Residency obligations not met - need to apply pr for son
- Thread starter sat8979
- Start date
I know you don't like me, for opinions I express. A lot of people don't like it when someone has convictions and consciousness, and is willingI feel better knowing you are on the fence.
to stand up for what one believes in (as opposed to being a herd animal, marching in drawn lines and supporting whatever is made popular by propaganda at the moment, declaring belief in what everyone else claims to believe, kissing behinds of those above them in social hierarchy, like the apes do, and etc.).
But I take pride in my character and in knowing who I am. It is infinitely more dear to me to be me than get approval or liking of someone like you.
I also admire men who lived before me in times even more atrocious than our own , who had similar intentions but more courage than I could master (men such as Giordano Bruno, who preferred to burn at stakes but refused to state that Earth is flat). I would probably not have the courage of Bruno to stand my ground if I was facing an imminent death by fire at the stakes, but this is giving me even more reasons to stand and fight for our Constitution, the only thing that protects my right to have freedom of consciousness and freedom to say what I think, without fear of being persecuted and killed by the State.
Last edited:
I tend to be rather open, if not blunt, about my biases. Regarding which, one might note, some are more or less well-founded.
To quote a famous American, Oprah Winfrey, quoting another famous American, Maya Angelou, "when someone shows you who they are, believe them . . . "
In other words, not all ad hominem is created equal. Once someone has revealed they are an idiot, it's fair to dismiss what they offer as coming from an idiot. Let's just say I run my own business so I do not go to an H&R Block kiosk in the mall to get my taxes done.
Which, to put yet another way, is to say that I am generally all in favour of evaluating information based on its content, not its source, but there are occasions when this or that source is, well, someone who has shown who they are, and that is someone to be ignored.
It also warrants acknowledging, sure, negative generalizations based on nationality unfairly smear far too many. And positive generalizations likewise tend to overshoot the reality. Not all Canadians are polite (alluding to more than just those relentlessly harassing Ottawa residents last month, albeit it appears more than a little American funding was involved there). Not all Americans are rude, crude, obnoxious blowhards. I have more than a few friends, acquaintances, business associates, and extended family who are Americans and who are not only quite pleasant people, but actually well educated, informed, and reasonable, even some who are living in Florida (but none in Texas, or so I kid); and when I travel there (infrequently, briefly), most Americans are OK, as long as you ignore the billboard signs advocating that guns and the bible are more important than human life, and the others which push punishing women who believe they have the right to make their own reproductive choices.
But in this instance my reference to nationality was merely for the sake of positive identification. Probably not necessary. Fortunately this part of the forum is not currently infested with many others who spew obvious nonsense so persistently.
Certain egregiously delusional imbeciles [whom I will not identify by screen name, even though they continue with relentless ad hominems , provocations and direct insults, because I do not wish to dignify them by stooping to their level], who lack capacity to comprehend elementary English, invent things that I haven't said. They then disparage product of their own imagination, while pretending that they are disputing what I have said.
Note that I never suggested that parents of a minor child who received ER care are "absolved of liability". What I said was that the so called "liability" has no force or power to extract the owed amount, IF the parents lack assets and income to pay for it.
This is how it usually works (this is a general example, not specifically relevant to OP's minor child and health care needs):
1. Mr. X has heart attack and calls ambulance
2. Ambulance takes Mr. X to hospital
3. Upon emergency evaluation it's ruled that Mr. X must have an open heart surgery
4. Mr. X doesn't have insurance
5. Mr. X gets open heart surgery (that may cost over $100,000.00 if charged at full rate)
6. At some point Mr. X is discharged from hospital
7. Mr. X receives an invoice from hospital, surgeon and other attending providers, totaling over $100,000.00
8. Mr. X is jobless. Mr. X has no income or makes only bare minimum, enough to buy food. Mr. X receives welfare and lives in subsidized housing. Mr. X has no bank account, or has $15.00 (symbolic amount) in his sole checking account
9. Hospital insists that Mr. X pay the balance immediately or make payment arrangements
10. Mr. X refuses to pay or make payment arrangements, because he can't afford to pay anything
11. Hospital hires civil litigator and sues Mr. X in court of law.
12, Court rules in favor of hospital and orders Mr. X to pay $100,000.00 to hospital
13. Court orders Mr. X to appear for assets examination, so hospital can uncover means to collect the debt owed
14. Mr. X comes to court, shows his checking account, swears that he has no income, no assets and no job, and truthfully answers all questions about his financial situation.
What do you think will happen to Mr. X at this point? This is not Chawdouristan, this is Canada. There are no debtors prisons and Mr. X will not be physically chained for 20 years to clean toilets of the hospital for free. Mr. X will walk free from courthouse and will remain untouched, for as long as he has no means to pay the bills.
In the meantime, he can apply for charity which, if existing in Canada, will most likely pay his outstanding bill, so by the time he finds a job he will owe nothing to the hospital.
Above is just one example, of NOT ABSENCE OF LIABILITY (I never said such a thing), but of lack of ability by hospital to collect the amounts due IF the patient lacks assets and income necessary to pay back the debt.
Note that I never suggested that parents of a minor child who received ER care are "absolved of liability". What I said was that the so called "liability" has no force or power to extract the owed amount, IF the parents lack assets and income to pay for it.
This is how it usually works (this is a general example, not specifically relevant to OP's minor child and health care needs):
1. Mr. X has heart attack and calls ambulance
2. Ambulance takes Mr. X to hospital
3. Upon emergency evaluation it's ruled that Mr. X must have an open heart surgery
4. Mr. X doesn't have insurance
5. Mr. X gets open heart surgery (that may cost over $100,000.00 if charged at full rate)
6. At some point Mr. X is discharged from hospital
7. Mr. X receives an invoice from hospital, surgeon and other attending providers, totaling over $100,000.00
8. Mr. X is jobless. Mr. X has no income or makes only bare minimum, enough to buy food. Mr. X receives welfare and lives in subsidized housing. Mr. X has no bank account, or has $15.00 (symbolic amount) in his sole checking account
9. Hospital insists that Mr. X pay the balance immediately or make payment arrangements
10. Mr. X refuses to pay or make payment arrangements, because he can't afford to pay anything
11. Hospital hires civil litigator and sues Mr. X in court of law.
12, Court rules in favor of hospital and orders Mr. X to pay $100,000.00 to hospital
13. Court orders Mr. X to appear for assets examination, so hospital can uncover means to collect the debt owed
14. Mr. X comes to court, shows his checking account, swears that he has no income, no assets and no job, and truthfully answers all questions about his financial situation.
What do you think will happen to Mr. X at this point? This is not Chawdouristan, this is Canada. There are no debtors prisons and Mr. X will not be physically chained for 20 years to clean toilets of the hospital for free. Mr. X will walk free from courthouse and will remain untouched, for as long as he has no means to pay the bills.
In the meantime, he can apply for charity which, if existing in Canada, will most likely pay his outstanding bill, so by the time he finds a job he will owe nothing to the hospital.
Above is just one example, of NOT ABSENCE OF LIABILITY (I never said such a thing), but of lack of ability by hospital to collect the amounts due IF the patient lacks assets and income necessary to pay back the debt.
Last edited:
Do you have any comment about the article (below) back in 2012?
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/03/28/australian_couple_gives_birth_to_milliondollar_baby.html?rf
What can I say? Both parents work and can afford to pay $300.00/mo , which they agreed to do for the rest of their lives.
I would assume (though I am not aware of actual law) that it would be possible to sue them in Australia and put a lien on their assets, garnish their wages and take from couple whatever they own. With million dollars at stake, you bet hospital can hire attorneys who will unearth assets and bring lawsuits in a country that is not without special connections to Canada. Now, if they were jobless [or getting minimum wages] and without assets [as many uninsured residents in Canada are], then even if their bill was 10 million dollars, none could realistically be collected from them.
Last edited:
If they’re jobless or are receiving minimum wage or welfare you are very likely to have provincial health insurance.
That kid is not PR, his parents are. Would provincial health insurance provide coverage to non-immigrant child?
According to a blog post at canadavisa.com, "Remember the golden rule: Your spouse and dependent children also qualify for free healthcare in Canada if you do". See full article at https://canadianvisa.org/blog/life-and-culture/can-non-citizens-get-healthcare-in-canada
Now, I don't know much about Medicare regulations in Canada, I know only basics. But if what the author of the article linked above is correct, it would mean that Canadian PRs AND their minor children qualify for Medicare. Which makes moot all the attempts to sue the parent, since the child is entitled to Medicare coverage. Again, I won't assert that what is claimed in article is correct (I simply don't know enough about Medicare regulations in Canada to do so), but if it is then OP should not worry about costs of healthcare services, himself and his minor child would be covered under Medicare.
Now, I don't know much about Medicare regulations in Canada, I know only basics. But if what the author of the article linked above is correct, it would mean that Canadian PRs AND their minor children qualify for Medicare. Which makes moot all the attempts to sue the parent, since the child is entitled to Medicare coverage. Again, I won't assert that what is claimed in article is correct (I simply don't know enough about Medicare regulations in Canada to do so), but if it is then OP should not worry about costs of healthcare services, himself and his minor child would be covered under Medicare.
Depends on the province. By your own admission you know very little about the system so not sure why you keep making these statements as though you do.
It looks like you are not aware of basic rules of argument and logic, yet you keep arguing on. Note that Medicare rules as opposed to laws governing ER Care and collection of the debt, are not one and the same. I don't have to know about Medicare to tell OP how ER care works and how the debt can or can not be collected. I will not keep quiet about something I know, because I don't know much about something else.
Now, as far as Canadian Medicare is concerned, you suggested that someone on welfare/making minimal income (just as many skilled PRs are) would qualify for provincial Medicare based on low income alone. Here is a quote from you, "If they’re jobless or are receiving minimum wage or welfare you are very likely to have provincial health insurance." I asked you if that rule would apply to a child, who is not PR. You didn't answer my question or, to be specific, you gave vague answer, stating "Depends on province". I also posted a link to an article from canadavisa.com blog, which specifically asserts that the spouses and children of PRs qualify for Medicare on the account of their relationship to PR, regardless of other factors. If accurate, this would mean that OP's son would be covered under Medicare regardless of his non-PR status. If OP's son qualifies for Medicare, then all the conversation about ER care, lawsuits and debt collection is moot: he would get full coverage without a hassle of going through financial lawsuits, and not just for ER but for any type of medical service needed.
So, what are you arguing about?
Last edited:
If you knew anything you’d know that every province has different rules about who qualifies for provincial healthcare. Some provinces the child would be covered and others they wouldn’t. If the family wants to sponsor their child their ability to support their child financially will be evaluated so they unlikely have zero funds. Would add the majority of people waiting to sponsor their child in Canada take out private insurance Not every procedure in the US applies in Canada. Canada is much more flexible when it comes to repayment amounts and length of repayment because the majority of patients have provincial coverage. Please stop commenting on things you know little about. Feel free to comment about the US healthcare system.
Wait a minute, let's not start your favored straw man arguments. I never claimed to know about intricacies of Canadian Medicare and my initial argument had nothing to do with non-immigrant child's qualification for Canadian/provincial Medicare. I presumed that he would not qualify for any tax payer funded and state administered benefit, since he is a non-immigrant child, and advised OP of options to get ER treatment for his son instead, and of possibilities of financial lawsuit, with limits to authority to collect the debt if OP is jobless or works for low income and owns no assets. It was YOU who introduced the subject of provincial health care, it was YOU who suggested that OP's child would qualify for "provincial health insurance", as long as the father had low income or was on welfare. And it was YOU who dodged my question whether a child, who is non-immigrant, would still qualify for "provincial health insurance". How come that after you exposed your own lack of knowledge or ability to answer a pointed question about coverage afforded to non-immigrant child, which YOU suggested in the first place, I am somehow the one who gets the blame with a charge of "If you knew anything..." , followed by an assertion "every province has different rules", an assertion which I never disputed nor had anything to say against?
Look, I understand you are resorting to manipulative demagoguery in absence of your ability to argue your points on merits, but I am not the right person for these childish attempts to gaslight me and make me argue and dispute the subject that I had no intention to get into.
There is at least 730 days time gap, between the time OP crosses the border and the time he can sponsor his son (assuming all goes well at the border, which is a big IF). He may have a job and income sufficient to sponsor his son in two years (or he may not, it's a pure speculation at this point), but there is no evidence on record that allows you to assert that the father/family will have assets as they enter Canada. How do you know if they have or do not have assets when they initially cross the border as returning residents? On my end, I stayed away from idle speculations and simply advised OP of options: if you have means/assets to pay for your son's ER care, then you will have to pay; if you don't, then you can still be sued, but they will lack authority to collect, as long as you have no sufficient income and assets. What exactly are you disputing?
He certainly can, if he has means to pay for it. He can also pay cash out of his pocket for any medical service he gets. Who knows, may be he is a sheikh from Dubai with a private yacht in Monaco. It's also possible that he lacks assets and ability to afford private insurance. We just don't know.
I never said it is. For instance, I admitted that I had little (basic) understanding of how Medicare in Canada operates. We have our own Medicare here, which is completely different from one you have in Canada , and we don't have universal healthcare system. Where did you see me asserting that "every procedure in US applies in Canada"?
Above being said, both US and Canada are Anglo-Saxon, protestant countries founded by colonizers from United Kingdom, and the US itself used to be a part of UK (as Canada still, nominally, is), therefore a lot of laws we have are based on the same roots and traditions, and as a result there are similarities. But that doesn't mean they are same, nor I said they are.
Again, I won't get into "patients have provincial coverage" part, but as far as flexibility is concerned, if you have income and assets in the US, you send a request for financial assistance. If you qualify (which is based on how much money you make), you get partial or full payment for ER services received. And hospitals usually will accept repayment plans, but on their own terms. Some people can afford to pay it (and do). Others can't and don't.
Now, I don't know how the "flexible" part works in Canada, but if they go "soup Nazi"/full throttle on his son, I advised OP of his options.
First of all, I will NEVER stop commenting just because you don't like to hear what my opinion is. It's brazen to demand someone to STOP commenting on any subject. I never allow such brazenness towards you. What makes you think you can tell me to stop sharing my opinions?
Second, just scroll up and read carefully. There is no evidence on this thread that I was commenting on things I knew little about. I commented on things I knew very well about. It was you who introduced the subject of provincial coverage for non-immigrant child, which, admittedly, I knew little about and therefore was and am unwilling to debate. And it was you who ended up exposing your own lack of knowledge about the subject that you introduced when I questioned you for specifics. But I have already clarified that and you just make me repeat myself.
Last edited:
Yep. As to both statements.
For one thing, since there are NO Canadian "Medicare regulations" it is an outright lie to claim knowing even the "basics" "about Medicare regulations in Canada."
Some may quibble I quibble over semantics, putting nomenclature ahead of substance, especially since even distinctly Canadian sources of information, ranging from CBC to online Canadian government information (see here for example), refer to "Medicare" in connection to health care in Canada. But those references, in distinctly Canadian sources, in one way or another almost universally identify and distinguish "Medicare," as used in reference to Canada, as an informal term referring to Canada's publicly funded health care system generally. This is largely, perhaps essentially, an accommodation to the (unfortunate) dominance of the American lexicon.
The distinction is amply illustrated by comparing the use of this term "Medicare" in distinctly Canadian sources versus its use in non-Canadian sources, with some exceptions such as the Canadian immigration consultants' webpage linked in posts above (which is inaccurate and misleading in several respects), if one considers such sources to be distinctly Canadian (or reliable sources, which I will address further).
Is this a distinction without a difference? In most contexts probably. In most contexts it is readily recognized and understood the term "Medicare" (or, as it appears rather often in specifically Canadian sources, lowercase "medicare," effectively highlighting it is referring to medical or health care generally, not a formal entity or system in Canada) is NOT being used as a reference to any ministry, department, or other governmental body in the Canadian national government, NOR to a body of statutory law or regulations. (Again, there are NO Canadian "Medicare regulations," and, by the way, no mention at all of "medicare" in the Canada Health Act) In particular, in most distinctly Canadian sources that are reliable sources, the underlying distinction is amply clear and understood, including in particular that references to "Medicare" in the Canadian context is actually a general reference to health care in Canada, which is mandated by federal law and partially funded by the federal government, but almost entirely administered by the individual provinces and territories, with some fairly significant differences among various provinces.
Side Note: It not merely ironic that even in the country that does have a "Medicare" system, the term is widely misused and misunderstood in reference to health care there. While there is a trend toward merging the U.S. systems of Medicare and Medicaid (or migrating them toward a more universal insurance program), that appears to still be a long ways off, they are different, including some big differences that are important, including in regards to providing emergency care in the states.
Does It Matter?
Discussions about access to health care, and health care insurance coverage in Canada, are more suited for other parts of the forum, like in "Settlement Issues." In this specific thread it is a peripheral tangent and unless the OP's child has particular health care issues it is not a primary factor affecting the OP's decision making. Worth taking note, yes, for sure, but not a driving consideration in navigating the way forward because it does not factor into the matrix of antecedents determining how things go in relation to potential screening for and enforcement of compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, and the impact on keeping status, or not.
That is, health care is an important issue, for new immigrants as well as for returning Canadians (including PRs, but also including citizens), but not for purposes of dealing with RO compliance screening and enforcement. In contrast, however, immigration status can be an important issue affecting eligibility for and access to health care insurance coverage in Canada.
Leading to that consultant webpage titled "Can Non-Citizens Get Healthcare in Canada?" Lots of good accurate information there. Unfortunately, too much inaccurate and misleading information there as well. Thus, it is NOT a reliable source, despite the accuracy of some of it (much of it even), because it is not a source that can be trusted to be accurate. And its inaccuracies are not merely picky details, but rather some indicate there is more than a little they just do not get. Consider one of its more prominent inaccurate statements:
Remember the golden rule: Your spouse and dependent children also qualify for free healthcare in Canada if you do.
No idea where that comes from. At best it is grossly misleading but, make no mistake, otherwise simply NOT true for many. My guess is that it is more about there being a path (usually, but even this is not always true) to status in Canada, for spouses and dependent children, to status that will meet a province's specific status eligibility requirement for covered healthcare. But as a stand alone proposition, it is way off.
Oddly enough, in the details on that webpage it actually spells out eligibility requirements which would preclude some dependents from coverage. Internal inconsistencies signal a source is unreliable.
But it is readily apparent these consultants fail to understand some key aspects of how things work in Canada. They get the overriding, fundamental feature of health care in Canada, and state it clearly:
"Firstly, it’s important to note that Canada’s universal healthcare system differs from province to province. Each province has its own healthcare plan that varies in healthcare coverage as well as who it covers."
Beyond that, and skipping over any quibble about the inherent contradiction in referring to "Canada’s universal healthcare system" at the same time it emphasizes it is not universal, but rather differs from province to province (but within the respective provinces, care must be "universal," getting into nuances in the weeds), beyond that the way this webpage addresses access to healthcare in Canada suggests they just do not get it.
Framing the headline and introductory question in reference to "non-citizens" might make some sense, given the target audience, to draw the target audience in, but the failure to then promptly clarify that access to healthcare in Canada is NOT at all oriented to citizenship is a major, misleading mistake in its description. And one that obscures the core eligibility requirement for coverage in government funded healthcare in Canada: RESIDENCY.
It is not complicated. So it is a bit disconcerting when purported professionals are so far off (there is a reason I and others often emphatically suggest getting professional assistance from lawyers rather than consultants). The mandate, in Federal law, in the Canada Health Act, is specifically to provide a certain level of healthcare to RESIDENTS.
And to make it clear, the Canada Health Act specifically defines "resident:"
resident means, in relation to a province, a person lawfully entitled to be or to remain in Canada who makes his home and is ordinarily present in the province, but does not include a tourist, a transient or a visitor to the province; (habitant)
It is NOT about citizenship, not at all. It does depend on immigration status, on being "lawfully entitled to be or to remain in Canada," excluding visitors.
There are numerous ways in which an individual can be "lawfully entitled to be or to remain in Canada," which in addition to Canadians (citizens and PRs) includes a wide range of temporary immigration status (but for purposes of entitlement to covered healthcare, not visitor status, with exceptions and some provinces being more open), and requisite proof of such status is generally required by the respective provinces. In contrast, however, no matter what the individual's immigration status is, they are NOT eligible for coverage in a given province UNLESS they are a resident of the province. In applying this the province may have a two-prong eligibility requirement: proof of residency AND in regards to a physical presence requirement. The latter is most likely based on an interpretation and application of the "ordinarily present in the province" element in the statutory definition of "resident."
OP, don't be confused by too much Ado about nothing. We are unfortunate to have certain mentally sick, delusional poster who thinks it is a sign of intelligence to spew terabytes of spam and express simplest of ideas in 800 paragraphs, mixing those with venomous and baseless ad hominems.
Read my posts for the sake of clarity and sanity, and let us know if you still have questions.
Read my posts for the sake of clarity and sanity, and let us know if you still have questions.