A new low for refugees in Canada

[mj_lover]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1216136--a-new-low-for-refugees-in-canada

I'm personally disgusted by this policy, having been friends with refugees from the Bosnia conflict, these people often go on to become contributing members of our society. Quite frankly, its the right thing to do, with all the freedom and democracy for everyone attitude. guess it only applies if you can pay

 

[George Wallace]

Call me cold hearted, but when I have problems as a LONG TIME Canadian Tax Payer, and after being long time member of the CF, getting good Health Care, then why should a "non-Canadian citizen".  Don't worry, I feel the same way towards panhandlers and other collectors of freebies that I and many on this site have worked hard for and paid taxes for, only to see scammers take advantage of our "social system". 

If you want to collect, then pay into the plans that you want to collect from.  Don't come looking for free handouts from hardworking folk who may not/may never see some of the benefits they have paid for.

Like an "Insurance Policy", if you pay into it, you can collect; if you don't pay into it, you don't collect.

[End Rant]

 

[Edward Campbell]

We need to be careful and to draw a very clear distinction between immigrants and refugees.

Immigrants get the same health care services as you and I; refugees do not.

A refugee is:

1. A person with a well founded fear for life and limb if (s)he stays in his or her home; AND

2. A person who wants to and plans to return "home" when it is safe to do so.

The problem with many (most?) refugees in Canada is that they are in the wrong place ... in Canada. Refugees should remain as close to the homes they are fleeing as possible: in safe, humane camps. Some will, of necessity, have to come to Canada - there will be no place safe enough. But many, too many in my opinion, are brought here for all the wrong reasons.

 

[VIChris]

Agreed with the above.

And for the story of Byron in the article, I'd say it outlines problems with immigration, not health care reform.

 

[Harris]

I agree George.  MP for you incoming.

 

[ModlrMike]

I have to agree with George. Nothing provided by government is free. Putting refugees on the same footing as other folks WRT vision, dental and Rx coverage is reasonable in my mind. Millions of hard working tax payers don't have this coverage either, unless they pay for it.

 

[mj_lover]

tad cold George, I do understand the sentiment, and if this were an immigrant issue of not working, etc, just here for free healthcare,  I would agree. Refugees don't have a choice in leaving, well, leave or die I guess..figure if we spend billions on aid for Haiti, etc. why can we not help these people? heck, make a volunteer-for-status program if its so rough to deal with helping because we can and its the right thing to do

edit for spelling*

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Agree with George and the other commentators; the predicament that Mr. Caulford described happening to "Byron," happens to dozens of Canadian citizens every day, so why should a refugee from a foreign country get preference over Canadians citizens.

Also, Caulford says Byron was paying taxes, but was fighting a refugee denial order at the same time. May be someone can enlighten me; if he was a still a refugee would he be paying taxes??

 

[ModlrMike]

Let's remove the hyperbole. Here's the actual changes: Refugees: Health Care

The changes appear to remove coverage not available to most Canadians.

Taken from the reference:

This package will provide coverage that is similar to what is currently covered and what Canadians receive through their provincial/territorial health insurance plans.

I can not see how these changes can be construed as negative. They're still getting the same care as everyone else, just not more care than everyone else.

 

[mj_lover]

I do hope your right, but this little gem worries me a bit

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

I'm possibly a bit skeptical, but I have seen how easily a government will take away someones right to live to save a buck. ie. Netherlands

 

[medicineman]

I do hope your right, but this little gem worries me a bit

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

I'm possibly a bit skeptical, but I have seen how easily a government will take away someones right to live to save a buck. ie. Netherlands

First off, normal citizens of Canada get immunizations for free as far as public health stuff goes...anything for recreation/travel is paid for out of pocket...as are most medications, as I get reminded constantly.  That's why I pay into my empployer's Blue Cross plan...

Second, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming the last  quip there about taking someone's right to live away in the Netherlands has to do with their medical euthanasia laws - that's not taking away a right to live, it's giving a right to die/not prolong suffering unnecessarily - not the same thing at all, as it's something that has to have input from ALL persons concerned.  It's not the government hoping someone will knock off sooner to save a buck.  :

MM

 

[mj_lover]

quip about the Netherlands has a lot more to do with the fact they are sending refugees back pre-maturely, or more fun, the children of refugees that have been growing up in a western country, with more liberal values, are being sent to other countries that are...less conservative in view..

not a medical issue, but dirty none the less.

if the meds work the same as ours, I'm ok with it, wording sounds odd, that's all
as I said, I'm skeptical of gov't

 

[MJP]

quip about the Netherlands has a lot more to do with the fact they are sending refugees back pre-maturely, or more fun, the children of refugees that have been growing up in a western country, with more liberal values, are being sent to other countries that are...less conservative in view..

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word refugee. They are suppose to go back to where they came from.

 

[mj_lover]

forgive me for thinking it would happen after they wouldn't be executed on sight..

 

[MJP]

forgive me for thinking it would happen after they wouldn't be executed on sight..

So where exactly is this again?  Painfully shy on actual facts.

 

[George Wallace]

This country, and for the most part, the whole 'Western World', has become overrun by too many 'bleeding hearts' who want to save the world.  Sorry folks, but that is impossible.  Like Communism, a noble idea on paper, but a dismal failure in the real world.  I only wish that instead of trying to save some village/orphan in Africa/Asia/South America (fill in whatever you desire), we would instead try to solve our own problems first.  We have homeless.  We have starving.  We have the mentally ill.  We have ________(again fill in the blank with your favourite needy).  We are taking Billions of Taxpayer Dollars and flushing them down the tubes with these programs in distant lands and yet can not spend to solve our problems at home. 

Let's start here in Canada (and the US) and then work outward.  Not haphazardly bouncing from one tiny nation to another around the globe.  We have neighbours to the south who we should help first.  Mexico and Central America have some very serious problems that directly affect North Americans.  Once we start there, we can start fanning out to South America (we are joined at the hip.....I mean equator) and solve the problems of the Western Hemisphere.  Do we go help our allies in Europe or our allies in Australia and the Western Pacific next?  Time would tell.

We complain about how ineffective the UN is, yet we still subscribe to their humanitarian dreams and programs.  Again, noble; but let's start at home first.

 

[krustyrl]

I concur......    :goodpost:

 

[medicineman]

if the meds work the same as ours, I'm ok with it, wording sounds odd, that's all

Wording sounds just fine to me...you'll be provided with medicine if you need it for the sake of public health reasons (TB, typhoid, other such nastiness), otherwise it's just like the rest of Canada...you pay for it somehow.

As for being skeptical of governments trying to protect their populations from people that may in fact have other than rosy motives for running away from whence they came - well, that's what they're paid for.  Many people show up on these shores claiming refugee status when in fact they are illegal immigrants.

Incidentally, I think your skepticism borders on the paranoid.

MM

 

[exabedtech]

The article makes it clear that this person was not accepted as a refugee in this country.  Given that, any discussion of health care rights for refugees is completely inapplicable.
Yes, maybe poor Byron got a raw deal when he decided that Canada was the place to get refugee status, but his case is a question of what determines who is a refugee.  I don't see how any changes to refugee health care could have affected someone who sounds to have been in the country illegally.  Why he was not given a shot at citizenship is the greater question here.

For the record, I do support accepting valid refugees into Canada.  Lets face it, we have the space, the jobs and the opportunities.  While there are bad apples in every bunch, I would think that someone willing to completely uproot their life for a chance in a faraway land is likely a person very willing to be a net contributor to that country.

Only example I can come up with is my grandfather who entered this country illegally from Scotland in the 30s and went on to serve this great land for 4 decades with 4RCR and a variety of other units.  His family has gone on to produce a number of very successful Canadians - leaders in business, medicine, teaching and the military.  Canada did just fine giving him his citizenship and i'll bet the same could be said of the majority of claimants.  Not all of course, but most i'm sure.

 

[Strike]

The article makes it clear that this person was not accepted as a refugee in this country.  Given that, any discussion of health care rights for refugees is completely inapplicable.
Yes, maybe poor Byron got a raw deal when he decided that Canada was the place to get refugee status, but his case is a question of what determines who is a refugee.  I don't see how any changes to refugee health care could have affected someone who sounds to have been in the country illegally.  Why he was not given a shot at citizenship is the greater question here.

For the record, I do support accepting valid refugees into Canada.  Lets face it, we have the space, the jobs and the opportunities.  While there are bad apples in every bunch, I would think that someone willing to completely uproot their life for a chance in a faraway land is likely a person very willing to be a net contributor to that country.

Only example I can come up with is my grandfather who entered this country illegally from Scotland in the 30s and went on to serve this great land for 4 decades with 4RCR and a variety of other units.  His family has gone on to produce a number of very successful Canadians - leaders in business, medicine, teaching and the military.  Canada did just fine giving him his citizenship and i'll bet the same could be said of the majority of claimants.  Not all of course, but most i'm sure.

You need to re-read the difference between refugee and immigrant.  You seem to be mixing them up with the story of your grandfather.