Apply PR for our family but exclude my son who has down syndrome

[Tony20182017]

Again, healthcare is a fundamental right to all Canadians/PRs and something that helps define our country, it's not some random public oganization. Especially since PR parents can become Citizens after 3-4 years here. There is no way Canada will ever deny healthcare to it's citizens, we are not the US. It will never happen.

If someone wants parents here long term but only covered with private insurance, they can use the super visa program.

Let me quote from a website.
"On December 31, 2009, the Federal Court made a ruling that requires the government to examine the possibility of a person subsidizing their own medical costs (through private insurance or insurance in their home country).

The Court concluded: “The ability and willingness of applicants to defray the cost of their out-patient prescription drug medication is a relevant consideration in assessing whether the demands presented by an applicant’s health condition constitute an excessive demand.”

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) must henceforth consider this willingness and ability to pay. Applicants will, however, be asked to supply a realistic and credible mitigation plan explaining how they intend to cover medication costs. The quality of the mitigation plan is the most important element in evaluating the applicant’s ability and intentions, and should portray the actual needs of the person concerned.

In 2010, the Federal Court made another ruling requiring the government to examine any circumstances specific to the applicant, which might prevent a simple, general conclusion from being reached. Immigration authority physicians are now required to individually evaluate each medical file, the medications needed, and the applicant’s eligibility for private insurance and/or their ability to opt-out of the drug insurance plan funded by the province or territory where the applicant intends to reside."

You are taking an argumentative stance for the sake of it. As I said from the start compulsorily vowing to take care of every PR social needs, which in effect will keep out a lot of people from becoming PR in first place, is neither rational nor compassionate.

Canadian judicial syste, seems to agree.

 

[Tony20182017]

Super visa may be a decent alternative. B if it allows continuous renewal and so continuous stay, then PR with self financed medical and that hardly makes a difference.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Let me quote from a website.
"On December 31, 2009, the Federal Court made a ruling that requires the government to examine the possibility of a person subsidizing their own medical costs (through private insurance or insurance in their home country).

The Court concluded: “The ability and willingness of applicants to defray the cost of their out-patient prescription drug medication is a relevant consideration in assessing whether the demands presented by an applicant’s health condition constitute an excessive demand.”

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) must henceforth consider this willingness and ability to pay. Applicants will, however, be asked to supply a realistic and credible mitigation plan explaining how they intend to cover medication costs. The quality of the mitigation plan is the most important element in evaluating the applicant’s ability and intentions, and should portray the actual needs of the person concerned.

In 2010, the Federal Court made another ruling requiring the government to examine any circumstances specific to the applicant, which might prevent a simple, general conclusion from being reached. Immigration authority physicians are now required to individually evaluate each medical file, the medications needed, and the applicant’s eligibility for private insurance and/or their ability to opt-out of the drug insurance plan funded by the province or territory where the applicant intends to reside."

You are taking an argumentative stance for the sake of it. As I said from the start compulsorily vowing to take care of every PR social needs, which in effect will keep out a lot of people from becoming PR in first place, is neither rational nor compassionate.

Canadian judicial syste, seems to agree.

This refers to medication costs, which are not a part of normal provincial health coverage; provincial drug coverage plans are completely separate, normally dependent on income and not mandatory, so entirely different. This is not saying "A person can show a mitigation plan to pay for their own surgeries".

 

[Tony20182017]

This refers to medication costs, which are not a part of normal provincial health coverage; provincial drug coverage plans are completely separate, normally dependent on income and not mandatory, so entirely different. This is not saying "A person can show a mitigation plan to pay for their own surgeries".

But that already destroys the generic argument being put forth here about Canada cannot grant half PR or citizen status ro its citizens.

Also I do not think you understand how Court system operate regarding to precedents. It is not a law. If such a case comes up courts may have to decide whether the same principle applies to a possible surgery as well or not. Kindly show me why will surgery be conceptually different?

 

[Tony20182017]

Btw the above quoted court observation/ direction was in the case of a HIV patient. And medication cost for that exceeds many kinds of surgeries and post operative care.

 

[Rob_TO]

Let me quote from a website.
"On December 31, 2009, the Federal Court made a ruling that requires the government to examine the possibility of a person subsidizing their own medical costs (through private insurance or insurance in their home country).

The Court concluded: “The ability and willingness of applicants to defray the cost of their out-patient prescription drug medication is a relevant consideration in assessing whether the demands presented by an applicant’s health condition constitute an excessive demand.”

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) must henceforth consider this willingness and ability to pay. Applicants will, however, be asked to supply a realistic and credible mitigation plan explaining how they intend to cover medication costs. The quality of the mitigation plan is the most important element in evaluating the applicant’s ability and intentions, and should portray the actual needs of the person concerned.

In 2010, the Federal Court made another ruling requiring the government to examine any circumstances specific to the applicant, which might prevent a simple, general conclusion from being reached. Immigration authority physicians are now required to individually evaluate each medical file, the medications needed, and the applicant’s eligibility for private insurance and/or their ability to opt-out of the drug insurance plan funded by the province or territory where the applicant intends to reside."

You are taking an argumentative stance for the sake of it. As I said from the start compulsorily vowing to take care of every PR social needs, which in effect will keep out a lot of people from becoming PR in first place, is neither rational nor compassionate.

Canadian judicial syste, seems to agree.

Nowhere in this, does it state Canada would even consider to deny a PR or citizen access to healthcare. It's simply explaining the procedural fairness process in which an applicant that may be deemed inadmissible due to excessive demand criteria, may counter the visa officers pending decision. One is free to apply and there is nothing stopping you from claiming you'll promise to keep insurance in force, and not go onto the Canadian healthcare system. However the visa officers know very well that as soon as one becomes a PR, there is no legal obligation to stick to this. And in most cases, PRs will dump their expensive private insurance at some point and rely entirely on the healthcare system, simply because they can.

Procedural fairness cases are done at discretion of the visa officer, so while they will definitely consider your mitigation plan of relying solely on private insurance, they definitely don't have to accept it to overcome the medical inadmissibility. You are confusing what visa officers must consider, and in the end what they actually decide.

Plus as mentioned the above is just for a prescription drug plan, which is not the same as basic healthcare (like actual hospital/doctor services). The difference between a surgery and medication is that medication is something the insurance companies commonly cover, while surgery is something that is normally paid 100% by Canadian healthcare so may not be eligible to be covered by any insurance company if done in Canada to a Canadian qualified for healthcare. The insurance company would just insist Canada pays for it.

Again, there is zero possibility Canada will ever exclude certain Canadians from the healthcare system, based on how they became a PR. Realistically it will never happen.

In your case there is no harm in applying other than the processing fees. If her condition over a 10-yr period will not be too far over excessive demand threshold, and you put together a good mitigation plan including any private insurance options you promise to keep in force, you can hope the visa officer allows it and passes her medical. But if her costs will be too far over the threshold, then there is probably no chance.

 

[Tony20182017]

Nowhere in this, does it state Canada would even consider to deny a PR or citizen access to healthcare. It's simply explaining the procedural fairness process in which an applicant that may be deemed inadmissible due to excessive demand criteria, may counter the visa officers pending decision. One is free to apply and there is nothing stopping you from claiming you'll promise to keep insurance in force, and not go onto the Canadian healthcare system. However the visa officers know very well that as soon as one becomes a PR, there is no legal obligation to stick to this. And in most cases, PRs will dump their expensive private insurance at some point and rely entirely on the healthcare system, simply because they can.

Procedural fairness cases are done at discretion of the visa officer, so while they will definitely consider your mitigation plan of relying solely on private insurance, they definitely don't have to accept it to overcome the medical inadmissibility. You are confusing what visa officers must consider, and in the end what they actually decide.

Plus as mentioned the above is just for a prescription drug plan, which is not the same as basic healthcare (like actual hospital/doctor services). The difference between a surgery and medication is that medication is something the insurance companies commonly cover, while surgery is something that is normally paid 100% by Canadian healthcare so may not be eligible to be covered by any insurance company if done in Canada to a Canadian qualified for healthcare. The insurance company would just insist Canada pays for it.

Again, there is zero possibility Canada will ever exclude certain Canadians from the healthcare system, based on how they became a PR. Realistically it will never happen.

In your case there is no harm in applying other than the processing fees. If her condition over a 10-yr period will not be too far over excessive demand threshold, and you put together a good mitigation plan including any private insurance options you promise to keep in force, you can hope the visa officer allows it and passes her medical. But if her costs will be too far over the threshold, then there is probably no chance.

I understand what you are saying.
Firstly as I said there not I should no conceptual difference between a mitigation plan for medicinal costs vs same for surgery.

I asked you what is the difference, and you did not give me reply?
Sure, this may still be at the discretion of visa officer. But courts have asked them to consider this in their decision. I think if there is a negative outcome the decision itself can be further challenged in the courts.

And in light of this precedent the decision may be overturned. You have to have understanding of how legal system operates. The court precedents are operate on the basis of principle. So in a court of law te opposing party will have to show how mitigation plan for medicinal cost is different to same for a surgery.

The original poster has asked a case where no surgery was part of the course. By still your and others original response was it will be likely turned down, in a very blanket way. That is not correct at all. At least you should admit you were wrong there.

Further if the difference only boils down to The contention that medicinal costs are generally covered and surgery is not. Then into is just a matter of practical facts on the ground related to practice of insurance industry in Canada. And no way the general assertions here that Canada cannot treat some PR as half or something like that is possible.

So clearly is is a case of practical considerations, not some general principles. And in most countries private insurance companies cover surgery as well as medicinal costs. I cannot fathom why is js not case in Canada. Can you tell me if there is some legal bar on it and give me some sources?

And one final point, if someone giving an undertaking not to use Canadian public system for surgery cost, can do he same for long term medicinal needs. Also one can claim unemployment benefits after working ten months . Nothing stops people from doing these things.

 

[Tony20182017]

"It's simply explaining the procedural fairness process in which an applicant that may be deemed inadmissible due to excessive demand criteria, may counter the visa officers pending decision."

This is not correct. The courts clearly say from now on visa officers should consider an applicants mitigation plans plus should consider each case individually. Visa officers are already expected to have these criterion built in their decision process.

 

[Tony20182017]

Lets say a private individual goes to an insurance company. And says let us enter into a binding legal contract that I will pay x dollars upfront and y dollars every year till death and you cover all my my costs including surgery, consultation and medications. I don't see how that contract cannot be enforced in a court of law. If I renege on my contract I should go in jail. How can I back out of my legal obligations. If one can back out of that, one can back out of any legal contract. It is a free for all Wild West. It's not a high minded liberal haven. Anyway thanks for the nice discussion. Bye

 

[Rob_TO]

I understand what you are saying.
Firstly as I said there not I should no conceptual difference between a mitigation plan for medicinal costs vs same for surgery.

I asked you what is the difference, and you did not give me reply?

Yes I did explain.
"The difference between a surgery and medication is that medication is something the insurance companies commonly cover, while surgery is something that is normally paid 100% by Canadian healthcare so may not be eligible to be covered by any insurance company if done in Canada to a Canadian qualified for healthcare. The insurance company would just insist Canada pays for it."\

Medical/drug costs are supplemental, meaning they are not typically covered in the province's healthcare plan and have special programs that not all are eligible for.
Surgery though is considered a basic service/primary part of healthcare, meaning it's always covered entirely be healthcare.

In insurance there is something called coordination of benefits/first payer, meaning when people are covered by multiple sources they coordinate to see who should pay. So when the insurance company investigates and sees someone was eligible under provincial healthcare for a procedure, they will coordinate the the provincial healthcare to have them pay. Again, private insurance is not designed to cover Canadians for anything that healthcare would already routinely cover.

Plus private insurance companies can cancel plans or raise rates at any time. There is zero legal obligation for an insurer to continue insuring you, for whatever reason they decide.

By still your and others original response was it will be likely turned down, in a very blanket way. That is not correct at all. At least you should admit you were wrong there.

Not wrong at all. If her costs will be far above the excessive demand threshold, most likely she will be turned down. Not guaranteed, but most likely.

What you posted above was from 2009, yet there are still countless reports on this very forum of people being rejected due to excessive demand inadmissibility. According to you, simply showing a plan for private insurance should cause most of them to be accepted, yet in reality that doesn't happen. Most are still rejected.

Each case is different, and depends how far over the excessive demand threshold you are. The farther over with more potential expenses to healthcare, the less likely you would be to have any mitigation plan accepted. Nobody here has said a visa officer won't consider a mitigation plan involving insurance, we are saying based on other's actual cases that it's not likely to be approved (again depending on actual $ amounts you're talking about).

There is a difference between reading generic terms and rules, and then seeing how they are enforced in real cases.

Also one can claim unemployment benefits after working ten months . Nothing stops people from doing these things.

Huh? What does EI have to do with this?? EI is something you pay into during employment, and only get benefits accordingly if you qualify. Has zero relation to getting healthcare.

Lets say a private individual goes to an insurance company. And says let us enter into a binding legal contract that I will pay x dollars upfront and y dollars every year till death and you cover all my my costs including surgery, consultation and medications. I don't see how that contract cannot be enforced in a court of law. If I renege on my contract I should go in jail. How can I back out of my legal obligations. If one can back out of that, one can back out of any legal contract. It is a free for all Wild West. It's not a high minded liberal haven.

Once again, Canada will NEVER exclude a Canadian from healthcare if they meet basic eligibility. Perhaps you have not been in Canada long enough to understand, but healthcare is a fundamental basic right to all Canadians. You will never see them refuse healthcare to a Canadian simply due to how they became a PR, no matter how much you think otherwise or may think it's legally possible. While it could happen on paper, realistically it won't ever happen.

If anything they will instead relax the rules around excessive demand to lower calculated costs of procedures, increase the cost threshold (currently around $6,600 per year) or reduce the time frame they assess costs over (currently up to 10 years).

 

[canuck_in_uk]

But that already destroys the generic argument being put forth here about Canada cannot grant half PR or citizen status ro its citizens.

Also I do not think you understand how Court system operate regarding to precedents. It is not a law. If such a case comes up courts may have to decide whether the same principle applies to a possible surgery as well or not. Kindly show me why will surgery be conceptually different?

As explained, prescription drug coverage does NOT apply universally like provincial heath coverage does. Many people, if not most, don't actually qualify for any drug coverage because of many factors, mainly income. However, they all qualify for provincial health coverage, regardless.

 

[Rob_TO]

And just to add, here are some actual appeal cases where issue of private insurance was raised, and deemed not suitable by the appeals judge. There are tons of these on canlii.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/do...SBkZW1hbmQiIGluc3VyYW5jZQAAAAAB&resultIndex=4
I see little difference between a personal promise to pay or to refrain from accessing a government scheme, and a promise to enrol in a private healthinsurance plan. The Applicant may have no alternative in the United States but to purchase or enroll in such a plan but in Canada, where an alternative government scheme is available, his promise not to use it and to seek private coverage is not enforceable. The Applicant’s reply to the Fairness Letter makes it clear that the Applicant does not understand the public health system in Canada. His attitude with respect to paying for private or group insurance may well change after he arrives here and realizes that he is paying for health coverage that other Canadians receive through the public system.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/do...SBkZW1hbmQiIGluc3VyYW5jZQAAAAAB&resultIndex=5
In my opinion, it did not. As has been held in several previous cases, it is not possible to enforce a personal undertaking to pay for health services that may be required after a person has been admitted to Canada as a permanent resident, if the services are available without payment. The Minister has no power to admit a person as a permanent resident on the condition that the person either does not make a claim on the health insurance plans in the provinces, or promises to reimburse the costs of any services required. See, for example, Choi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), supra, at paragraph 30; Cabaldon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 140 F.T.R. 296 (F.C.T.D.) at paragraph 8; Poon, supra, at paragraphs 18-19.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/do...SBkZW1hbmQiIGluc3VyYW5jZQAAAAAB&resultIndex=6
As has been held in several previous cases, it is not possible to enforce a personal undertaking to pay for health services that may be required after a person has been admitted to Canada as a permanent resident, if the services are available without payment. The Minister has no power to admit a person as a permanent resident on the condition that the person either does not make a claim on the health insurance plans in the provinces, or promises to reimburse the costs of any services required.

 

[canuck78]

Also in the case of an individual with intellectual disabilities (down syndrome and others) it is not only the cost of health care but the cost to the social system like specialized schooling, OT, PT, speech language pathology, etc. Also the long-term costs of someone who will not be able to live independently. The current wait time for independent living for adults with autism and other intellectual disabilities is something ridiculous like 20 years.

 

[Tony20182017]

The cases that has been cited are older than the one I cited above.

I think it is an open question what will happen if someone will take this case to the federal courts.

But as I said what happens if someone makes a contract with a private insurance that they legally commit to pay for life for general health or some condition. If one can back out of that, one can back out of anything.

One can also enter into a legal agreement with Canadian government that one will not rely on social services of Canada taking care of a menatal condition in their own.

PR is also not the same as citizenship. It is easy to distinguish between the two. The inability to do so is at the heart of much of EU recent problems with migrants. The same seem to be happening in Canada too. A self inflicted wound. If one country can withhold public funds to let jt term visa holders it can and should do to PR too.

These simple things, if it cannot be solved by a society in general. It is a sign of an ossified and dull society masquerading as a progressive society. Irrationality does not last when people are made aware of that. Stupidity can sustain it for long but not when knowledge dawns.

Here the situation is ridiculous; people are being denied admission on he grounds Canada will compulsorily take careful of them. At least see the irony here.

The simple solution is have people legally fill bonds with the government that they voluntarily withdraw from some forms of utilisation of public funds which their status will ordinarily make them eligible. So no special resident class is created. Just certain individuals with slightly unconventional contracts with the federal government. Why Canada is too unsophisticated to do that? As soon as they renege on that bond, out goes their cisanstatus . Needs a little bit of spark to solve these issues.

 

[Tony20182017]

As explained, prescription drug coverage does NOT apply universally like provincial heath coverage does. Many people, if not most, don't actually qualify for any drug coverage because of many factors, mainly income. However, they all qualify for provincial health coverage, regardless.

If they do not qualify for drugs many times, what is stopping Cabada to tweak the rules a bit to also include Major operations in some cases?
There is no large Constituional principle coming in the way then.