MaxedOutMama
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Canadian Health Care
Last week Canada's Supreme Court agreed with a Canadian man that the provision of Canadian law that makes it illegal to for citizens to buy private insurance to pay for private health care violated his rights. Seattle Times.
The Canadian Supreme Court's opinion is available here (English translation). The court found that:
A similar ban was a central feature of Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal, so this may come up again in 2008.
The Canadian Supreme Court's opinion is available here (English translation). The court found that:
The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness.This is a column reviewing the real state of health care in Canada:
Where lack of timely health care can result in death, the s. 7 protection of life is engaged; where it can result in serious psychological and physical suffering, the s. 7 protection of security of the person is triggered. In this case, the government has prohibited private health insurance that would permit ordinary Quebeckers to access private health care while failing to deliver health care in a reasonable manner, thereby increasing the risk of complications and death. In so doing, it has interfered with the interests protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter.
We've probably got a four-tier system, quips Nadeem Esmail, senior health policy analyst with the Fraser Institute. The first tier comprises those who are wealthy enough to go abroad for timely care, he says.She goes on to point out that if the military and police had to wait as long as normal Canadians they would be inefficient, and that the government had a financial incentive to get workers comp recipients treatment as soon as possible to limit their costs. Ironic, isn't it? Being costly to the government gives you more rights.
The second is made up of the aforementioned special population groups - military, RCMP, prisoners and WCB claimants. I suppose you could include professional athletes in that tier. They have private insurance and don't have to wait in line.
People in the third tier have pull or influence - they know a doctor or have a friend on the hospital board, says Esmail.
In the fourth tier are average Canadians who need care but have no way of expediting the process.
A similar ban was a central feature of Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal, so this may come up again in 2008.
Comments:
<< Home
Do you mean immoral and unethical not to allow people to pay for a doctor? If so, I agree. I'm betting this will be part of the anti-Hillary campaign.
Well, I kind of missed Hillarycare, but I read an entry about it on a medical blog recently. What it said was that it would have been illegal to give any medical treatment other than palliative care in the last six months of a patient's life. According to the doctor, most of the time they couldn't predict that.
It sounded pretty bizarre to me. I need to find that entry again.
Post a Comment
It sounded pretty bizarre to me. I need to find that entry again.
<< Home
