Richard White
Senior Member
But hey, if you scarf down 4 plates plus dessert, they lose money on you
I'm that guy who eats 10 plates of food.
But hey, if you scarf down 4 plates plus dessert, they lose money on you
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!But hey, if you scarf down 4 plates plus dessert, they lose money on you
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
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Loading…
www.cbc.ca
Just skip Mandarin and go to Korean BBQ or Brazilian steakhouse.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.
That may be the case for refugees.or otherwise entitled to it under international law.
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'.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.....
Nah, those don't scratch the same itch...Just skip Mandarin and go to Korean BBQ or Brazilian steakhouse.
Realistically, very rare is the government that runs on a platform that offers up anything beyond the immediate future.
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'.
No according to seniors.but seniors are well taken care of by federal programs already.
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.LOL. These guys get their payment every month, but it's not enough.
Loading…
www.cbc.ca
I have the same concerns as NL about the design, but seniors are well taken care of by federal programs already.