Those who seek refuge in other countries usually flee their homelands due to fear of persecution, war, natural disasters, or due to violation of human rights in their country of origin. They yearn for a better life somewhere where they don’t have to live in constant fear, such as Canada. They choose Canada because they believe it is a democratic state that will ensure their safety. However, the conservative party believes these people seek refuge in Canada to take advantage of the health care system which is incorrect. Harris stated, “The government’s framing of refugee claimants as economic migrants undermines the traumatic experiences that spark most refugee arrivals in Canada” (Harris and Zuberi, 5). In 1957, a program known as the Interim
…show more content…
However, as Dr. Meb Rashid stated, over $1.4 million dollars has been spent by the Canadian government to ensure refugees do not receive health coverage (Holcroft,7). Many believe the cost to provide refugees with health care is expensive, yet, as the Canadian Council for Refugees stated, “according to government calculations, IFH costs were only about one tenth as much per claimant as the average amount spent on health care per Canadian” (CCR, 6). Another claim made by the government which started that refugees received greater benefits than other Canadians did had also been disproven. The health care coverage refugees received prior to the IFH changes was equivalent to the amount low-income Canadian families receive (Holcraft, 2). While Harper and his conservative party put emphasis on how the changes would result in saving money, the reform has in fact resulted in increased costs to hospitals due to the increased use of emergency rooms, where patient care is more costly than it would have been if the illnesses had been tackled earlier on. Some provincial governments have also noticed increased costs due to their commitment to providing assistance and health coverage to refugees (Holcraft, 5). Ultimately, the reform has resulted in increasing costs to Canadians, which is the opposite of what was …show more content…
While the government stated “the IFH amendments will allow the government ‘to protect public health and safety’”, it has been proven that the reform in fact might possibly do the opposite. It was announced that medical attention and help would be provided to refugees only when and if their medical situation became a matter of public health safety. Out of fear and ineligibility of paying for visits to the doctor’s, many refugees delay or avoid seeking care practitioners to inquire about their current health state, which in many cases results in poorer health outcomes (Marwa, 7). “Refugees tend to come from countries with minimal health care resources and limited immunization, and for that reason providing them with primary care is critical to maintaining the health of refugees and the general public in the resettlement country” (Marwa, 8). It is important to provide refugees with the health care coverage which provide them with access to frequent check-ups and preventative care. Illnesses that are matters of public health safety might occur in the long run which could have been prevented had the individuals been eligible for covered care and visited a doctor
However, as Dr. Meb Rashid stated, over $1.4 million dollars has been spent by the Canadian government to ensure refugees do not receive health coverage (Holcroft,7). Many believe the cost to provide refugees with health care is expensive, yet, as the Canadian Council for Refugees stated, “according to government calculations, IFH costs were only about one tenth as much per claimant as the average amount spent on health care per Canadian” (CCR, 6). Another claim made by the government which started that refugees received greater benefits than other Canadians did had also been disproven. The health care coverage refugees received prior to the IFH changes was equivalent to the amount low-income Canadian families receive (Holcraft, 2). While Harper and his conservative party put emphasis on how the changes would result in saving money, the reform has in fact resulted in increased costs to hospitals due to the increased use of emergency rooms, where patient care is more costly than it would have been if the illnesses had been tackled earlier on. Some provincial governments have also noticed increased costs due to their commitment to providing assistance and health coverage to refugees (Holcraft, 5). Ultimately, the reform has resulted in increasing costs to Canadians, which is the opposite of what was …show more content…
While the government stated “the IFH amendments will allow the government ‘to protect public health and safety’”, it has been proven that the reform in fact might possibly do the opposite. It was announced that medical attention and help would be provided to refugees only when and if their medical situation became a matter of public health safety. Out of fear and ineligibility of paying for visits to the doctor’s, many refugees delay or avoid seeking care practitioners to inquire about their current health state, which in many cases results in poorer health outcomes (Marwa, 7). “Refugees tend to come from countries with minimal health care resources and limited immunization, and for that reason providing them with primary care is critical to maintaining the health of refugees and the general public in the resettlement country” (Marwa, 8). It is important to provide refugees with the health care coverage which provide them with access to frequent check-ups and preventative care. Illnesses that are matters of public health safety might occur in the long run which could have been prevented had the individuals been eligible for covered care and visited a doctor