Us citizen here as a visitor living with my canadian wife w/o a healthcare plan

[armoured]

He seriously needs a job to have health coverage in Ontario? Sounds like America. Glad we chose Alberta. And despite what the news reports, we’ve both been to doctors several times and had great, timely care.

He will not, of course, need employment to get covered in Ontario as a PR. But until then, status is basically that of a visitor, and no, provinces don't typically provide coverage to visitors just because their spouses are Canadian.

Good old socialist Alberta does though ).

Most provinces do have coverage at some intervening stages, varying in the details. Yep, those that tend to have a lot of visitors/immigrants tend to be more demanding about criteria - although some of the details are (perhaps) due to just admin differences.

I'd note too that 'spouse', well, your case of your US spouse (with whom you presumably lived for some time before, perhaps married some time ago, or at least that's a common scenario) is a pretty straightforward situation. Some provinces may deal with a lot more cases of recent marriages / arranged marriages, some of which may be under suspicion of being for immigration purposes (immigration fraud).

Since provinces don't typically have a process or staff to check marriages for 'genuineness' and health coverage once granted isn't often revoked, it's just prudent to wait until the feds finish the PR process.

Visitors are of course recommended to get private insurance and/or apply earlier for PR spnsorship if it's a concern.

 

[richardrocks]

He will not, of course, need employment to get covered in Ontario as a PR. But until then, status is basically that of a visitor, and no, provinces don't typically provide coverage to visitors just because their spouses are Canadian.

Good old socialist Alberta does though ).

Most provinces do have coverage at some intervening stages, varying in the details. Yep, those that tend to have a lot of visitors/immigrants tend to be more demanding about criteria - although some of the details are (perhaps) due to just admin differences.

I'd note too that 'spouse', well, your case of your US spouse (with whom you presumably lived for some time before, perhaps married some time ago, or at least that's a common scenario) is a pretty straightforward situation. Some provinces may deal with a lot more cases of recent marriages / arranged marriages, some of which may be under suspicion of being for immigration purposes (immigration fraud).

Since provinces don't typically have a process or staff to check marriages for 'genuineness' and health coverage once granted isn't often revoked, it's just prudent to wait until the feds finish the PR process.

Visitors are of course recommended to get private insurance and/or apply earlier for PR spnsorship if it's a concern.

My earlier comments likely were outside the scope of what was typically discussed in these forums, but the OP’s situation and varying criteria from province to province made me think about how much I like Alberta’s no hassle approach to this critical issue, because unlike the US, Canada seems to recognize that having large numbers of uninsured folks isn’t really an economically or socially winning strategy. Some would disagree but that’s another conversation for another website.

Indeed, provinces have other priorities and limited staff and shouldn’t have to vet the genuineness of a marriage. That’d be a waste of resources. Instead, Alberta has a few backstops after taking our word for it:

1: They only grant coverage the length of the TRV. If you want to extend coverage, that AOR is the ticket and then they extend to a year. If you want to extend beyond that before PR approval, OWP is the ticket. It’s a phased thing and a very quick and easy process at a registry.

2: The Canadian sponsor has to agree to make Alberta home and show evidence of that. Now I’m an Alberta taxpayer and have spent a considerable amount of money in the province.

Moving is stressful enough — grateful that socialist Alberta took the stress and hassle out of at least one aspect of it as we await an IRCC decision.

Re private health insurance, maybe its way easier here to obtain that but before Obamacare regulations in the US, at some point most adults become “uninsurable”. If it’s easy, great, but if there’s an underwriting process… yikes. Been there and done that.

 

[armoured]

...because unlike the US, Canada seems to recognize that having large numbers of uninsured folks isn’t really an economically or socially winning strategy.

I'll refrain from posting LOL in response to this, because I largely agree with your point(s) here.

I'd just underline: the number of people in this particular situation cannot remotely be described as 'large.' (For that reason personally I'd suggest Alberta's approach might be an acceptable trade-off - but I understand why govts in different provinces may come to different conclusions about those trade-offs). Many provinces provided specific exemptions (and possibly still provide) for treatment related to some infectious diseases - notably covid for a while (for the obvious reason that infectious diseases are a threat to the public).

(LOL because USA has historically had many multiples of uninsured as % of pop compared to Canada, and as far as I'm aware that's still the case - although much lower since Obamacare. Let alone that similar backstops for uninsured exist (hospitals must treat etc) and then for most all medical expenditures, IIRC medical providers in Canada can't really charge any more than the provincial plans compensate, i.e. costs are lower overall and 'travel insurance' may be sufficient for most somewhat-healthy people (and paying out of pocket for regular doctor's visits feasible).

2: The Canadian sponsor has to agree to make Alberta home and show evidence of that. Now I’m an Alberta taxpayer and have spent a considerable amount of money in the province.

This sounds like a decent approach.

Moving is stressful enough — grateful that socialist Alberta took the stress and hassle out of at least one aspect of it as we await an IRCC decision.

Just side note, I was half-joking about socialist alberta given its reputation in Canada / its politicians predilection for loudly proclaiming its free-market (blah blah blah) approach (when it's mostly not true); but it's actually an interesting topic in that the province really is a lot more left-wing in practice than generally appreciated (and its political history shows that). To be fair, oil money allows even further-right politicians to pose as deficit chicken-hawks for the cameras while making fewer hard budget choices than their hydro-carbon deficient peers.

Re private health insurance, maybe its way easier here to obtain that but before Obamacare regulations in the US, at some point most adults become “uninsurable”. If it’s easy, great, but if there’s an underwriting process… yikes. Been there and done that.

I won't claim to be an expert but some of the 'travel' type/catastrophic insurance (without super invasive underwriting) may be at least feasible/manageable for many, at least during normal processing time for spousal sponsorships. As always, there are some for whom that's not realistic (eg those with chronic conditions meaning of course a higher % of the 'elderly.') But then, those immigrating later in life / with chronic conditions are not going to be the 'large numbers' you referred to, either. [Which leads back, of course, to the point about how much of a budget impact.]

 

[richardrocks]

I'll refrain from posting LOL in response to this, because I largely agree with your point(s) here.

I'd just underline: the number of people in this particular situation cannot remotely be described as 'large.' (For that reason personally I'd suggest Alberta's approach might be an acceptable trade-off - but I understand why govts in different provinces may come to different conclusions about those trade-offs). Many provinces provided specific exemptions (and possibly still provide) for treatment related to some infectious diseases - notably covid for a while (for the obvious reason that infectious diseases are a threat to the public).

(LOL because USA has historically had many multiples of uninsured as % of pop compared to Canada, and as far as I'm aware that's still the case - although much lower since Obamacare. Let alone that similar backstops for uninsured exist (hospitals must treat etc) and then for most all medical expenditures, IIRC medical providers in Canada can't really charge any more than the provincial plans compensate, i.e. costs are lower overall and 'travel insurance' may be sufficient for most somewhat-healthy people (and paying out of pocket for regular doctor's visits feasible).



This sounds like a decent approach.



Just side note, I was half-joking about socialist alberta given its reputation in Canada / its politicians predilection for loudly proclaiming its free-market (blah blah blah) approach (when it's mostly not true); but it's actually an interesting topic in that the province really is a lot more left-wing in practice than generally appreciated (and its political history shows that). To be fair, oil money allows even further-right politicians to pose as deficit chicken-hawks for the cameras while making fewer hard budget choices than their hydro-carbon deficient peers.



I won't claim to be an expert but some of the 'travel' type/catastrophic insurance (without super invasive underwriting) may be at least feasible/manageable for many, at least during normal processing time for spousal sponsorships. As always, there are some for whom that's not realistic (eg those with chronic conditions meaning of course a higher % of the 'elderly.') But then, those immigrating later in life / with chronic conditions are not going to be the 'large numbers' you referred to, either. [Which leads back, of course, to the point about how much of a budget impact.]

Hah! Yes! Right about Alberta. Given the things I’ve seen, heard, and experienced in the states, the most right leaning Canadians are socialists. But that’s a serious digression in the context of this forum.

 

[canuck78]

Hah! Yes! Right about Alberta. Given the things I’ve seen, heard, and experienced in the states, the most right leaning Canadians are socialists. But that’s a serious digression in the context of this forum.

My earlier comments likely were outside the scope of what was typically discussed in these forums, but the OP’s situation and varying criteria from province to province made me think about how much I like Alberta’s no hassle approach to this critical issue, because unlike the US, Canada seems to recognize that having large numbers of uninsured folks isn’t really an economically or socially winning strategy. Some would disagree but that’s another conversation for another website.

Indeed, provinces have other priorities and limited staff and shouldn’t have to vet the genuineness of a marriage. That’d be a waste of resources. Instead, Alberta has a few backstops after taking our word for it:

1: They only grant coverage the length of the TRV. If you want to extend coverage, that AOR is the ticket and then they extend to a year. If you want to extend beyond that before PR approval, OWP is the ticket. It’s a phased thing and a very quick and easy process at a registry.

2: The Canadian sponsor has to agree to make Alberta home and show evidence of that. Now I’m an Alberta taxpayer and have spent a considerable amount of money in the province.

Moving is stressful enough — grateful that socialist Alberta took the stress and hassle out of at least one aspect of it as we await an IRCC decision.

Re private health insurance, maybe its way easier here to obtain that but before Obamacare regulations in the US, at some point most adults become “uninsurable”. If it’s easy, great, but if there’s an underwriting process… yikes. Been there and done that.

All provinces have residency obligations to qualify for provincial healthcare. There is still a high number of uninsured people in Canada. Many spouses arriving in Canada aren’t actually taxpayers. Alberta was not a huge destination for new immigrants until fairly recently so this longterm policy of covering family members had minimal impact. That may change. Alberta being called socialist made me laugh. I am fairly certain that the UCP is probably unaware that spouses can qualify for healthcare as soon as they arrive.

 

[armoured]

There is still a high number of uninsured people in Canada.

Nonsense. Unless you mean something vague and nonsensical like "large numbers seem like a lot because they're large, but with no attempt to make a meaningful comparison." Numbers that are big just because it's a (relatively) big country are not meaningful comparisons.

Average uninsured rates in USA are north of 5% of population (like 6-7.5%). Even the best-performing states don't come close to plausible estimates for Canada, which is probably (well) below 1%, outside perhaps 1.5%. Sure, still too many, but not "high numbers."

Even the (few) mentions I've found on this are mostly about people who've overstayed their TRVs, some asylum claimants and the like, as well as some in (well established and shorter-term) waiting periods.

Please don't come back with nonsense Calvinball claims where you've just moved the net about "health care is hard and there's not enough" [doctors nurses beds MRIs whatever.] Those are different points.

 

[YVR123]

He seriously needs a job to have health coverage in Ontario? Sounds like America. Glad we chose Alberta. And despite what the news reports, we’ve both been to doctors several times and had great, timely care.

Spouse also NOT covered in BC as visitor. And I think they could get coverage sooner compare to Ontario (If proved with AOR of application will get temp coverage until PR approval/refusal).

Alberta is one of the few provinces that get spouse coverage right away.

 

[canuck78]

Spouse also NOT covered in BC as visitor. And I think they could get coverage sooner compare to Ontario (If proved with AOR of application will get temp coverage until PR approval/refusal).

Alberta is one of the few provinces that get spouse coverage right away.

Many of the eligibility criteria have changed due to Covid and in response to spouses being able to obtain TRVs more easily during sponsorship. Both Ontario and BC now accept AOR from sponsorship to qualify for MSP and OHIP. MSP still has an up to 3 month wait period so should take longer to qualify for MSP versus OHIP. Alberta has actually changed their residency requirements as well since I believe it used to be 12 months of residency in Alberta for first year you had AHCIP.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/eligibility-and-enrolment/are-you-eligible

 

[YVR123]

Many of the eligibility criteria have changed due to Covid and in response to spouses being able to obtain TRVs more easily during sponsorship. Both Ontario and BC now accept AOR from sponsorship to qualify for MSP and OHIP. MSP still has an up to 3 month wait period so should take longer to qualify for MSP versus OHIP. Alberta has actually changed their residency requirements as well since I believe it used to be 12 months of residency in Alberta for first year you had AHCIP.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/eligibility-and-enrolment/are-you-eligible

Oh! So Ontario changed from requiring AIP to AOR too. Good to know.