The headline of this article from the Journal declares: “Rupert’s Land goes to bat for refugees”. Good for Rupert’s Land, you might think: they are paying the healthcare costs for some refugees.
Not at all. The Diocese of Rupert’s Land isn’t spending money to improve refugee healthcare, it’s spending it on suing the federal government to compel it to use everyone else’s money to pay for refugee healthcare. To rub salt in the wound, the healthcare is better than that enjoyed by the taxpayers from whom the federal government collects the money.
This is the Anglican Church of Canada’s charitable giving modus operandi: don’t spend money on helping people when you can sue someone else to make them do it instead.
Federal cuts to refugee health care will deter church groups from sponsoring refugees, Anglican Church of Canada officials have warned. “Clearly, it would cut down on the number of refugees that we are able to accept because church groups just don’t have the resources to pay [for medical care],” said Bishop Don Phillips of the diocese of Rupert’s Land, where more than 2,000 refugees have been sponsored.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, and Adele Finney, executive director of the Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund, have expressed “deep concern” about the cuts to the Interim Federal Health program. Previously, private sponsors assumed the cost of food, shelter and transportation for a year, while the government provided health care. Under the revised rules, which took effect June 30, church-sponsored refugees will no longer have access to government-funded health care.
On June 26, the diocese of Rupert’s Land and the Hospitality House Refugee Ministry, which sponsors refugees with funds from the Anglican diocese of Rupert’s Land and the Roman Catholic Archepiscopal Corporation of Winnipeg, announced plans to file a lawsuit against the federal government.
Sue? How terribly Episcopaliann of them.
I know that this is not going to sound charitable but…
I see no justafiable reason why a refugee (or anyone else for that matter) should be “entitled” to better government (read taspayer funded) healthcare than the people who are the citizens of this county get. Our health coverage is among the most extensive in the world. Yet these yahoos have the nerve to say that it is still not enough. But why should I be surprised. These people are after all thinly disguised socialists who like reaching their hands into other peoples pockets.
I grant you that Rupertsland ought not to be suing the feds. But:
The cuts to the refugee health care go deeper than the ‘extras’ they were getting. From the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-changes-to-refugee-health-coverage-compromising-care-critics/article4577846/)
“Additionally, those whose refugee claims are rejected and those from a yet-to-be defined list of “safe” countries will only receive medical care if their condition is deemed a risk to public health or safety.”
So, sorry Mrs. Refugee claimant, you can’t get prenatal care to ensure the health of your child. If you go into preterm labour you are on your own. All of a sudden the unborn don’t matter so much if they happen to be inside the womb of a rejected refugee claimant? Really? Do we really want to live in a country where someone suffering a heart attack is turned away from the hosptial because he is from a so called ‘safe’ country?
I expect what will happen is that some people will not go to the hospital when they are in crisis because they think they will be turned away. Some of those people will die. Others will go to the hospital anyway, get treated (can you imagine a Canadian hospital turning anybody away because they can’t pay? I’ve never been asked for id in an emergency situation, they treat first and look for insurance papers later), and the hospitals will have to swallow the cost themselves — which means we are paying for it anyway. Much cheaper to allow the refugees access to family doctors so they can get treatment before their medical issues become emergencies.
Going without healthcare is not the only option here.
There are surely health insurances that can be bought beforehand outside the country for non-Canadians. There is also the option of private donors or of non-profit organizations covering these health costs for such claimants. Or if the claimants have access to any income, personally or from family, they can pay the health costs themselves, even over time, meaning they take on debt to procure a valuable service. The rest of us do it all the time, for any number of needs in our lives. Think that’s a funny concept, here in Canada? It is exactly what uninsured Americans all do, though granted, this may change somewhat with Obama in office.
Would these refugees prefer to go back where they came from, if Canada is so terrible? Probably not. Seems to me that to have many of their needs taken care of here — housing, food, clothing, schooling, security, etc. — is a far sight better than having NONE of their needs taken care of, which appears to be the case in their country of origin, for many of them.
So because we are no longer going to cover 100% of their needs and wishes, they should consider themselves deprived, and we are the bad guys? Seems to me like abject ingratitude.
Contrary to popular belief, there are also many Canadians whose health care needs are not entirely covered here.
If you happen to have a rare condition, for instance, you may simply be told by your primary doctor that there are no specialists for you to see, as Canada has no medical expertise whatsoever in a wide variety of rare conditions. You will then go entirely without medical care for that aspect of your health. Most Canadians would be astonished to hear that this happens, all the time. Such patients have the option of going to the U.S. or any other country for medical care, if they can find the right expertise there, but they must cover the total cost themselves.
Health care in Canada is rationed in many, many ways, even for the average Canadian. You are not simply offered every ounce of care you might need to get better. You fool yourself if you think otherwise.
So, 1. Every Canadian is not as well-cared-for medically as you think, and 2. Why do we owe refugee claimants the sun, moon and stars, when we are already giving them safety, security, and the necessities of life? It is far more than their own countries gave them. Why is it that we are obligated, somehow, to give until it kills us? Do the refugee claimants have no obligation to take on debt for what they are given (valuable medical care), or get private individuals to help them of their own free will (charitable donors or their own families)? Why must the Canadian taxpayer do it all, and then be spat upon if they dare say, “Well, wait a minute here…”?
And by the way, the Globe and Mail is decidedly left-wing, and not known for their analytical powers, so whenever I read what they run, I do so with a large grain of salt.
Have you ever met a refugee? They don’t tend to have the luxury of buying health insurance before fleeing, nor do they generally have the ability to borrow money (hard to do when you either can’t work or are making minimum wage). Basic health care isn’t ‘the sun moon and stars’. I don’t think anybody’s health care should be triaged by their ability to pay.
Yes, I have, Kate. And I think that we are talking about more than “basic health care” here. What, exactly, do you include in that? If a refugee is found to have a condition that requires more than what you deem to be basic, what then?
I had to work minimum wage for years after earning my Master’s degree, for lack of opportunities, and on that I paid back every penny of a six-figure student loan before I was 40. So I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for those who say that someone in the situation you describe cannot pay back health care bills, perhaps with family help, over the years they expect to be in Canada.
The health care of many Canadian families has already been triaged by their ability to pay, Kate. As I mentioned earlier, have a good long look at families who have rare disorders of any kind (put all of these together and you come up with a sizeable number) and you will see that the majority of them must leave Canada, pay travel expenses, and then also pay out of pocket for ALL of their medical care related to the rare condition, which is likely lifelong. If it is genetic condition, there may be several family members who have this. The cost of it can be absolutely staggering.
Or, cast your gaze towards parents of Autistic children, of which there are many in Canada. Many of these children will not even get accurate or timely diagnoses in this country. A large proportion of their parents end up paying for private assessments, at $4,000 – $6,000 a pop, and then waiting in line for a one of the miniscule number of places in Autism remediation programs offered through the province to children under 6, only. Most Autistic children never get a place, or are cut off after a few months. Autism remediation takes daily work, over years. The cost of doing this privately is $50,000-plus per year, per child. There are families with more than one Autistic child. They re-mortgage the house, or their children simply live for a lifetime with the disorder.
So don’t wag a finger at me, Kate. Have you ever met a Canadian multiplex Autism family? How about a Canadian family with a rare and serious disorder not covered in Canada? Have a look at their healthcare bills.
Autism care should be covered, no question (and yes, I do know a family who is dealing with autism). It seems to me that rather than advocating change to the system so that these things are covered, you are advocating making it worse for others? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
Not sure how I would define basic health care, but it is certainly more than “only receive medical care if their condition is deemed a risk to public health or safety.”
Anyone can arrive in this country as a refugee with a condition that will be an enormous burden on our healthcare system. Have you never read of landed immigrants in Canada being denied a permanent place because someone in the family had just such a condition? It is not just refugees that this applies to. The whole story is not being told here.
What about private donors or charitable organizations of people who think as you do covering these healthcare bills? It is always easy to rant when someone else has to pay the bill. And group health insurance, from a commercial insurance company, can be arranged in advance of refugee groups arriving here. You want to be a little too free and easy with Canadian taxpayers’ money.
Remember the fiasco in 2006 when Leabnese residents with any connection to Canada, on paper, were given carte blanche to take care of all their medical needs in Ontario, after the violence in their homeland? The waiting period for covered care was even waived for them. The majority came, took advanatge of whatever they could get, and then left again. It was Hotel Canada/Hospital Canada. They paid no bills, no taxes, and left us nothing in return. We were chumps. In the meantime, I can recall wating two years at that time for a specialist appointment myself, and another family member waiting 14 months for a necessary MRI appointment. And we were the ones paying the taxes.
We do not have the hospital beds nor the medical expertise nor the equipment, now, to take care of everyone who is here already. Don’t you read the real news? If refugees have come from countries where they have received little health care over their lifetime, we may have to pay for catch-up assistance too.
Most of us would love to be able to give everyone everything they require. We are not just being mean. There is a finite amount of money going around, however. Heard what has happened to Greece or Ireland? We cannot provide state-of-the-art healthcare to all comers. Canada would be out of business tomorrow. We do not even provide it to all Canadians; to believe that we do is terribly naive.
I just read that the Sultan of Brunei held a week-long wedding for his fifth child, at the cost of well over 20 million dollars. Why aren’t you screaming at him for not having used that money on the poor and sick of his own country? But you will seethe when Canada does not pick up the bill for doing this kind of thing. Very odd way of thinking.
If we are agreeing to have socialized medicine in this country, perhaps we should first cover all medical needs of those Canadians already here, and contributing. It looks to a lot of Canadians as if refugees not only jump our very lengthy queue, but that there is little gratitude from many of them. We are more likely to hear about what they were not given, than about what they were.
In the meantime, non-refugee Canadians without the necessary healthcare here are told to suck it in.
So, Kate, how do we offer the Autism care, to name one uncovered, serious Canadian health issue, first? Did you have some workable suggestions in mind? There are Canadians out there drowning in debt even as I write, from attempting to pay for it themselves, when the province does not.
Well said AMPisAnglican!
I could say more, but it might be misconstrued as uncharitable.
Suffice to say, my Daddy told me—
“Charity begins at home”.
I don’t see “charity begins at home” in my bible anywhere. (Yes, I know, we are talking about secular government, but still…)
In the form “Charity begins at home, but shouldn’t end there,” it was written by Rev. Thomas Fuller, who seems to have been a notable wit in addition to being a cleric during the English Civil War.
Hello Kate,
When it comes to Christian charity I am mindful of this:
1 Corinthians 13 King James Version (KJV)
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
The meaning of ‘charity’ in the KJV and the meaning of ‘charity’ in modern English are different.
Hello Kate,
Respectfully I think that you are mistaken. Please consider the following:
From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity?show=0&t=1349352813
Definition of CHARITY
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2 a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need
b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c: public provision for the relief of the needy
3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes
b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4: lenient judgment of others
And from
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/charity.html
KJV Dictionary Definition: charity
charity
CHARITY, n.
1. In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men.
1 Cor. 8. Col. 3. 1 Tim 1.
2. In a more particular sense, love, kindness, affection, tenderness, springing from natural relations; as the charities of father, son and brother.
3. Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services to relieve them in distress.
4. Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.
5. Liberality in gifts and services to promote public objects of utility, as to found and support bible societies, missionary societies, and others.
6. Candor; liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to think and judge favorably, and to put the best construction on words and actions which the case will admit. The highest exercise of charity, is charity towards the uncharitable.
7. Any act of kindness, or benevolence; as the charities of life.
8. A charitable institution. Charity-school, is a school maintained by voluntary contributions for educating poor children.
I suppose we could nick pick about details, but it seems to me that the modern definition according to Webster’s and the KJV definition are pretty much the same. The modern version books (oops. Bibles) that replace the word “charity” with “love” end up saying something different, for by either of these definitions it sure looks like love is an integral part of charity, but the charity does not necessarily result from love.
I think definition 2a is what comes first to most people’s minds when the word ‘charity’ is used.
Modern English doesn’t have enough words to translate ‘agape’ and ‘philio’. The translators have to depend upon context, and I think the context is pretty clear.
“As I mentioned earlier, have a good long look at families who have rare disorders of any kind (put all of these together and you come up with a sizeable number) and you will see that the majority of them must leave Canada, pay travel expenses, and then also pay out of pocket for ALL of their medical care related to the rare condition, which is likely lifelong.”
Can you back that up with any stats? Without links, I suspect you of exaggerating on your ‘sizable number’ point.
A cursory net search found this:
http://www.raredisorders.ca/aboutUs.html
They have some good ideas about advocating for change. I never said our system is perfect. I just don’t think pulling everythingn down to the lowest common denominator is a solution.
I’m sorry for comment 6, it was unnecessarily snarky.
My own family is one of those rare disorders families in Canada, Kate. I am also a professional researcher who has worked on this issue for years. I could write a book on the subject, with real experience thrown in, much less give you accurate stats.
We have re-mortgaged our house to pay costs at a major medical centre in the U.S., for years. Even that does not cover all of it. The Anglican Church never mentioned helping us — funny, that.
Just to give you some idea, there are currently 434 rare disease patient organisations in over 43 countries in the western world. There are an untold number of rare diseases that have not been formally identified yet (apart from groups of symptoms), and so there are no organized patient groups for these. Look at the medical literature to see that every week there are more rare disorders discovered. Stop and think of how large the now-mapped Human Genome is. A mutation in any one of those thousands and thousands of genes, or combinations thereof, can mean a disorder. Kind of staggering, actually.
Contact Genome Canada, if you like, to learn about the group of rare diseases they have found in a recent project dealing only with rare family disorders originating on our east coast, once homogeneously populated.
In the U.S., reliable estimates are that approximately 1 in 10 persons has some type of rare disorder. Canada’s situation is similar.
Many people with a rare disorder just know that something is wrong, medically. Doctors here are usually incapable of working our what it is, so they tell such patients not to come back. We don’t deal with rare disorders; we hide them, and expect patients to suffer in silence. Not even the supposedly best hospitals in Canada will deal — either fully or at all — with rare disorders. They do not have the expertise. The idea in Canada is that we put medical resources to use for the greatest number of people, in major population areas. This means that our resources are applied towards the most common ailments. If you fall outside of this, you really need not apply.
This is when, if you can find any way of financing it, you travel to one of the big medical centres in the U.S., where the expertise is much more likely to exist. Your provincial insurance never covers travel and hotel expenses, and almost never covers diagnosis or treatment. You are on your own. At most such places, you have to pay cash on the barrel, especially if you are from outside the U.S. And of course Canadians will not have been allowed to purchase private medical insurance to use for this.
The idea of “complete healthcare for all” in Canada is a farce. Don’t tell me we should be offering it to other people, when we can’t even offer it to out own.
I imagine that you wouldn’t be so strident if you and your family were going through this.
I’m in the highest tax bracket, Anon. I contribute a good chunk of my income to the tax base, so it’s not a matter of ‘spending someone else’s money’. It’s ‘my’ money too.
I think the fact that you had to do that is just as wrong as denying health care to refugees. I don’t need to have all the answers to be able to state an opinion that something is wrong.
“I just read that the Sultan of Brunei held a week-long wedding for his fifth child, at the cost of well over 20 million dollars. Why aren’t you screaming at him for not having used that money on the poor and sick of his own country? But you will seethe when Canada does not pick up the bill for doing this kind of thing. Very odd way of thinking.”
How do you know I haven’t?
Publicly?
I’ll repeat, there’s no question that what you and your family are going through should not be happening. It sounds incredibly heartbreaking and frustrating, and I can see that you are very angry about it.
No system is perfect – all have problems. I don’t see how turning refugees away from emergency rooms will help. We need to be putting more money and effort into our health care system, not draining it. (And yes, I’d be perfectly willing to pay more taxes to make that happen).
I believe that we are now simply going round in circles, so I will let you have the last word, if you wish it.
Kate,
I will be making a presentation, on behalf of Canadian families with rare disorders, before the Parliamentary Standing Committee at the 2014 Health Care Review. You can read the minutes at that time, if you wish.
Your cursory review of the internet and your suggesting to me that I read the rare disorders website you found was a little laughable, I have to say. You don’t know how much you don’t know.
In the meantime, it is really attitudes that need to change. You do neither refugees nor the rest of us any favour when you absolve them from all responsibility. And please don’t wail, “But how will they do it on minimum wage jobs?” I already gave you an example of what I learned about that from my own experience.
I might suggest that you start with Myron Magnet’s excellent treatise on the development of the underclass, entitled “The Dream and the Nightmare.” Perhaps follow it up with Heather MacDonald’s, “The Burden of Bad Ideas.”
The Anglican Church in many ways puts its protest power where it will make them look good. Excellent Public Relations tactic. Everyone can identify with the image of the poor refugee. The Church looks like an unquestionable hero for upholding the demands that more and more and more be given to such individuals, no questions asked. Only, questions darn well should be asked.
You have no idea who you are dealing with on these internet forums, Kate, so please refrain from making silly assumptions. There are those of us who have experience you cannot imagine.
You write, in the same breath:
“You have no idea who you are dealing with on these internet forums, Kate, so please refrain from making silly assumptions.”
and…
“In the meantime, it is really attitudes that need to change. You do neither refugees nor the rest of us any favour when you absolve them from all responsibility”
Which is a silly assumption, as I said no such thing. The point I am making is that because you have fallen through the cracks is no reason to ensure that other people also fall through the cracks. The cure for injustice is not to spread it around to more people, rather it is to fix the injustice. I can’t have it so neither can you is no solution to society’s problems.
Over to you. I said you may have the last word and so you may.
I notice that you cherry-pick, Kate, choosing only bits of what of what I have said, and ignoring the rest. These are the bits that suit your own argument.
Try the books I suggested. They will give you some excellent answers for your quandries. I will also add the work of Thomas Sowell, economist and social commentator.
I am certainly not trying to ensure that other people fall through the cracks. That is a twisted interpretation, meant to show me as hard-hearted, and you as enlightened and saintly. You are trying to make simplistic what is a multi-faceted situation.
To fall through the cracks, you have to have a reasonable expectation of being denied something, to begin with, when others in your position or situation can reasonably expect to be provided for, from an obligated party. The parent-child relationship works this way, for instance, and we encode it in law. A parent must provide the necessities of life for their child until 18 years of age, or face the consequences. They would not be expected, though, to have to provide for children who are not their own. Same idea here. There are children around the world who could use this kind of help, but human society has not yet found a way to provide it for all of them. Forcing other parents to do so is not the answer.
Canada has a legal obligation (our government willingly took this on themselves some decades ago) to provide reasonable healthcare for all Canadians, in law. In return, the government that entered into that contract received our votes, and ensuing power. We also pay a higher rate of income tax than in countries where there is no socialized medicine, and we give up other things that we may have chosen to spend our national dollars on instead.
A country would not be expected to have to provide for individuals who are not their own. Should individual Canadians wish to do so through their own efforts and their own money, that is up to them. You yourself can do it, for instance. If we set the precendent of giving out free healthcare to all comers, then soon it may be all post-secondary education, and two free satellite dishes per home, and a new car every other year. Where are we allowed to draw the line? When it all crashes, and no one can be given anything anymore?
A minority of us cannot simply insist that our pooled resources must stretch to cover anyone who demands this. And, sorry to say, many do demand it, with no gratitude in return.
You are indeed trying to absolve refugees from responsibility, Kate, with your previous comments about the absurdity of expecting them to help contribute to their own costs. Why should we not expect this?
You are fully welcome to take all of that upper-tax-bracket income you spoke of, and contribute it to medical costs for anyone you might choose. So am I. So is anyone. But that is done freely. To absolutely expect the rest of Canadians to cover obligations that are not Canada’s obligations is very presumptuous. Our government (on our behalf) already contributes quite enormously in charitable aid to every needy country out there. As I said, any Canadian is quite free to add their own contributions. But to force us to, when many in our own nation do not yet receive what was encoded and obligated in law, is galling.
My family and I are Canadians. Our country has promised socialized health care, paid for from our collective tax dollars and other national resources, to every citizen. Canada forbade its citizens from purchasing private healthcare insurance, from which they might have covered costs themselves. They made us truly dependent on our provincial programs.
Most Canadians receive at least a reasonable modicum of health care for the average diseases/conditions. However, I do not note any clause in the Canada Health Act that says rare diseases/conditions render the Canadian holders inviolate to reasonable health care. This is what is happening, though. There is a group amongst Canadians for which the socialized healthcare pact does not apply. The obligation was indeed made, but is not being met, meaning great hardship for such Canadians.
However, I would not consider it the responsibility of any other government to have to cover my family’s healthcare, whatever it is we might have, common or rare. We do not travel to hospitals in the U.S. and assume that they will give us their care for free. They have no obligation to us, nor does the U.S. government, nor do any governments from Thirld World nations. We are not their citizens, so we are not their responsibility. Yes, in a hugely idealized fantasy world, we are all “global citizens” as human beings, but that nice notion does not begin to explain how the practicalities are going to be dealt with. That’s the trouble with utopian notions. They never work in real life.
Could my family claim refugee status from the Sultan of Brunei, expecting that with his deep pockets, he should cover our medical expenses?
We are talking about who is responsible for whom. There are a huge number of needy people in this world — and as I said, most decent individuals would love to help each and every one of them — but we cannot do it all. There is also the problem of opening the door to being the good guys, and having every gimme-artist on the planet beating a path to Canada, claiming refugee status. Think it can’t happen? It already has, in some western nations. Wants and demands have been re-dressed as “needs,” and riots have broken out when such demands are not met by the very people who so generously offered help in the first place.
I feel my government owes my family what they have stated (in a legal Act) they are willing to give to all Canadians. There is no other government that will do so, because they, like me, expect that the way we have arranged our world is that each government first takes care of their own people. Can I go to Ghana and demand a hand-out, because Canada is not living up to its obligations to my family?
Despite our own situation, Kate, my family and I have been on the forefront of charitable giving. I believe you wish to paint me as a grasping, mean-spirited type, when you could not be farther from the truth. Remember the old saying about “a hand up, not a hand out?” We put that into action.
Fixing the injustice is not as simple as forcing the rest of us to give, even though we may not have such needs covered for ourselves. I believe they call that Communism. If you know anything at all about the poor track record that particular system has had in this world, you will re-think your pronouncements.
“I can’t have it, so neither can you”? As I mentioned, you delight in twisting what I have said.
The issue of government provided (taxpayer funded) health care is obviously a sensitive one. But I still get back to my original position. That being that I do not see any obligatoin on the part of the government to provide health care services to refugees that it does not provide to our own citizens. I can fully support providing refugees with the same coverage that we citizens receive, but to provide more would be unfair to the people who pay the bills.
I don’t have a problem with that either, but the cuts go deeper than that.