Bogus Refugees: Trudeau reinstates full benefits, enhanced for others

[Keepitsimple]

The Trudeau government has re-instated full benefits for failed and bogus refugees as well as a gold-plated set of benefits for all others.

The Conservative government had removed most benefits for failed refugees - except for those conditions that would endanger public health. This was part of a package of initiatives to encourage bogus/failed refugees to leave the country ASAP and not continue to drain the public purse. The Conservatives also reduced coverage for Vision and Dental care - benefits that most Canadians are obliged to pay for out of pocket - to better align benefits with those of ordinary Canadians.

How does this make sense?

Edited November 9, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

How does this make sense?

Last week, the Federal Court ruled that the Conservative government’s 2012 effort to deny critical healthcare funding to thousands of migrants was unconstitutional. In one case highlighted by the court’s judgment, a man from Afghanistan who makes his living in Canada washing dishes has remained alive only thanks to the free insulin samples provided by a pharmaceutical company. In another case, a man from Colombia almost went blind after suffering a retinal detachment that the government wouldn’t pay to have treated. Manavi Handa, an Ontario midwife, testified that many pregnant refugee applicants now have difficulty finding obstetricians because hospitals have no idea if the government will pay their bills.

From: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jonathan-kay-the-refugee-health-care-decision-lays-bare-harpers-creed-punitive-moral-absolutism

[August1991]

Cybercoma, around the world, people die for lack of care. I know of several people at present outside of Canada who face inferior health treatment. They will likely die.

We in Canada cannot help all these people but I think that we can help some.

But should a working Canadian pay taxes for a hospital so that a refugee can receive care (because the refugee has time to wait) - when the working Canadian cannot take time from work to wait in the emergency room?

=====

Moreover, I don't think that we Canadians should help people (foreigners) who manage to get to Canada. Is that our criteria - get to Canada? Rather, there are many deserving people who never manage to get to Canada.

For example, maybe Justin Trudeau sould ensure that 12,500 of the Syrian refugees are women.

Question to Trudeau Jnr: How many of these Syrian refugees are women? How many are women at risk?

Edited November 9, 2015 by August1991

[eyeball]

Dental care should have been part and parcel of public health care for everyone decades ago.

Rather than taking it away from anyone the government should be extending it to everyone.

[TimG]

Dental care should have been part and parcel of public health care for everyone decades ago.

Rather than taking it away from anyone the government should be extending it to everyone.

So we should raise the GGT 1% to pay for this (roughly the cost of such a program) or do you think the money should just come from the magical money tree hidden under parliament hill?

[eyeball]

Roll it into our health care plan premiums. If we need to make up any shortfall due to not having done this decades ago...I guess we'll just have to tax the snot our of the ridiculously and putrescently rich.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't think we should give them full coverage, but essential care and essential medicine and anything else within reason is fine. The CPC cuts were definitely a bit cruel. Who the heck is going to deny a child or a pregnant woman basic health coverage?

[TimG]

Who the heck is going to deny a child or a pregnant woman basic health coverage?

any traveller in this country is denied such coverage. why should failed refugees be given more consideration?

[The_Squid]

any traveller in this country is denied such coverage. why should failed refugees be given more consideration?

It wasn't just failed refugees who were denied coverage.

[TimG]

Roll it into our health care plan premiums. If we need to make up any shortfall due to not having done this decades ago...I guess we'll just have to tax the snot our of the ridiculously and putrescently rich.

The additional cost would at least double the current premiums (145/month in BC for a family). The rich are too small in number to fund the endless demands being heaped on them by greedy SOBs who don't want to pay for their own programs.

[TimG]

It wasn't just failed refugees who were denied coverage.

Bogus propaganda. Read the court judgment. The ruling only dealt rule changes which affect refugees who have had their claims denied and were awaiting deportation. The trouble is this process takes time because failed refugees have the option of getting "pre-removal risk assessment" in order to stave off the inevitable. Edited November 9, 2015 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

The additional cost would at least double the current premiums (145/month in BC for a family). The rich are too small in number to fund the endless demands being heaped on them by greedy SOBs who don't want to pay for their own programs.

I don't think people who want to help refugee claimants are "greedy SOB's". And the rich certainly are not too small in #, since 1% of the population in Canada owns 50% of the wealth, and "Canada's 86 richest individuals and families – or 0.002 per cent of the total population, have now accumulated as much wealth as the country’s poorest 11.4 million."

But hey our economic system happens to allow business/stock owners 100% control over all profit allocation (ie: into their own pockets), so the rich "deserve it" right?

[TimG]

I don't think people who want to help refugee claimants are "greedy SOB's"

I was estimating the cost of extending dental coverage to all Canadians as per the suggestion by eyeball. I originally suggested a 1% increase in GST would cover it but he went with the "soak the rich" meme instead.

But hey our economic system happens to allow business/stock owners 100% control over all profit allocation (ie: into their own pockets), so the rich "deserve it" right?

Our economic system is designed to give people an incentive to take risks to build businesses that grow the economy and employ people. So can you give me any reason why business owners should not be entitled to decide what to do with their profits?

[Moonlight Graham]

Bogus propaganda. Read the court judgment. The ruling only dealt rule changes which affect refugees who have had their claims denied and were awaiting deportation. The trouble is this process takes time because failed refugees have the option of getting "pre-removal risk assessment" in order to stave off the inevitable.

That's not true: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-spin-cycle-refugees-health-benefits-1.3234080

[TimG]

That's not true:

Except it is. Refugees from safe countries are bogus refugees by definition. I am not sure what a 'privately sponsored refugee is' but I don't see why private actors should be able to compel the government to spend money?

More importantly: why should refugees get better health benefits than the majority of Canadians?

edit:

The Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program helps thousands of refugees every year. You or your group can sponsor refugees from abroad who qualify to come to Canada. As a sponsor, you provide financial and emotional support for the refugees for the duration of the sponsorship. This includes help for housing, clothing and food. Most sponsorships last for one year, but some refugees may be eligible for assistance from their sponsors for up to three years.

So private sponsors are already obligated to provide financially for the refugees they sponsor. That means they should be responsible for any healthcare costs. Why is this even up for debate? Edited November 9, 2015 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Except it is. Refugees from safe countries are bogus refugees by definition. I am not sure what a 'privately sponsored refugee is' but I don't see why private actors should be able to compel the government to spend money?

You said "the ruling only dealt rule changes which affect refugees who have had their claims denied and were awaiting deportation." It's not:

According to the government's own summary of benefits, refugee claimants receive some basic health coverage. Refugees awaiting a decision on their status, as well as privately sponsored refugees, receive basic coverage but when it comes to prescription drugs are only covered for drugs deemed necessary "to prevent or treat a disease posing a risk to public health or to treat a condition of public safety concern."

The two groups are not covered for what the government calls "supplemental coverage," which includes "limited dental and vision care, prosthetics and devices to assist mobility, home care and long-term care, psychological counselling provided by a registered clinical psychologist, and post-arrival health assessments." By contrast, government-assisted refugees do benefit from this additional health coverage. So do refugee claimants under 19 years of age.

...

Harper is wrong when he says the Conservative government only took away some benefits from "bogus" refugees. Refugee claimants are currently being denied some federal health benefits while their claims are being processed, not just once their applications are rejected. Privately sponsored refugees — which includes the bulk of the Syrian refugees the government is promising to bring to Canada by September 2016 — are also among the groups of refugees receiving limited coverage.

[eyeball]

any traveller in this country is denied such coverage. why should failed refugees be given more consideration?

That anyone needs something as basic as this explained to them speaks to the futility of trying to.

[eyeball]

The rich are too small in number to fund the endless demands being heaped on them by greedy SOBs who don't want to pay for their own programs.

I don't believe it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Our economic system is designed to give people an incentive to take risks to build businesses that grow the economy and employ people. So can you give me any reason why business owners should not be entitled to decide what to do with their profits?

Risk should be rewarded, building businesses should be rewarded. But do you think 1% of the Canadian population is responsible for 50% of the country's total economic output? Do 86 people/families, or 0.002% of the population, create 1/3 of the country's total economic value and wealth?

[TimG]

You said "the ruling only dealt rule changes which affect refugees who have had their claims denied and were awaiting deportation."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1212674-t-356-13-cdn-doctors-v-agc-judgment-and-reasons.html

It affects two groups which are generally considered bogus: safe country refugees and refugees who have been declined but seek to make excuses to avoid deportation. My phrasing was poor because I assumed it was understood that safe country refugees are bogus.

[TimG]

But do you think 1% of the Canadian population is responsible for 50% of the country's total economic output?

Are you talking income or assets? Income is what goes into the GDP and what is generally considered taxable. Assets are not. I believe you are confusing the two. What percentage of the GDP is actually provided by the richest? It is a lot less than 50%.

[TimG]

I don't believe it.

Here are the stats for BC: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52012782e4b0707e7a30fda8/t/52388fcee4b016903ae7aff9/1379438543927/image01.png?format=1000w

Top income 1% earned 15% of the reported income or $20 billion.

They currently pay $5.3 billion in taxes or 48% of the income taxes collected.

The BC government spends $45 billion per year.

The Canadian government spends $22 billion per year on BC.

How much do you think you could increase the $5.3 billion?

Double it?

Another $5 billion is not going to make a huge difference given the current levels of spending.

But doubling it would require marginal tax rates around 70-80% which would lead to widespread tax evasion.

So there is no chance to double it.

Maybe $1 billion more is possible.

$1 billion out of $67 billion will not fund than many new goodies.

That is why new programs must be financed by everyone.

There is no pot of gold to be pillaged.

[eyeball]

I never said everyone shouldn't pay something. It's completely false to imply otherwise.

In the meantime any human being in Canada that needs medical treatment they should get it. If they have a country to go home to, fine, if not that's fine too.

[TimG]

In the meantime any human being in Canada that needs medical treatment they should get it. If they have a country to go home to, fine, if not that's fine too.

So you are saying every American without adequate health insurance should be able to cross the border and get it for free? That is truly insane.

[eyeball]

No, read carefully... I'm saying blue turtles riding bicycles backwards draw honeybees making tracks down the hostages.

Friggen well pay attention why don't you?