News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Towered said:
But hey, if you scarf down 4 plates plus dessert, they lose money on you 🤣
Click to expand...
I think they do okay as long as you're mowing down on chow mein. It's the families that bring their crab leg tools and just eat crab legs for 3 hours that they lose money on. I've seen it!
 
Liberals are going to have to get a handle on this sort of stuff because it is an extremely bad look especially during a time when Canadians already feel increasingly negative about the levels of mass migration into Canada.

Feds want $411 million to cover refugee health care as the number of new arrivals soars​

There's been a sevenfold increase in refugee health-care costs in the last eight years​

John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Nov 22, 2024 4:00 AM EST
Click to expand...
The federal government is asking Parliament to approve hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending to cover the health-care costs of eligible refugees and asylum seekers — a budget line item that has soared in recent years as the number of these newcomers reached record highs.

The IFHP's cost has soared from roughly $60 million in 2016 to a projected $411.2 million this year, easily outpacing inflation.
Click to expand...
Former prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government curtailed the IFHP and eliminated coverage entirely for some refugees and asylum seekers as part of a push to reduce spending and balance the budget.

The Harper government also said it was unfair for taxpayers to be paying for a program that was, in some instances, much more generous than what's available to some Canadian citizens and permanent residents through public health care.

The decision to cut the program prompted a wave of criticism and was ultimately deemed unconstitutional by a Federal Court judge.

In 2016, the Liberals restored the program — which covers primary care, hospital visits, lab tests, ambulance services, vision and dental care, home care and long-term care, psychologists, counselling, devices like hearing aids and oxygen equipment, and prescription drugs, among other things.
Click to expand...
When the Liberals announced the program's restoration, the then-immigration minister said the program would cost roughly $60 million a year.

The cost quickly doubled to $125.1 million a year in 2019-20 and then more than doubled again to $327.7 million in 2021-22, according to government data.

In the government's supplementary estimates tabled this week — part of the legislative process for asking Parliament for more money to cover initiatives that haven't already been funded — Ottawa is now asking for $411.2 million a year for IFHP.
Click to expand...
 
afransen said:
I think they do okay as long as you're mowing down on chow mein. It's the families that bring their crab leg tools and just eat crab legs for 3 hours that they lose money on. I've seen it!
Click to expand...
Only newbs would be dumb enough to gorge on chow mein or other carbs - you gotta be strategic! When I go I minimize allocation of tummy space to that stuff, and 90% stuff myself on the proteins - chicken, shrimp, salmon, beef, etc.
 
jje1000 said:
Liberals are going to have to get a handle on this sort of stuff because it is an extremely bad look especially during a time when Canadians already feel increasingly negative about the levels of mass migration into Canada.





Click to expand...

Honestly, we should not be providing free healthcare to anyone who is not a citizen, PR or otherwise entitled to it under international law. We simply do not have the money for it at the moment.

There also needs to be more selectiveness when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers.
 
Towered said:
Only newbs would be dumb enough to gorge on chow mein or other carbs - you gotta be strategic! When I go I minimize allocation of tummy space to that stuff, and 90% stuff myself on the proteins - chicken, shrimp, salmon, beef, etc.
Click to expand...
Just skip Mandarin and go to Korean BBQ or Brazilian steakhouse.
 
kEiThZ said:
When you vote for politicians without any due regard to future investment at all, I'd say you should accept the blame. Those politicians didn't keep underinvesting and running on legacy investments just for kicks. The voters who put them in supported that philosophy. From the same generation that gave us Gordon Gecko and "Greed is good", maybe we can't have expected more.....
Click to expand...
Realistically, very rare is the government that runs on a platform that offers up anything beyond the immediate future. The concept of strategic thinking in political terms has a maximum gaze of five years. If we the voters were expected to base our decision on long term offerings, we would have nobody to vote for. Even if somebody did and we rewarded them, a subsequent government can un-do it. The actual words may vary but everybody is in the business of 'putting money back in the pockets of hard working Canadians'.
 
lenaitch said:
Realistically, very rare is the government that runs on a platform that offers up anything beyond the immediate future.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, largely true. Also, where there is a longer term play, its often not part of the platform that you get to consider.

lenaitch said:
If we the voters were expected to base our decision on long term offerings, we would have nobody to vote for.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we ought to demand better? While I agree, before you say it, that that is easier said than done......its also something that has been achieved in the past, at least for brief periods.

If politicians knew for certain that a credible, long-term vision could attract (enough) votes, perhaps we would see more of that.

lenaitch said:
Even if somebody did and we rewarded them, a subsequent government can un-do it.
Click to expand...

There are four ways we could seek to address this, as I see it.

The first two are not constitutional in nature, it simply requires parties to advance select, major items on a consensus basis, seeking all-party support, or, at the very least two parties that together represent over 50% of the popular vote and to achieve a high degree of public buy-in as well.

That the isn't a legal road-block to un-doing something, it is, generally a practical one.

I would highlight Quebec, which pursued this on its answer to Medically Assisted Dying, and also on its daycare program.

Both have survived across three different political parties and multiple different Premiers.

****

Second, pass a program, or infrastructure investment by referendum/plebiscite, with the electorate endorsing it at 50%+1

****

Third would be electoral reform, which would be constitutional structuring things so that a winning party or coalition has to have the support of 50% +1 to govern. (popular vote, not seats)

****

Fourth, again a constitutional change to allow for certain longer term programs to be binding, by way of legislation, but raising the threshold for passage to 60% of all seats in the legislature, and the majority of at least two official parties, together representing more than 50% of the popular vote.

A future government would still be allowed to repeal such a program, but it would have to do so with the heightened threshold.

lenaitch said:
The actual words may vary but everybody is in the business of 'putting money back in the pockets of hard working Canadians'.
Click to expand...

And there's nothing wrong w/that sentiment. So long as one can intelligently lay out why that is the right decision in the here and now, preferably in a circumstance in which people are broadly content with public service quality and in which budgets are in at least modest surplus.

Otherwise the argument made should tweak to something like "We are making these choices today, so that we will be able to lower your taxes in the future" or some such thing.
 
evandyk said:
LOL. These guys get their payment every month, but it's not enough.


I have the same concerns as NL about the design, but seniors are well taken care of by federal programs already.
Click to expand...
The gall of these people. On another forum, there is a retiree with a big GM pension harping about how the CPP is in surplus and he should get a big payout of that surplus. Nevermind that current day working stiffs are paying a higher contribution rate than necessary to pay their own benefits to offset prior generation under-contributions and poor management of the fund.
 
Justin was enjoying the Taylor Swift concert tonight.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1860132380914385078
IMG_7365.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top