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

[jacee]

I'm worried more about fiscal issues rather than political issues. As great a feeling as it would be to offer free everything to everyone in need in the world, it's simply not possible. And we need to approach these subjects with logic and reason, and most of all, an adult level of maturity, instead of child-like wishing and wanting.

Well how about this logic, shady:

The governments own witnesses admitted the changes to the program were based on various perceptions and beliefs.

From a cost containment perspective, the government offered no evidence that the changes will in fact result in any real savings to Canadian taxpayers".

Hmm ... offerred no evidence of savings ... just perceptions and beliefs.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry - what does the program actually cost?

[Big Guy]

Any person requiring emergency care is never turned down at a Canadian hospital. By oath, a doctor will not turn down an individual in need. We still accommodate those who need but do not have coverage.

As to children, I would much rather accommodate immigrant children than immigrant elderly. Children can be educated and become earning members of our society. With the elderly, I do not think it fair that Canadian citizens who have been paying into health support services for most of their lives get bumped by non-productive elderly immigrants who require $hundreds of thousands in care. Also, many medical services are scheduled according to need, not citizenship so procedures like knee and hip replacements have very long waiting lists.

[jacee]

As to children, I would much rather accommodate immigrant children than immigrant elderly. Children can be educated and become earning members of our society. With the elderly, I do not think it fair that Canadian citizens who have been paying into health support services for most of their lives get bumped by non-productive elderly immigrants who require $hundreds of thousands in care. Also, many medical services are scheduled according to need, not citizenship so procedures like knee and hip replacements have very long waiting lists.

"non-productive" elderly ...

Now there's a phrase that sends chills down the spine! Visions of brown shirts ... cattlecars ... mass graves for the 'non-productive' elders ...

There sure is a really ugly side to the 'family values' of the Harper Conservatives.

A family is a unit with one or more breadwinners who support the young and the elderly.

If the HarperCons want 'productive', they should let the breadwinners out of immigration detention so they can get a job!!!

hundreds_held_in_canadas_immigration_cells

However, advocates argue lengthy immigration detention violates detainees rights and Canada, a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should abide by international law and limit such imprisonment to 90 days.

Once again the courts have to intervene to overturn harsh and unjustifiable Harper legislation that victimizes vulnerable people.

Some friggen 'family values'!!!!

Edited July 5, 2014 by jacee

[Argus]

Right, of course. That is the solution. Perhaps these children will make their way north to Canada's border. Than what? Do we send them back on their way?

The courts have previously ruled we are not allowed to send ANYONE on his or her way. Once they make a claim, that's it. They're here for a couple of years or more while they run through the system and their government paid lawyer files appeals. During that time they have all the rights Canadians have (again, decided by another court) and must be given full medical treament (again, decided the other day by a court). The cost of all this is bilions and billions of dollars.

[Argus]

You need to consider why these kids are leaving their countries before you send them back on their way. They are leaving because of violence, being forced into joining gangs, terrorist organizations etc. among other reasons. You can't just say 'send them back to their country of origin' without analyzing why they are leaving and providing solutions.

Sure you can. The situations you are describing exist for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world. We cannot take even a tiny percentage of such people. Why, then, should we take any?

The refugee system was supposed to be for politically persecuted individuals but has morphed into describing anyone who lives in a third world country where the government or the culture or society isn't up to Canadian standards as a legitimate refugee.

[Argus]

Well it kinda works like this: if you go to another country and extract huge revenues from their resources, it's a bit unfair to then rush home with the money coming out your asshole and then pretend the people from the place you got the dough don't exist.

Let me see if I get this right. Let's take a country, say, Nigeria, with lots of oil. As long as we just ignore it and leave the oil in the ground, well then, we have no responsibilities to them. But if some western oil company goes in and explores, drills for and develops their oil, then takes a profit from it, then we're somehow responsible for those people's unhappiness and poor living standards?

[Argus]

Not very worldly are you when it comes to the underbelly of foreign governments?

So it's our fault that the Nigerian government takes its share of the oil money and steals it instead of helping their people? What would you have us do, go over there and make them share it out at gunpoint?

[Argus]

Sorry - what does the program actually cost?

The government, according to the court, didn't seem to put in a lot of effort in demonstrating the costs involved. Their best guess was about $15 million a year, which isn't a lot in the scheme of things, unless word gets around and more people come just to abuse it. Which is a possibility. I mean, if i was an American and I couldn't get my kid an operation because I had no money, I'd sure as hell take him to Canada and call myself a refugee to get that operation done. Heck, he can get all his dental care taken care of while here, as well. You might be surprised how many American live with terrible dental problems because they have no money.

[Argus]

"non-productive" elderly ...

Now there's a phrase that sends chills down the spine! Visions of brown shirts ... cattlecars ... mass graves for the 'non-productive' elders ...

I'm not aware that the Nazis ever targeted the elderly for being non-productive. So I'm not sure why it would bring that 'image' to mind. To me it more resembles inuit elderly who, in past times would wander off into the snow rather than be a burden on their children.

A family is a unit with one or more breadwinners who support the young and the elderly.

Nice theory, but totally unrealistic. The medical costs to society for elders greatly exceed what most any of those elderly people's children might pay in taxes.

However, advocates argue lengthy immigration detention violates detainees rights and Canada, a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should abide by international law and limit such imprisonment to 90 days.

For the most part, those detained are considered to be either potentially dangerous to Canada, or have such a weak case they're likey to just disapear and not show for their hearing.

It would be nice to have their hearing within 90 days so they could be deported, but unfortunately the singh decision, which has probably cost Canada tens of billions of dollars, gave all would-be refugees Canadian civil rights, including the right for a paid lawyer to fight their deportation, for years, if necessary.

[jacee]

I'm not aware that the Nazis ever targeted the elderly for being non-productive. So I'm not sure why it would bring that 'image' to mind.

Then you aren't very well informed.

Indeed, the Nazis' murder between 1939 and 1941 of 70,000 "useless" and "burdensome" elderly and infirm Germans -- which Gendercide Watch refers to as geracide (from the Greek geras, "old age") -- was clearly a manifestation of the exterminationist impulse that would in short order be directed against Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Slavic males, and others.

Nazi gendercide, geracide, and infanticide

To me it more resembles inuit elderly who, in past times would wander off into the snow rather than be a burden on their children.

Is that your intention? Good for you!

Nice theory, but totally unrealistic. The medical costs to society for elders greatly exceed what most any of those elderly people's children might pay in taxes.

Paying for your health care costs is really starting to bug me.

When do you retire to your ice flow?

We may have to move you up the queue for that.

For the most part, those detained are considered to be either potentially dangerous to Canada, or have such a weak case they're likey to just disapear and not show for their hearing.

It would be nice to have their hearing within 90 days so they could be deported, but unfortunately the singh decision, which has probably cost Canada tens of billions of dollars, gave all would-be refugees Canadian civil rights, including the right for a paid lawyer to fight their deportation, for years, if necessary.

I guess you didn't read the link. (Informing yourself of facts certainly isn't your forte, is it?

This factoid is hilarious!

Some are denied refugee status because the government doesn't consider them to be personally at enough risk in their home countries.

But they can't be deported to those countries because the government doesn't consider those countries "safe" enough.

So they are held indefinitely in immigration detention where they cost us a lot of money to support them, and they can't work or pay taxes.

Often the women and children are released, but not the men who would support them, so they need public support.

It's all stupid politics instead of intelligent policy.

Harper tries to play the bully badass to appeal to his bully badass core supporters,

(who can't be bothered to inform themselves of facts. As long as he makesit sounds mean and nasty, they love it!)

and ends up costing us more money and violating both Canadian and international laws.

Edited July 5, 2014 by jacee

[Argus]

Then you aren't very well informed.

Indeed, the Nazis' murder between 1939 and 1941 of 70,000 "useless" and "burdensome" elderly and infirm Germans -

JEWISH elderly. Duh.

Is that your intention? Good for you!

And then you bitch and moan when I insult you back.

I guess you didn't read the link. (Informing yourself of facts certainly isn't your forte, is it?

This factoid is hilarious!

Some are denied refugee status because the government doesn't consider them to be personally at enough risk in their home countries.

But they can't be deported to those countries because the government doesn't consider those countries "safe" enough.

Translation. The courts, screwing around again. The courts have determined that no one can be deported to certain countries, EVER, no matter what they do. So in the minds of the bleeding heart, wheepy liberal, ALL the populations of these countries should be allowed to become Canadian citizens. These people aren't in any particular danger. They're not members of some hunted down political opposition. They just come from certain countries as economic refugees.

I'd be happy to let all those individuals free, so long as you and the other weepy, bleeding heart liberals vouch fore each and every single one. And are 100% responsible for all costs associated with them. Oh, and if they dissapear, we put you in detention until they are found.

Sound fair?

Edited July 5, 2014 by Argus

[jacee]

JEWISH elderly. Duh.

And Roma and Polish.

So ... what's your point?

And then you bitch and moan when I insult you back.

That wasn't intended as an insult.

It was more of a reminder that if you are proposing that elderly immigrant family members should off themselves, that can be applied to you too.

Or ... you could think of it as just a ... travel suggestion.

Or a 'great race' kinda thing:

If your ice floe makes it to Siberia with you alive ... you win! You get to stay there !

... if you can get through Russian immigration detention ...

Translation. The courts, screwing around again. The courts have determined that no one can be deported to certain countries, EVER, no matter what they do.

No not the courts.

The Government of Canada designates safe and unsafe countries, and it changes with conditions in those countries.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.1128135

(If you don't like being told you're wrong, check your facts first.)

So in the minds of the bleeding heart, wheepy liberal, ALL the populations of these countries should be allowed to become Canadian citizens. These people aren't in any particular danger. They're not members of some hunted down political opposition.

You don't know that.

They just come from certain countries as economic refugees.

You don't know that either.

I'd be happy to let all those individuals free, so long as you and the other weepy, bleeding heart liberals vouch fore each and every single one. And are 100% responsible for all costs associated with them. Oh, and if they dissapear, we put you in detention until they are found.

Sound fair?

Newsflash! All failed refugee claimants in detention who can't be deported to their unsafe home countries ... will heretofore be released ... to Argus' neighbourhood! ... where they'll quickly be deprogrammed from thinking Canada is a good place to stay. Edited July 6, 2014 by jacee

[Big Guy]

"non-productive" elderly ...

Now there's a phrase that sends chills down the spine! Visions of brown shirts ... cattlecars ... mass graves for the 'non-productive' elders ...

There sure is a really ugly side to the 'family values' of the Harper Conservatives.

A family is a unit with one or more breadwinners who support the young and the elderly.

...

My reference was to people who were too old to work and would have to depend on government and social services for health costs. I agree that all are entitled to basic life saving health care but I still feel that those who have been paying into our health system for many years should be given priority for non-crucial surgical programs and senior citizen housing.

I do not think it fair that the "non-productive" elderly who are brought into this country by children on the family reunification program be give second priority to certain social programs and elective surgery.

There are people who have not contributed a penny to our health system who are causing problems with waiting times for knee, hip etc, replacement surgeries. BTW - these cost our system about $10,000 a replacement.

[Argus]

And Roma and Polish.

So ... what's your point?

That you have no point. The Nazis killed people of all ages from these groups.

That wasn't intended as an insult.

It was more of a reminder that if you are proposing that elderly immigrant family members should off themselves, that can be applied to you too.

I made no such proposal. No one did. You invented it.

No not the courts.

Yes, the courts, interpreting the UN Charter on convention refugees quite liberaly and refusing permission to deport to countries where they might be in danger.

By the way, you misinterpeted your own cite. When Kenney was talking about 'safe' countries he meant countries like the EU where, in effect, there ought to be no refugees originating, and where false claimants could be deported (3rd country rule) if they came to use through there.

Newsflash! All failed refugee claimants in detention who can't be deported to their unsafe home countries ... will heretofore be released ... to Argus' neighbourhood! ... where they'll quickly be deprogrammed from thinking Canada is a good place to stay.

It would seem more sensible to send them to the neighbourhoods of people who want them released, not those who want them kept locked up. And it would seem quite sensible to make those who want them released responsible for them.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Argus

[jacee]

My reference was to people who were too old to work and would have to depend on government and social services for health costs. I agree that all are entitled to basic life saving health care but I still feel that those who have been paying into our health system for many years should be given priority for non-crucial surgical programs and senior citizen housing.

Nobody gets preferential treatment, except for medical reasons - due to severity of condition.

You want preferential treatment, go buy it elsewhere.

I do not think it fair that the "non-productive" elderly who are brought into this country by children on the family reunification program be give second priority to certain social programs and elective surgery.

I don't think it's fair that you and Argus get medical care when much needier children and elders can't.

There are people who have not contributed a penny to our health system who are causing problems with waiting times for knee, hip etc, replacement surgeries. BTW - these cost our system about $10,000 a replacement.

I doubt that failed refugees are getting those, and it's on you to provide evidence that that's an issue.

Go buy one elsewhere if you don't want to wait.

.

[jacee]

That you have no point. The Nazis killed people of all ages from these groups.

Those who weren't 'useful' were killed off first.

Pharma companies are providing meds to keep refugees alive.

They aren't heartless like our current federal government full of bitter old men.

.

Edited July 6, 2014 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Sorry - what does the program actually cost?

That's not the question. The question is "how much money does the legislation save?" The court's investigation found that the legislation will save absolutely nothing. Even if it did save money, one needs to ask whether it's more important to save a few bucks in tax dollars or provide healthcare to people that have been through unimaginable stress and danger. There's a moral obligation here that trumps money, imo.

[cybercoma]

The cost of all this is bilions and billions of dollars.

Citation? I have a hard time seeing how refugee healthcare costs multiple billions. Also do you have anything to show that the legislation would save any money? The only study on it that we know about was through the court case and it seems that there would be no cost savings.

[cybercoma]

Sure you can. The situations you are describing exist for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world. We cannot take even a tiny percentage of such people. Why, then, should we take any?

The refugee system was supposed to be for politically persecuted individuals but has morphed into describing anyone who lives in a third world country where the government or the culture or society isn't up to Canadian standards as a legitimate refugee.

Nope. You're completely wrong.

Let's clarify some things here. There are two prongs to the refugee program in Canada. They are:

1. International Resettlement Refugee
2. Asylum-Seekers within Canada

So you need to be clear about what you're talking about. Are you talking about 1 or 2 or both?

Canada only accepts a certain number of claimants each year. There is no open door policy here. We have certain international treaty obligations that we're required to meet and that's what we do. According to the federal government's numbers there are roughly 15.4 million refugees around the world. The international resettlement program finds new homes for roughly 100,000 and Canada accepts 10% of them. Those are the people whom we are obligated to accept through international treaties.

As for internal asylum-seekers, the number is roughly similar. In 2013 the government says there were about 10,500 asylum claims. The website makes no indication about how many of those claims were rejected. Anyone who had a previous claim denied or has been convicted of a serious criminal offence is not eligible. 10,500 is simply the total number of claimants. That means at best there are about 20,000 people who get asylum in Canada each year amongst our total population of 35,000,000.

Billions in healthcare? Hardly.

Edited July 7, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

I don't think it's fair that you and Argus get medical care when much needier children and elders can't.

Oh? Why is that?

[Argus]

Those who weren't 'useful' were killed off first.

Pharma companies are providing meds to keep refugees alive.

They aren't heartless like our current federal government full of bitter old men.

.

Is there anyone in the federal government as old as you?

[Argus]

That's not the question. The question is "how much money does the legislation save?" The court's investigation found that the legislation will save absolutely nothing.

Point of order. Courts do not have an investigative arm. The court investigated nothing.

Even if it did save money, one needs to ask whether it's more important to save a few bucks in tax dollars or provide healthcare to people that have been through unimaginable stress and danger. There's a moral obligation here that trumps money, imo.

What if they haven't been through any stress at all? What if they come from a fairly comfortable country in Europe, or from the US, and simply want free health care?

[Argus]

Citation? I have a hard time seeing how refugee healthcare costs multiple billions. Also do you have anything to show that the legislation would save any money? The only study on it that we know about was through the court case and it seems that there would be no cost savings.

Read what I said again. I did not claim health care costs billions and billions. I said that the decision of the courts to accord anyone who steps across the border, even illegally, full Charter rights, cost billions and billions of dollars.

[Argus]

Nope. You're completely wrong.

That's pretty unlikely. We're talking about ME, here, after all.

Canada only accepts a certain number of claimants each year. There is no open door policy here. We have certain international treaty obligations that we're required to meet and that's what we do.

Previous courts have basically cleared the way for anyone who is gay, and from a country where gays are not treated properly, women from extreme Muslim countries who have no rights, women in fear of their spouse, mothers bringing their daughter for fear of genital mutilation, people infected with HIV who can't get treated at home, and a whole host of others.

For example, how many of the Somalian refugees in Canada fled because of non-violent political opposition to the government of their homeland? Answer, none. They simply fled a violent, lawless shithole of a country. The problem lies in the fact there are A LOT of miserable, crappy places out there with hundreds of millions of people living in them. Taking in any kind of significant number of such people would alter Canada as we know it. So we can't, and don't. But basically, anyone who comes here gets to stay for years while we feed, clothe and take care of them, and while their lawyer, which we pay for, runs through appeal after appeal. Often, when they finally lose them all they simply disapear.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Argus