Court: Cuts to refugee health care “cruel and unusual” treatment

[cybercoma]

So you would rather we have a refugee system that's not fair then?

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't? Canada is providing Humanitarian Aid by accepting refugees, but it doesn't make sense that they get drugs and dental when they arrive? These benefits are not in perpetuity.

Actually, Jacee explained the motivation for the program and also how I got snowed...

[jacee]

I can ignore your nasty comments.

The Singh decision was the one in which the Supreme Court decided that the Charter applied to anyone who arrived here, illegal immigrant, phoney refugee, or whatever. They all get lawyers, welfare and health care at our expense.

Cite for "billions and billions" pls.

[guyser]

The Singh decision was the one in which the Supreme Court decided that the Charter applied to anyone who arrived here, illegal immigrant, phoney refugee, or whatever. They all get lawyers, welfare and health care at our expense.

...traveller, tourist etc....which means in the later they do not get those things.

But the Charter applies to all who are here.

Shouldnt be any other way.

[Keepitsimple]

One point people forget is that a refugee is not a refugee until we confirm that they are. Showing up on the doorstep claiming to be a refugee does not make you one - you are a refugee claimant. When claimants are turned down - they are not refugees - for the most part, they are queue-jumpers - economic migrants trying to fast-path their way into Canada. Charter of Rights notwithstanding, surely it makes sense to at least admit the difference and work towards a fairer policy.

[Rue]

Jacee I want to respond to you. First off I think there is a moral imperative of first world countries to help refugees yes. I just think the system e have is not doing that. I argue the vast majority of refugees are stuck on the ground in areas of conflict and flee to camps. I believe the assistance should be directly to those camps in terms of shelter, clothing, food, water and medical assistance.

I believe the money we spend in Canada for incoming "refugees" while intended to help the disadvantaged is in serious need of review because I would argue that a stong case can be made that the majority of people claiming refugee status today are in fact are not but are economic migrants. They come because they are seeking benefits they can not get in their countries not because they are being persecuted.

I think we have created two sets of immigrants and it has set an absurd message out there that if you want to get into Canada, lie and say you are a "refugee don't be a sucker and wait in line.

Do I have a problem with "refugees" getting the same medical/dental care as people on welfare? If they are not genuine refugees, yes.

I also have a concern that anyone on wefare getting dental benefits for free is problematic. There are many Canadians who work for minimum wage or who can not afford dental care. why are theypenalized because they work?

More and more Canadians can not afford medical prescriptions and dental care without private insurance but can' get private insurance any more because they have to take contract and part-time work.

Sure we are a nation of immigrants. But immigrants work hard and pay for themselves. How and why are we giving benefits that may be a disincentive to work and contribute?

I respect where your position is coming from. Compassion for the poor and needy is a moral imperative of course.

I just think we have to be more realistic as to the extent and capacity of our benevolence and the criteria for how we decide who gets what.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Rue

[guyser]

I believe the assistance should be directly to those camps in terms of shelter, clothing, food, water and medical assistance.

We al;ready do that, as does any other 1st nation country

I believe the money we spend in Canada for incoming "refugees" while intended to help the disadvantaged is in serious need of review because I would argue that a stong case can be made that the majority of people claiming refugee status today are in fact are not but are economic migrants. They come because they are seeking benefits they can not get in their countries not because they are being persecuted.

You will have something to back this up....No ?

[cybercoma]

107 posts and nobody has spoken about specifics when it comes to refugee legislation, the court decision, or the bill that was shot down. There's nothing but generalities, consisting of whining about foreigners. Someone bring some specifics to the table. How about some details and facts to back up all of the fear-mongering xenophobia.

[guyser]

Not entirely cyb

I put some info on what some can get

[Bob Macadoo]

107 posts and nobody has spoken about specifics when it comes to refugee legislation, the court decision, or the bill that was shot down. There's nothing but generalities, consisting of whining about foreigners. Someone bring some specifics to the table. How about some details and facts to back up all of the fear-mongering xenophobia.

I was going to say the same....a big whinefest. The only informative post was Jacee's regarding actual benefits.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/outside/arriving-healthcare.asp

With this coverage, beneficiaries will be covered if they need medical attention for a disease, symptom, complaint or injury, including:

hospital services;laboratory, diagnostic and ambulance services;

and medications and vaccines only when needed to prevent or treat a disease posing a risk to public health or to treat a condition of public safety concern

This package does not provide coverage for elective surgery, cosmetic surgery, services related to fertility or sterilization, home care or long-term care.

But keep the xenophobia alive.....

[Argus]

So you would rather we have a refugee system that's not fair then?

There's "fair" and then there's 'fair'.

The problem, or at least, how I see the problem, is once you involve lawyers, fairness is irrelevant anyway. What you get is a horribly complex, hideously expensive and time consuming system which probably isn't any more fair than we'd have if we immediately ran them before a 3 judge panel and let them tell their own story.

By way of comparison, let me use federal public service hiring. HR utterly consumed with "fairness" to the point where even competitions for low level clerks take close to a year, with multiple tests and assessments all designed to ensure "fairness" which means no one is given preferential hiring. And all that time and all those scrupulously careful testing procedures don't mean a thing. Managers and directors still find a way to hire the people they want and promote the people they want, including friends, relatives and lovers. Total waste of time and money.

[Argus]

I can ignore your nasty comments.

Cite for "billions and billions" pls.

Phht. My comments are never nasty except to nasty people.

Senior civil servants such as Mr. Manion estimate refugee claimant expenditures alone cost Canadians around $2 Billion per year. Since 2000, Canada has averaged 30,000+ refugee claimants per year. Since 1989, total costs have been in the $30 Billion range.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2005/03/23/the-1985-singh-decision-disaster-vs-the-1985-air-india-disaster/

Canada’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration estimates that the cost of each failed refugee claimant is $50,000 in provincial social services, healthcare

and legal costs. In 2008, Canada received 37,000 asylum-seekers. Since approximately 60 per cent of these claimants will eventually be refused because they lack valid claims

and since each claim costs approximately $50,000, these 37,000 refugee claimants who arrived in 2008 will cost Canadian taxpayers over $1-billion

http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS101_HelpRefugees_AP29_F3.pdf

[Argus]

107 posts and nobody has spoken about specifics when it comes to refugee legislation, the court decision, or the bill that was shot down. There's nothing but generalities, consisting of whining about foreigners. Someone bring some specifics to the table. How about some details and facts to back up all of the fear-mongering xenophobia.

Here's a specific.

In 1981, in the Pre-Singh Decision period, 3450 refugee claims were made in Canada. In 1987, two years after the Singh Decision, over 25,000 refugee claims were made.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2005/03/23/the-1985-singh-decision-disaster-vs-the-1985-air-india-disaster/

I'm confident, btw, that I've contributed a lot more specifics than you.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

107 posts and nobody has spoken about specifics when it comes to refugee legislation, the court decision, or the bill that was shot down. There's nothing but generalities, consisting of whining about foreigners. Someone bring some specifics to the table. How about some details and facts to back up all of the fear-mongering xenophobia.

Previously posted:

1) I agree that refugees should NOT get preferential healthcare. I don't get vision-care or dental care - why should a refugee? How did that ever end up in the coverage anyway?

2) Refugees that are turned down by the Refugee Tribunal are offered a plane ticket home and up to $2000 is support funding to find a job or start a business. If they choose to stay and appeal - most of their Health coverage stops. It's their choice.

3) "Refugees" that come from countries that are deemed to be safe and thus fail the claim are also denied health coverage after determination. Their hearings are expedited and Canada pays for their flight home. Some people can argue with the DCO list of countries but the reasoning behind it is sound....

And lest we forget - we cannot take everybody in - and for every undeserving refugee that slips through to take advantage of our generosity - a REAL refugee is left out.....and that's the real cruelty.

.....and:

One point people forget is that a refugee is not a refugee until we confirm that they are. Showing up on the doorstep claiming to be a refugee does not make you one - you are a refugee claimant. When claimants are turned down - they are not refugees - for the most part, they are queue-jumpers - economic migrants trying to fast-path their way into Canada. Charter of Rights notwithstanding, surely it makes sense to at least admit the difference and work towards a fairer policy.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

There's "fair" and then there's 'fair'.

The problem, or at least, how I see the problem, is once you involve lawyers, fairness is irrelevant anyway. What you get is a horribly complex, hideously expensive and time consuming system which probably isn't any more fair than we'd have if we immediately ran them before a 3 judge panel and let them tell their own story.

By way of comparison, let me use federal public service hiring. HR utterly consumed with "fairness" to the point where even competitions for low level clerks take close to a year, with multiple tests and assessments all designed to ensure "fairness" which means no one is given preferential hiring. And all that time and all those scrupulously careful testing procedures don't mean a thing. Managers and directors still find a way to hire the people they want and promote the people they want, including friends, relatives and lovers. Total waste of time and money.

So your argument is anything that involves lawyers anywhere is too complex, expensive, and time consuming. This must be true because sometime in your experience you noticed some issues with hiring in the federal public service. So are you arguing we should stop involving lawyers in legal decisions and processes? Is that your solution? There is fair, then there's let's not get lawyers involved with the law fair? What you're saying makes little sense.

[guyser]

Since 2000, Canada has averaged 30,000+ refugee claimants per year. Since 1989, total costs have been in the $30 Billion range

Its now down to 10,000.

So we good to go now or what?

[cybercoma]

Here's a specific.

In 1981, in the Pre-Singh Decision period, 3450 refugee claims were made in Canada. In 1987, two years after the Singh Decision, over 25,000 refugee claims were made.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2005/03/23/the-1985-singh-decision-disaster-vs-the-1985-air-india-disaster/

I'm confident, btw, that I've contributed a lot more specifics than you.

So you have some cherry-picked data that is relevant to the costs of healthcare provided to "fraudulent" refugee claimants how exactly?

[jacee]

Jacee I want to respond to you. First off I think there is a moral imperative of first world countries to help refugees yes. I just think the system e have is not doing that. I argue the vast majority of refugees are stuck on the ground in areas of conflict and flee to camps. I believe the assistance should be directly to those camps in terms of shelter, clothing, food, water and medical assistance.

We do both.

I believe the money we spend in Canada for incoming "refugees" while intended to help the disadvantaged is in serious need of review because I would argue that a stong case can be made that the majority of people claiming refugee status today are in fact are not but are economic migrants. They come because they are seeking benefits they can not get in their countries not because they are being persecuted.

Ya that's the propaganda being perpetrated.

Can you provide evidence that it's true?

I think we have created two sets of immigrants and it has set an absurd message out there that if you want to get into Canada, lie and say you are a "refugee don't be a sucker and wait in line.

Cite?

Do I have a problem with "refugees" getting the same medical/dental care as people on welfare? If they are not genuine refugees, yes.

I also have a concern that anyone on wefare getting dental benefits for free is problematic. There are many Canadians who work for minimum wage or who can not afford dental care. why are theypenalized because they work?

More and more Canadians can not afford medical prescriptions and dental care without private insurance but can' get private insurance any more because they have to take contract and part-time work.

Sure we are a nation of immigrants. But immigrants work hard and pay for themselves. How and why are we giving benefits that may be a disincentive to work and contribute?

I'm not sure what post of mine you are replying to, because you clearly didn't read this one:

There have been some myths propagated about vision and dental care for refugee applicants (and welfare recipients too btw).It was true that refugee applicants got the same prescription, vision and dental benefits as citizens on welfare.

Vision: How the hell can someone get a job and support themselves if they can't see and just need some cheap prescription glasses? Seems like a good investment to me, to get them into the labour force instead of stuck on welfare. They're not getting the expensive, graduated no glare lenses either.

Dental = emergency only, and only when some dentist decides s/he feels like doing a charity appt.

On welfare/refugee benefits, if you have an abcessed tooth IT GETS PULLED. That's it, that's all. No root canals, no caps,bridges, false teeth ... just cheap (mercury) fillings and extractions only, emergency only, and only when a dentist feels like it. (Same for prisoners, btw.)

IE these are not at all like the 'dental benefits' we might have through our jobs.

Harper and co. have intentionally snowed people on this, imo. Disgusting, imo.

I respect where your position is coming from. Compassion for the poor and needy is a moral imperative of course.

I just think we have to be more realistic as to the extent and capacity of our benevolence and the criteria for how we decide who gets what.

Ya others say that too, but I haven't yet seen any evidence presented of abuse of the process.

.

Edited July 9, 2014 by jacee

[Argus]

So your argument is anything that involves lawyers anywhere is too complex, expensive, and time consuming. This must be true because sometime in your experience you noticed some issues with hiring in the federal public service. So are you arguing we should stop involving lawyers in legal decisions and processes? Is that your solution? There is fair, then there's let's not get lawyers involved with the law fair? What you're saying makes little sense.

I was simply giving an example, but clearly you didn't actually want a answer because you're too indignant and self-righteous to care anyway.

There's no evidence the system with all the lawyers that takes several years is the slightest bit more fair than the one which handled things quickly and efficiently, but I know you don't care about that either. All you want to do is bitch that not everyone loves our refugee system like you do. So go ahead and do so and stop pretending you want information.

[Argus]

Its now down to 10,000.

So we good to go now or what?

If we're still spending $50,000 on each one of them and the majority are phoney, then no.

[cybercoma]

I was simply giving an example, but clearly you didn't actually want a answer because you're too indignant and self-righteous to care anyway. There's no evidence the system with all the lawyers that takes several years is the slightest bit more fair than the one which handled things quickly and efficiently, but I know you don't care about that either. All you want to do is bitch that not everyone loves our refugee system like you do. So go ahead and do so and stop pretending you want information.

Your arguments are pretty pathetic if you're abandoning them for personal insults already. Don't take it out on me because you've embarrassed yourself with nonsense rhetoric that you can't even back up when someone presses you on it. Edited July 9, 2014 by cybercoma

[jacee]

There's no evidence the system with all the lawyers that takes several years is the slightest bit more fair than the one which handled things quickly and efficiently

So where's your evidence for the "fairness" of the quick and efficient one?

, but I know you don't care about that either. All you want to do is bitch that not everyone loves our refugee system like you do. So go ahead and do so and stop pretending you want information.

Resorts to personal attack ...ah ... ok ... so now we know for sure that you got nothing else but a bunch of generalities, vague claims ... nothing.

.

[PIK]

Just heard on the radio and I did not catch it all,but this person had done a study but since this refugee business was changed by the government in 2012, claimants dropped form 20000 to, 9000 wait time from 2 yrs to months and most people were coming in from UN nations, like france and Germany and such. So the real refugee is being better looked after after the fraudulent ones withdrew.

[cybercoma]

I've had a change of heart.

We shouldn't accept refugees from culturally, ethnically, and racially inferior countries. Their mongrel blood will do nothing but create more social problems in Canada and we certainly don't need that. People from countries like the United States and United Kingdom should also never be refugees to Canada because there is no way those nations would oppress them in any way whatsoever.

We must do everything we can to preserve our way of life here and not have it soiled by backwards foreigners.

[Keepitsimple]

Lets not forget that these benefits are not being denied to refugees as the topic says - and as the sensationalist media and CBC would have people believe. They are only denied to failed and bogus refugees - who by definition are not refugees at all.