a whole get onto their feet and start paying into the system.

Here are the actual numbers broken down by age.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...mporary/29.asp

There does not appear to be many 65+ claimants. But you also have to remember that many of these people have gone a life time with little or no healthcare and I would speculate that they are not nearly as healthy as Canadians. I have nothing at this time to prove that but that is what I suspect.

Here are a few other numbers that you can look at as well. The 2011/12 federal budget deficit will be between 20 to 31 billion dollars. Since Canada spends approximately 17% of it's revenue on healthcare (second largest budget item next to debt servicing costs) I think it starting cuts in certain areas here would be benificial to the survival of the overall program.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

All I'm saying is that I have no problem with refugees being accepted and being provided with health care. But I do have a problem with people exploiting the fact that we give out free health care. There needs to be measures put into place to stop that exploit from happening. Seems like that is what the plan is.

Everyone is over-reacting without even realizing what the actual 'laws' that will be put into place are.

I've looked at the link to the laws that were posted earlier in this thread. I've also read an article on how these new laws are to be interpreted. Check out this link from the Chief of Infectious Diseases at Ottawa Hospital, who notes that under the new system, pregnant women will be denied prenatal care, diabetics will be denied insulin, and arthritics will be denied pain medication because these medical issues don't meet the government's new threshold for "urgent care". These types of services are not allowed until refugee status is granted, which can take up to three years.

Anyways, the immigration system isn't perfect. I'm not advocating to keep it as it is, full stop. But this reform of health care to refugee claimants is, as someone else said earlier (Slava?), penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Here's the link. The doctor makes a number of good points about why it's important to keep primary, preventative care available:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...195/story.html

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Here are the actual numbers broken down by age.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...mporary/29.asp

There does not appear to be many 65+ claimants. But you also have to remember that many of these people have gone a life time with little or no healthcare and I would speculate that they are not nearly as healthy as Canadians. I have nothing at this time to prove that but that is what I suspect.

Here are a few other numbers that you can look at as well. The 2011/12 federal budget deficit will be between 20 to 31 billion dollars. Since Canada spends approximately 17% of it's revenue on healthcare (second largest budget item next to debt servicing costs) I think it starting cuts in certain areas here would be benificial to the survival of the overall program.

Yeah, fair enough. I'd rather the government keep the current refugee health care program (though some new checks and balances could be examined IMO) and scrap one super expensive, shiny fighter jet that will never get used. But my priorities differ I guess.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by VO #23

I've looked at the link to the laws that were posted earlier in this thread. I've also read an article on how these new laws are to be interpreted. Check out this link from the Chief of Infectious Diseases at Ottawa Hospital, who notes that under the new system, pregnant women will be denied prenatal care, diabetics will be denied insulin, and arthritics will be denied pain medication because these medical issues don't meet the government's new threshold for "urgent care". These types of services are not allowed until refugee status is granted, which can take up to three years.

Anyways, the immigration system isn't perfect. I'm not advocating to keep it as it is, full stop. But this reform of health care to refugee claimants is, as someone else said earlier (Slava?), penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Here's the link. The doctor makes a number of good points about why it's important to keep primary, preventative care available:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...195/story.html

If it is that important, then why are these services not being provided to the rest of Canadians for free?

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If it is that important, then why are these services not being provided to the rest of Canadians for free?

Many low-income Canadians are already entitled to assistance for medicine, care, etc under provincial health legislation (ex: The Prescription Drug Cost Assistance Act in Manitoba, or supplemental assistance in the form of subsidy in Alberta).

This "better access to health care than Canadian citizens" nonsense that Kenney is so happy to spout seems pretty overblown IMO.

[killer_carlson]

As someone who Actually does pro Bono immigration work from time to time, I can say I have severe frustration with those who claim refugee status when there is no chance of success.

Bonafide refugees have experienced the worst parts of humanity. It isn't hardship. It is persecution and execution. They have endured and we can find a place for them in Canada. It is the right thing to do. Where they struggle though, is with a public perception that they are cheats who manipulated the system to get free stuff. This perception is propagated by the false claimants.

I can tell you that I support a lot of what Kenney is doing. I can also tell you that my opinion in not shared by most immigration and refugee lawyers. Its a tough gig that Kenney has and there are difficult decisions to make.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The problems caused in 08 in the US were much different than what happened in Greece, yet their current spending problems as very similar to Greece. The are spending more than they have. Yes, not on social programs but on other programs, mostly military. At the end of the day it is the same problem, spending more than you have. In the US, they can cut military spending fairly easy, in Greece, when you have a society built on expected social programs, not so easy to cut. This is evident in all the riots and government collapses going on.

The last bolded part: This is a type response I see from the left. Why is Harper spending money on jets. Do you know how many hospitals that could build? Do you know how many teacher that could hire? We are going to need new jets, that is a fact. The F-18s were not built to last forever. If we as a country want to defend our social programs and our freedoms we need to have the ability to defend it. I just don't understand why you people cannot see this. But whatever, if you can't see that Canadians are being nickled and dimed to death, well, there is not much I can do. Every extra fee and tax that gets added to our bill always starts with a phrase like what we are talking about. "Why would anyone care, it's only 75 cents per person." At what point, do all the dollars and cents add up to a point where Canadians are tapped out?

Again with the left/right rhetoric and just plain ignoring that there is/was an obvious choice made here. Canadians are being told we can't possibly afford this kind of spending in one breath and in the next the cost of the fighter jets jumps by billions of dollars.

I know you desperately want to turn this into a partisan discussion, but again its not. The US is in the same position and for the exact same reason as the path Canada is choosing here. You alluded to this in your post. I would also submit that it is much easier to cut the program spending we're talking about here than it is to cut military spending. You seem to think that the US could simply do this, but I think its a lot harder.

What this all boils down to though is basically nothing. Its $20M. You can't even buy a nice bridge for that kind of money. Can Bev Oda even get a hotel room and OJ with that? If this is where the government has arrived in their prioritizing to save money and meet budget projections though, things must be pretty bleak.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

Again with the left/right rhetoric and just plain ignoring that there is/was an obvious choice made here. Canadians are being told we can't possibly afford this kind of spending in one breath and in the next the cost of the fighter jets jumps by billions of dollars.

I know you desperately want to turn this into a partisan discussion, but again its not. The US is in the same position and for the exact same reason as the path Canada is choosing here. You alluded to this in your post. I would also submit that it is much easier to cut the program spending we're talking about here than it is to cut military spending. You seem to think that the US could simply do this, but I think its a lot harder.

What this all boils down to though is basically nothing. Its $20M. You can't even buy a nice bridge for that kind of money. Can Bev Oda even get a hotel room and OJ with that? If this is where the government has arrived in their prioritizing to save money and meet budget projections though, things must be pretty bleak.

Ok, it's nothing, just 20 million, thats all, peanuts as another poster stated. You and I will not see eye to eye on this one.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by VO #23

I've looked at the link to the laws that were posted earlier in this thread. I've also read an article on how these new laws are to be interpreted. Check out this link from the Chief of Infectious Diseases at Ottawa Hospital, who notes that under the new system, pregnant women will be denied prenatal care, diabetics will be denied insulin, and arthritics will be denied pain medication because these medical issues don't meet the government's new threshold for "urgent care". These types of services are not allowed until refugee status is granted, which can take up to three years.

Anyways, the immigration system isn't perfect. I'm not advocating to keep it as it is, full stop. But this reform of health care to refugee claimants is, as someone else said earlier (Slava?), penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Here's the link. The doctor makes a number of good points about why it's important to keep primary, preventative care available:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...195/story.html

The Chief of Infectious Diseases at Ottawa Hospital may be a smart dude, but ignorant as hell. He could learn more about these new changes by reading this thread on CP! I'll quote it again!!!

This package will cover the cost of the following products and services if they are provided in Canada and if they are of an urgent or essential nature

2.2.2. For the purpose of the IFH Program, services, as listed in the OIC, are of an essential nature if they are provided to an IFHP beneficiary:

1. who is presenting for assessment and follow-up of a specific illness, symptom, complaint or injury;
2. for prenatal, labour and delivery, and postpartum care (including routine prenatal care and maternal care for up to 28 days after the delivery); or
3. for the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of a disease posing a risk to public health or of a condition of public safety concern.

How can these really edumacated guys not take the time to read, comprehend and comment intelligently on these changes? Frankly, they are abusing their positions by making uneducated and absolutely wrong and misleading comments to the media and therefore the public. There is more thoughtful commentary on this forum from hockey fans than there is in the print media from doctors and surgeons.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, it's nothing, just 20 million, thats all, peanuts as another poster stated. You and I will not see eye to eye on this one.

In the grand scheme though, it is nothing. Its not a situation where we can either spend $25B on fighter jets or spend $25B on this program. This is absolutely penny-wise and pound-foolish. Why aren't any of the other fiscal conservatives in that same position.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, it's nothing, just 20 million, thats all, peanuts as another poster stated. You and I will not see eye to eye on this one.

Twenty million dollars is an extradinary sum to you and me, but you have to put that number in context. Total spending by the federal government in 2012 is budgeted at $276.1B, so $20M is 0.007% of total expenditures. To put that number in perspective, for an individual making $50k per year, 0.007% of their pre-tax income is $3.50, barely enough to buy a coffee and donut at Tim's.

So yes, in the larger context of federal government spending, $20M is peanuts.

[Lt.Spears]

What we should really be doing is deporting those that come here and break our laws.

One strike policy should apply if you are an immigrant over the last 5-10 years.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Twenty million dollars is an extradinary sum to you and me, but you have to put that number in context. Total spending by the federal government in 2012 is budgeted at $276.1B, so $20M is 0.007% of total expenditures. To put that number in perspective, for an individual making $50k per year, 0.007% of their pre-tax income is $3.50, barely enough to buy a coffee and donut at Tim's.

So yes, in the larger context of federal government spending, $20M is peanuts.

Looking at this from a 'fiscal' viewpoint is wrong, IMO. It should be about stopping abuse of the system, and not about saving money. The abuse is happening, therefore we need laws to stop the abuse before it gets any worse.

The US has a huge problem with illegal aliens getting illegal refunds for dependents living in other countries. This has been a problem they've known about for a long time, but because they ignored it for so long, now the IRS doesn't have the manpower to actually stop it from happening.

I look at this issue the same way. Might not be a huge problem now, and I agree that $20 million is peanuts, but it is still a problem, and it needs to be addressed before it really gets out of hand.

Burying our heads in the sand because it is only $20 million is extremely stupid, IMO. Perhaps we don't agree on the actual law, but let us at least agree that it needs to be addressed.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Lt.Spears

What we should really be doing is deporting those that come here and break our laws.

One strike policy should apply if you are an immigrant over the last 5-10 years.

I disagree. Citizenship should have only one category. You are either a citizen or you are not. We can't have two levels of citizens in the country.

It takes a few years to qualify as a citizen anyway and I would imagine that being convicted of a crime during that period would cause problems with your application.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Looking at this from a 'fiscal' viewpoint is wrong, IMO. It should be about stopping abuse of the system, and not about saving money. The abuse is happening, therefore we need laws to stop the abuse before it gets any worse.

There are always people abusing the system though. You can't base everything on the lowest common denominator. Just because one person cheats on EI does it mean we should cancel the program? Where do we draw the line?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are always people abusing the system though. You can't base everything on the lowest common denominator. Just because one person cheats on EI does it mean we should cancel the program? Where do we draw the line?

Stop abuse =/= cancel the program

[Slava]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Stop abuse =/= cancel the program

In this case its basically whats happening though?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are always people abusing the system though. You can't base everything on the lowest common denominator. Just because one person cheats on EI does it mean we should cancel the program? Where do we draw the line?

You should try to not come across as being completely ridiculous. Yes we know people abuse the system all the time. People commit credit card fraud too. Point is that credit card companies are actively trying to stop that fraud, and despite that, close to $50 billion is 'lost' every year due to credit card fraud. And no matter what credit card companies do, people will still commit fraud. Yet, it is still in their best interest to stop the fraud. Likewise it is the governments job to actively make sure people don't abuse the system so that it stays stable for those of us who will need it.

Saying they shouldn't try to keep people from abusing the refugee program because no matter what you will do, the abuse will still happen is completely ridiculous. It is the governments job to make sure that taxpayer money is being spent efficiently and effectively. I don't care if its $20 million or $20 billion.

This whole thread starting with the title is full of over-reactions by people who didn't even bother to read the actual articles.

Which seems to be pretty typical these days going by the 'no bad jobs' thread, and this one as well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

In this case its basically whats happening though?

Did you even read the damn article? Please go read it and then come back and say that the program is being canceled. Geez.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

You should try to not come across as being completely ridiculous. Yes we know people abuse the system all the time. People commit credit card fraud too. Point is that credit card companies are actively trying to stop that fraud, and despite that, close to $50 billion is 'lost' every year due to credit card fraud. And no matter what credit card companies do, people will still commit fraud. Yet, it is still in their best interest to stop the fraud. Likewise it is the governments job to actively make sure people don't abuse the system so that it stays stable for those of us who will need it.

Saying they shouldn't try to keep people from abusing the refugee program because no matter what you will do, the abuse will still happen is completely ridiculous. It is the governments job to make sure that taxpayer money is being spent efficiently and effectively. I don't care if its $20 million or $20 billion.

This whole thread starting with the title is full of over-reactions by people who didn't even bother to read the actual articles.

Which seems to be pretty typical these days going by the 'no bad jobs' thread, and this one as well.

Actually I've read the article here and I've read other articles on the same topic. Thanks for making sure that I did my homework though!

Obviously I don't think that they should let abuse run rampant; who really thinks that they should? Everyone on every issue thinks that public money should be spent efficiently and properly as well, so I have no idea what you're getting at there. Has anyone ever argued otherwise?

You're basically grasping at straws now. The fiscal side and the whole "we can save $20M a year" has been shown to be virtually meaningless, so now its the "there are cheaters we plan on catching" argument. Is there any data that suggests a huge amount of people are filing refugee claims to get healthcare? Can we see something tangible that shows that Canadians are on the receiving end of consistent fraudulent behavior of this sort?

I'm sure that there is some fraud. Trying to eliminate it by cutting the program is throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. Sorry if that is "ridiculous" to you, but its the epitome of basing the system around those who try to cheat it.