Bernier criticizes Trudeau's "extreme multiculturalism"

[turningrite]

8 minutes ago, taxme said:

I must assume then that the Haida Indians kept other Indians as slaves. So slavery was nothing new in North America and it was happening long before the Europeans arrived. Interesting.

It's existed in many places where it's had nothing to do with European imperialism. The Arab slave trade boomed for centuries and even Europeans, mainly from Portugal, Spain and Italy but also from further north, were enslaved. Estimates of the number of those enslaved by Arabs between the 8th and 19th centuries range from roughly 11 million to 17 million. The transatlantic slave trade is estimated to have involved about 12 million Africans, almost 85 to 90 percent of whom survived the voyage, although this trade was conducted over a shorter duration in comparison to the Arab trade.

[taxme]

23 minutes ago, turningrite said:

It's existed in many places where it's had nothing to do with European imperialism. The Arab slave trade boomed for centuries and even Europeans, mainly from Portugal, Spain and Italy but also from further north, were enslaved. Estimates of the number of those enslaved by Arabs between the 8th and 19th centuries range from roughly 11 million to 17 million. The transatlantic slave trade is estimated to have involved about 12 million Africans, almost 85 to 90 percent of whom survived the voyage, although this trade was conducted over a shorter duration in comparison to the Arab trade.

This is what British/European people are never told about by the lying media. They always try to cover it up. They always like to make it appear as though only the British/European people gave the world slavery. The blacks of America should not only have their beef with British/European people over slavery but should be also told and be exposed to the fact that it was their own black people in Africa that helped to enslave them. Even the Jews had a hand in the slavery business because many of the ships that they owned were used as transport to bring millions of black slaves to North America. But all we ever get from the lying and fake lame duck liberal media is that only white people invented and gave the world slavery. Such utter nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

1. They're not sponsored for life. And the government rarely enforces sponsorship orders anyway. Plus, of course, sponsorship does not include health care costs.

2. I trust Jason Kenney who was known as the Tory's ethnic wrangler, the guy whose job was to please ethnic communities, for telling us something which did NOT please ethnic communities rather than Trudeau, who offers no numbers or evidence and whose job seems to be to entice ethnic groups to vote Liberal by paying whatever the price is they ask. Besides which what do you imagine the cost of health care services is to elderly people? I mean, the deal we make is we start paying for it in our 20s when we rarely use it, and then recoup that value when we get old, which is when we use more and more health care services.

1. $200K per year per person though ?  NOT including healthcare ?  What ?

2. Show us the math, then Jason.    

[Argus]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. $200K per year per person though ?  NOT including healthcare ?  What ?

No, no. It's $200,000 per person in that the average spent on their health care during their remaining life will be $200,000. I think that's likely to be an underestimate, personally.

When I said $4 billion per year that is on the assumption that every year we will be taking in another 20,000 seniors and thus having to pay another $4 billion for THEIR health care and so on and so on.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Argus

[h102]

On 8/21/2018 at 2:09 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Canada didn't have slavery....unless you count the Haida and similar tribes. 

buy a history book

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, h102 said:

buy a history book

 

Which one would you like me to buy?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, h102 said:

buy a history book

Seriously.   My town just changed the name of a school because the namesake had slaves.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

No, no. It's $200,000 per person in that the average spent on their health care during their remaining life will be $200,000. I think that's likely to be an underestimate, personally.

When I said $4 billion per year that is on the assumption that every year we will be taking in another 20,000 seniors and thus having to pay another $4 billion for THEIR health care and so on and so on.

Are they sponsored ?  Are they coming in with taxpayers ?  This is more complicated than just calculating a one-time payment then.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are they sponsored ?  Are they coming in with taxpayers ?  This is more complicated than just calculating a one-time payment then.

Sponsorship doesn't pertain to health care costs. I believe that for sponsored landed immigrants, health care costs are borne from Day 1 by taxpayers. This should be changed, of course, and sponsors should be required to purchase health insurance to cover their relatives during the sponsorship period (which I believe for sponsored seniors is generally 10 years) but as immigration is now a vote buying scheme don't expect this to happen anytime soon. By the way, the Canadian Medical Association has calculated current per capita annual health care costs for seniors as amounting to roughly $12K (see link), so if an average senior arrives in this country at 65 and lives to 85, it's reasonable to assume their health care needs will cost taxpayers almost a cool quarter-million bucks, not counting for inflation. Not a bad deal in return for paying, well, nothing into the system, eh?  For Canadian seniors who toiled and paid high taxes for decades only to endure an increasingly terrible health care system in their old age it's a real bummer.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senior-health-care-federal-1.4749684

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Sponsorship doesn't pertain to health care costs. I believe that for sponsored landed immigrants, health care costs are borne from Day 1 by taxpayers.

Maybe not, and may also depend on which province they arrive to.

Sponsored-class newcomers represent 12% of our patients. It is not unusual for them to wait several years for their provincial health care eligibility. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395500/#__ffn_sectitle

[capricorn]

All indications are that Mad Max will be slamming the door on the Conservative party and sit as an independent. Can't say I blame him. Electing Scheer as PM would be Trudeau redux. Very little choice left for a large segment of the electorate. The coming campaign will be one to watch closely.

[dialamah]

Also:  

For newcomers, the level of coverage depends on your immigration status. Generally speaking though, immigrants have limited access to free medical care and will likely have to pay for some treatments or insurance.

https://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/

In BC at least, there is a 3-month period where sponsored immigrants are not covered, and they may also not be covered for pre-existing conditions:

If they currently have any pre-existing medical conditions, their coverage options may be somewhat limited,

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/sponsored-parents-what-health-care-do-they-qualify-for.107675/

Edited August 23, 2018 by dialamah

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Maybe not, and may also depend on which province they arrive to.

Sponsored-class newcomers represent 12% of our patients. It is not unusual for them to wait several years for their provincial health care eligibility. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395500/#__ffn_sectitle

I don't know why you're citing an American source for this? The Canadian government's site for newcomers states: "If you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, you may apply for public health insurance. With it, you don’t have to pay for most health-care services." The only restriction that can be applied, as is done in some provinces, is the imposition of a three month waiting period for eligibility. As sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents, most qualify from the outset, or near outset, for the same coverage that's available to Canadian citizens.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/new-life-canada/health-care-card.html

[turningrite]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Also:  

For newcomers, the level of coverage depends on your immigration status. Generally speaking though, immigrants have limited access to free medical care and will likely have to pay for some treatments or insurance.

https://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/

 

As I said before, sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents and therefore qualify for government health care coverage, although some provinces apply a three-month waiting period. Don't confuse apples and oranges by confusing permanent residents with other classes of non-citizens.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I don't know why you're citing an American source for this? The Canadian government's site for newcomers states: "If you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, you may apply for public health insurance. With it, you don’t have to pay for most health-care services." The only restriction that can be applied, as is done in some provinces, is the imposition of a three month waiting period for eligibility. As sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents, most qualify from the outset, or near outset, for the same coverage that's available to Canadian citizens.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/new-life-canada/health-care-card.html

Oops, my bad.  I had included Canada in my search terms, and assumed all links spoke to Canadian policies.

[turningrite]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Oops, my bad.  I had included Canada in my search terms, and assumed all links spoke to Canadian policies.

When searching specifically for federal legislative or policy information, I tend to refine the search by ending it with "gc.ca" in order to get the most relevant results. The immigration information is fascinating, reading in some instances as a form of advertisement.

[eyeball]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I cite facts, you counter with lowbrow opinions.

Got it.

You cite hooey from the 6th century. Its no excuse for the way we've behaved as you say and yet we still behave badly anyway.

Edited August 23, 2018 by eyeball

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are they sponsored ?  Are they coming in with taxpayers ?  This is more complicated than just calculating a one-time payment then.

Sponsorship doesn't matter because the sponsors are not responsible for health care costs. But yes, we're talking about elderly people being sponsored by their immigrant children here in Canada.

[eyeball]

On 8/21/2018 at 4:25 PM, WestCanMan said:

Eyeball your posts are utterly devoid of facts and full of sandbox insults, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? 

Throwing it back in your face. You come in here swinging your stupid conservatism around like a pair of balls hanging from a bumper hitch and expect everyone to just get out of your way?

You couldn't find a single fact amongst 22000+ posts?

Edited August 23, 2018 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You cite hooey from the 6th century. Its no excuse for the way we've behaved as you say and yet we still behave badly anyway.

I don't cite hooey from the 6th century, I cite pertinent, relevant facts.

Do you think that Christians think of the things that "Jesus did" as hooey? As an example of how to behave? Or as things that they should refrain from? 

People still wear "WWJD" bracelets 2,000 years after his death so that was just a rhetorical question fyi. 

If people word "WWMD" bracelets what kind of things do you think they'd be up to? Do you think that they would be committing war crimes or feeding lepers? It would be interesting to see how much you know about the topic seeing as you have such a strong opinion.

 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Throwing it back in your face. You come in here swinging your stupid conservatism around like a pair of balls hanging from a bumper hitch and expect everyone to just get out of your way?

You couldn't find a single fact amongst 22000+ posts?

You probably have some facts in there, when they fit your narrative, but to be honest you have a habit of ignoring a lot of facts to dodge relevant points/questions and you just come back with insults.

Everyone reports at least some facts. EG, AJ+ is an extreme propaganda website but they post a lot of accurate, interesting things just to draw people in and to lend an air of credibility to their site and to make their propaganda seem more legitimate. Basically they say "Look we're cuddly Liberals, we just care about the TRUTH!" and then they go on an all-out anti-America, anti-hindu, anti-jew tirade for a few posts, make some posts about how terrorists don't really represent islam, and then post another story about bunnies.

CNN reports on cyclones and tornados, they look like a "News network" and then they put their spin on everything imaginable. EG, a terrorist shoots up a gay bar yelling allahu akbar and they say "it's too early to call it a terrorist attack" so they call for a ban on legally-owned guns. 

So the deal is, eyeball, that if you want to be in a debate you need to respond to factual claims/questions, and not switch the topic or resort to name-calling.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

I cite pertinent, relevant facts.

No, you simply stir the waters to make them seem deep - the same sort of pseudo intellectual chattering Bernier employs in an attempt to bring an air of respectability to a degenerate position. 

[WestCanMan]

Just now, eyeball said:

No, you simply stir the waters to make them seem deep - the same sort of pseudo intellectual chattering Bernier employs in an attempt to bring an air of respectability to a degenerate position. 

Right. So again, this post of yours is just another example of you dodging a question that you didn't have an answer for that supports your narrative, and then throwing out an insult.

You don't debate; you accuse, malign, opine, speculate, exaggerate, dodge, rinse, repeat.

Seriously go find the sandbox debate site eyeball. You're a waste of time.

 

 

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You probably have some facts in there, when they fit your narrative, but to be honest you have a habit of ignoring a lot of facts to dodge relevant points/questions and you just come back with insults.

Well, I guess that's what happens after twenty years of listening to right-wingers compare you to Pol Pot and proudly and loudly shit on anything you say if it smacks of anything progressive or doesn't conform to their narrative. 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a waste of time.

You're free to ignore me all you want.  FYI your stupid question has been addressed ad nauseaum here already. Maybe next time you'll spend a little more time getting the lay of the sandbox before swaggering into it like you did here.