1234 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Absolutely! The job of a politician only consists of robbing the population. The problem is, Joe Oliver is even oblivious to robbing the population. He is only matra is Conservative - thus, small government and austerity. He does not know if his approach to solving the budgetary deficit is beneficial or detrimental. He is just oblivious. It is sad. I wouldn't care so much if he knew the consequences or educated himself on the consequences of his actions. People should be in outrage because not only is he negatively impacting Canadian society, but he is doing so with complete ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 The problem is, Joe Oliver is even oblivious to robbing the population. He is only matra is Conservative - thus, small government and austerity. He does not know if his approach to solving the budgetary deficit is beneficial or detrimental. He is just oblivious. It is sad. I wouldn't care so much if he knew the consequences or educated himself on the consequences of his actions. People should be in outrage because not only is he negatively impacting Canadian society, but he is doing so with complete ignorance. He is also the minister heading up the undermining of the authority of the national energy board and cramming an unwanted pipeline down the throats of us British Columbians. Any who oppose his and his governments' views on the project have been labelled as "environmental radicals" whether they be scientists, aboriginal peoples, or simply concerned citizens. Doctors can't voice their concerns regarding refugee healthcare, lawyers can't voice their concern regarding the ill-advised crime bill, federal scientists can't even attend an international conference without "media handlers" while non-federal scientists can't voice environmental concerns without being labelled "environmental radicals." He has a bachelor of civil law degree and an MBA, and clearly no understanding of issues relevant to his appointment as Minister of Natural Resources as evidenced by his inability to address the concerns of the aforementioned groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomSmasherXVIII Posted June 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 OK guys let's be honest about one thing. The reason you [mostly] are against Oliver's action to kill refugee healthcare funding is because it will mean fewer billings for us. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand it means less billings for me, but on the other it's a step closer to privatized medicine (which lowers my taxes and would make me more money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I am not uptodate on the topic, but from the video and what the politician said, it seemed like a reasonable reduction. Is this in relation to the 1 billion reduction in OHIP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I am not uptodate on the topic, but from the video and what the politician said, it seemed like a reasonable reduction. Is this in relation to the 1 billion reduction in OHIP? No, this is a federal program that is being ended. It offered federal funding for healthcare to those with official refugee status in Canada since it is assumed (quite rightly) that they would not have any financial means to take care of bills associated with prescription medications etc. The ending of this program, as pointed out by the physician and student in the video, will result in refugees from war-torn or natural disaster stricken countries being expected to fund their own healthcare and supplemental benefits (prescription meds) once arriving in Canada. Obviously they won't be able to do this and will be left without necessary treatment, or the gap will be filled by already cash-strapped not-for-profit organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 OK guys let's be honest about one thing. The reason you [mostly] are against Oliver's action to kill refugee healthcare funding is because it will mean fewer billings for us. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand it means less billings for me, but on the other it's a step closer to privatized medicine (which lowers my taxes and would make me more money). A curious point, given that - as far as I know - what is being cut is not ALL healthcare funding for refugees but the sort of "extended" services that are not funded generally (dental, vision, etc.). That, at least, has been the government's spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 No, this is a federal program that is being ended. It offered federal funding for healthcare to those with official refugee status in Canada since it is assumed (quite rightly) that they would not have any financial means to take care of bills associated with prescription medications etc. The ending of this program, as pointed out by the physician and student in the video, will result in refugees from war-torn or natural disaster stricken countries being expected to fund their own healthcare and supplemental benefits (prescription meds) once arriving in Canada. Obviously they won't be able to do this and will be left without necessary treatment, or the gap will be filled by already cash-strapped not-for-profit organizations. well If you watch what the polititian said. from what I understood, he is saying "we will consider refugees 'canadian citizens' and give them the same healthcare that a Canadian citizen gets and nothing extra (which is maybe what was going on before). so we are cutting the extra money that was going to refugees and instead just given them the same health care that a Canadian citizen gets". I think that seems pretty reasonable. (though I may be wrong cause I don't know exactly what happens to teh refugees when they arrive) A question for curiosity: What happens when a homeless person enters a hospital and doesn't have a healthcard or a passport? do you treat them or just let them die? Obviously you are going to treat them, but who gets charged for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomSmasherXVIII Posted June 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 A curious point, given that - as far as I know - what is being cut is not ALL healthcare funding for refugees but the sort of "extended" services that are not funded generally (dental, vision, etc.). That, at least, has been the government's spin. I don't believe this to be the case. I recall the physician in the video mentioning not being able to treat refugees who were diabetic because of the changes. And I doubt those two people would get so fired up as to interrupt such an important speech over lost dental benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 OK guys let's be honest about one thing. The reason you [mostly] are against Oliver's action to kill refugee healthcare funding is because it will mean fewer billings for us. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand it means less billings for me, but on the other it's a step closer to privatized medicine (which lowers my taxes and would make me more money). Let's be honest - you clearly haven't read the bill right? The bill scraps essential preventative health care that will no doubt be exponentially higher on the back end through emergency care and hospital stays. Do you think health problems just disappear if they aren't recognized through preventative or maintenance care (dental, vision, drug coverage, etc)? Of course not. They become much more severe and difficult to treat. And this is problematic for all Canadians. Not only will it lead to increased cost, it will lead to an even more backlogged triage system. When my friends, family or I want Emergency care, I want it in an expedient manner. And from what I've heard, its saving a measly $40 million or so. Way to go Conservatives - pick on the most vulnerable group in Canada for pennies when we are speading $8 million for Canada celebration and gift to the Queen for the Diamond Jubilee. Such bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpatient Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I think there was something mentioned about cutting heart attack treatment, like no treatment will be given... Anybody confirm? Also, do you guys consider 20 million really saved a lot per year...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markov79 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I don't know enough about this issue to take a side - though the Minister's response (and lack thereof) leads me to believe his position isn't very strong. On the one hand - no, you don't want to reinforce this behaviour by allowing yourself to get hooked into impromptu debates. On the other hand - the Minister made himself look as though he had no good rebuttal. If it is true that the government is ignoring the voices of, or refusing to even meet with, key interest groups affected by policy changes, then I'm glad to see people forcing the issue. I think Canadians in general have a tendency towards apathy, to keep their mouths shut, complain about things online or at home where it doesn't do much, but not rock the boat too hard (Exception: Quebec). Doctors are generally further restricted by a duty to professionalism. The degree to which the policy change is beneficial or detrimental, I don't know, but its important that key issues get brought up by the parties who are affected by them. Its important that politicians know that if they willfully ignore a particular population behind the scenes, that particular population will not ignore them when the cameras are rolling. trudeau handled it like a boss during the flq crisis. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 well If you watch what the polititian said. from what I understood, he is saying "we will consider refugees 'canadian citizens' and give them the same healthcare that a Canadian citizen gets and nothing extra (which is maybe what was going on before). so we are cutting the extra money that was going to refugees and instead just given them the same health care that a Canadian citizen gets".I think that seems pretty reasonable. (though I may be wrong cause I don't know exactly what happens to teh refugees when they arrive) A question for curiosity: What happens when a homeless person enters a hospital and doesn't have a healthcard or a passport? do you treat them or just let them die? Obviously you are going to treat them, but who gets charged for that? 1234 answers in a bit more detail above, but in addition to that the ignorant minister fails to mention that provinces have programs in place for those below certain income thresholds that allow for them to have their prescriptions medications, dental, and other additional medical services subsidized. His comment regarding refugees having access to healthcare that is not any greater than the average Canadian is a canned response that is incorrect for this reason and designed to appease the general public that are unwilling to examine the legislation or take 30 seconds to do a google search and do some fact checking. While it sounds reasonable it is, in practice, not the reality of the situation. He's banking most people assuming his response sounds reasonable and that the physician is out to lunch. However, this is not the case as anyone with a computer and an internet connection can see for themselves. The government is anticipating saving 100 million dollars over 5 years on this, that's 20 million dollars a year. In the grand scheme of things at a federal level I can think of a dozen areas I wouldn't mind them cutting funding from before they took it away from people who have undergone unimaginable experiences only to arrive in a safe haven and not have the medical care they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 well If you watch what the polititian said. from what I understood, he is saying "we will consider refugees 'canadian citizens' and give them the same healthcare that a Canadian citizen gets and nothing extra (which is maybe what was going on before). so we are cutting the extra money that was going to refugees and instead just given them the same health care that a Canadian citizen gets".I think that seems pretty reasonable. (though I may be wrong cause I don't know exactly what happens to teh refugees when they arrive) A question for curiosity: What happens when a homeless person enters a hospital and doesn't have a healthcard or a passport? do you treat them or just let them die? Obviously you are going to treat them, but who gets charged for that? The hospital has to absorb the cost. In the past, international residents came to Canada for surgery. Many promised to pay, received the surgery, left the country, were sent the invoice and never paid. Thankfully, hospitals are much stricter with respect to international residents looking to have surgery in Canada. Either you have a significant life threatening emergency, pay up front, or somehow get sponsored by the hospital (ie. many international Sick Kids surgeries). I'm not sure if the government provides any relief for it. But I know the hospital has to absorb a significant portion of the cost if they perform services for uninsured individuals if they don't procure appropriate payment. This is exactly why there needs to be an element of free market in the domain of health care. It plays a significant role on cost control and efficiency. Go Ron Paul lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 The US sure has cost control going on in spades... The hospital has to absorb the cost. In the past, international residents came to Canada for surgery. Many promised to pay, received the surgery, left the country, were sent the invoice and never paid. Thankfully, hospitals are much stricter with respect to international residents looking to have surgery in Canada. Either you have a significant life threatening emergency, pay up front, or somehow get sponsored by the hospital (ie. many international Sick Kids surgeries). I'm not sure if the government provides any relief for it. But I know the hospital has to absorb a significant portion of the cost if they perform services for uninsured individuals if they don't procure appropriate payment. This is exactly why there needs to be an element of free market in the domain of health care. It plays a significant role on cost control and efficiency. Go Ron Paul lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 A question for curiosity: What happens when a homeless person enters hospital and doesn't have a healthcard or a passport? do you treat them or just let them die? Obviously you are going to treat them, but who gets charged for that? In the US, many hospitals have had a unique and unethical manner of getting rid of the homeless who turned up at emergency departments for treatment and extended stays. They would take them out at night and just dunmp them on a street corner! This happens less often due to the adverse publicity. Although the hospital has to eat the cost of treatment and staying, they ger rid of them and save a bed and cost of that bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclawfjj Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Doctors launch study to monitor effects of cuts to refugee health benefits OTTAWA - Doctors are starting a research project to monitor what they say will be the adverse effects of federal government cuts to health-care benefits for refugees. As of this weekend, the government will no longer cover the cost of extended benefits such as medications and vision care for refugee claimants. The cuts will also restrict access to health care to urgent cases or cases where the medical status of a refugee claimant poses a danger to public health. Doctors say the cuts could have deadly consequences as refugees arrive in Canada with medical problems often related to their living conditions abroad. They say their national surveillance program data will be used to show the Conservative government that the cuts are a bad idea. The government argues that people awaiting a decision on a refugee claim shouldn't be entitled to better health-care coverage than Canadian citizens. this article's been published less than an hour ago. hopefully this research provides a definitive answer on which side is "right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Fantastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 ministers who work in health management should have multi-disciplinary training (md, mph or mpp, and mba) … plus diverse work experience… but this should also erase claims that bureaucrats can't have oversight over prov agencies… we should just require specific education for some fields which merit it to understand the nuances of the field, and provide adequate service as a government official I always find it ironic that some of the talk from the Ministries is that we need to rein in the roles of Doctors but we have have one uneducated (in terms of health care management) individual making unilateral decisions. And then we can have Immigration ministers outright lying about the workings of the health care system as if this isn't the age of the internet where a 30 second fact-seeking search exposes their fallacy. There is zero accountability for the outright incompetence of many of the Ministers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 boom 10char the British monarchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Doctors launch study to monitor effects of cuts to refugee health benefits this article's been published less than an hour ago. hopefully this research provides a definitive answer on which side is "right" Good step, but unfortunately, the government won't care a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 In the US, many hospitals have had a unique and unethical manner of getting rid of the homeless who turned up at emergency departments for treatment and extended stays. They would take them out at night and just dunmp them on a street corner! This happens less often due to the adverse publicity. Although the hospital has to eat the cost of treatment and staying, they ger rid of them and save a bed and cost of that bed. That is harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkourParkour Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 As much as I'd love for certain ministerial positions to be filled by actual professionals from the fields under their purview, the best posts (eg. Health/LTC, Education, Finance, Attorney General) are always reserved for the party faithful as a thank you gift for years of loyalty. That won't change. On the brightside, a lot of bureaucrats who have been ministry managers/deputy ministers for years (and are actually qualified to do their jobs) are always fed up with what their fickle bosses want and try to do things in the most pragmatic way possible without disrupting the status quo. ministers who work in health management should have multi-disciplinary training (md, mph or mpp, and mba) … plus diverse work experience… but this should also erase claims that bureaucrats can't have oversight over prov agencies… we should just require specific education for some fields which merit it to understand the nuances of the field, and provide adequate service as a government official Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Really eloquent argument by an Ottawa FM physician, as she goes up against some Health Minister who seems to be spewing the same crap as Joe Oliver, almost verbatim. This was really legit. And the media was very receptive to her kind demeanour. Now the public will hear the true logic of these policies and their impact on society. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/27/refugee-health-care-cuts-megan-williams-health-minister-leona-aglukkaq_n_1631165.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Good step, but unfortunately, the government won't care a bit. Yup, they are going to say that the methodology wasn't pristine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 The Conservatives are making a poor decision making enemies of physicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.