No, only if they have ADVOCATED for public-only health care.

you bet it should be an offense! They wouldn't be dinking around nearly as much if it was their own health.

As long as the government is funding healthcare, the politicians suffer along with the rest of us.

Why would a Member of the Federal parliament want
to leave Canada? It is not well known, but it is
a fact, that the Veteran's Hospital in Ottawa has,
as the veterans have passed on, become pretty much
a private clinic for the MPs.

Posted by: grok
No, only if they have ADVOCATED for public-only health care.*******
bump.......
That would be difficult to regulate...

I think that would be a little too totalitarian for my democratic tastes...perhaps a bit too Stalinist?
While I agree there should be a price to pay for such a transgression,I would recomend that they be required to stand up and give an account in parliament,justifying such actions and if not then to have to give up their gold plated pension entitlements and resign to a byelection proceeding.
This of course would be in accord to their public stand on the HC System.

The great socialist plan for us says that everyone is equal. What they don't tell you is that some are more equal than others.

Heh. Someone needs a 'come to jesus' coaching session.

No, that question is silly.

So the question remains, good folk. How do we "turn the clock back" and get private insurance and health care back into Canada? Most Canadians have been scared away from private medical and health care by the virulent lefties and their enablers the Liberals and NDP.

I have no problem with anyone going outside Canada to get health care. What I oppose is the Canadian single payer/provider/arbiter is the only Canadian option I am legally entitled to in this "free" country. Just like in North Korea and Cuba.

Working in the health care field I can tell you there certainly is a two tier (at least) system. I will also tell you that if someone in my family needs it, I will not hesitate to pull strings and call in markers, queue be damned.

Call me a socialist if you want to but I want a healthcare plan as good as Congress gets. And I do not want ANYONE man woman or child to go without healthcare. If they are sick or hurt in a car wreck I think they should receive care. Also just like car insurance is mandatory I think health insurance should be, I don't want to have to pay for someone who is uninsured or who is going around making other people sick

Hmmmm we could name it "Belinda's Law"

If that upsets people, I'd settle for "Jean Chretien's Law".

At least Belinduh used her own money and private jet to jump the Canadian wait list. Chretien used an Air Force VIP jet and crew when he hopped to the front of the line.

Holy schmoly Kate. 39 politicians/commies read SDA? But hey,it's free,right????

Anyone should be able to leave for medical treatment--why be concerned about the political class--you would be better served to ask about our right to buy health insurance or freedom on movement.
~Tom Olson

Because, Tom Olson, the politicians should have to live as the rest of us do, with the same restrictions and inconveniences until they too want what we want.

It Should Be A Criminal Code Offence For Any Sitting Member Of Parliament Or Provincial MLA To Leave Canada For Medical Treatment

I would add that is should be a criminal code offence for medical doctors or nurses too, because if the doctors wanted to expand the private option it would happen immediately.
I think they're the ones most responsible for blocking the private option, even more than the politicians.

Politicians should have to go to the end of the line, and remain there: they should be served only when there is no one else waiting. Let's make it a law, then see how quickly they vote for a private health-care option.

John ryan, you will not get a health care plan as good as Congress gets. You will get the same thing we have here in Canada, long waiting lists and those that are more equal than others (get ahead in the wait list).

WOW, at the time of my comment 79% in favour of TOTALITARIANISM. Or I suppose Totalitarianism Squared.

I'm with Indiana Homez, this is a silly question -- childish even. Embarrassing. Surely, Kate, you're not a YES on this!

And it's silly to elaborate, but what the hell: how would you exempt the politician who is actually not in favour of the system? Would he have to carry with him, say, notarized copies of letters, e-mails and speeches to evidence his disapproval?

I haven't had time to read all the comments but it would appear that the totalitarian impulse is never far from the surface, eh?, even for conservatives, who it seems, like the "right kind" of government intervention. [see: Hayek, Why I'm not a Conservative].

If they where forced to endure what the Public has to. You can bet their would be mo debate on having private clinics. Not one peep if their families health was on the line. Instead of us the peons who pay for all these behemoths of Bacchus consume.
If these politicians , Medical personnel et all had to wait years for surgery, the tables would turn faster than the Flash on speed. We would have a private option.
Of course you have you wade though the BS of the "Friends of Medicare" & their legions of communists to do so. Having medical options is reactionary & anti-progressive. In others words Government has to run everything because you don't know any better than your 5 year old to them.
JMO

"Friends of Medicare" & their communist fellow travlers.

Oz: I would think doctors would support a little more private health care as then it would be profitable to be a family doctor. Its the nurses and support unions that scream the loudest as they have the most power to loose.

As long as the Canada Health Act makes it Illegal for me to pay a Canadian for better care, all standing legislators should be held accountable. Perhaps criminal charges are a little much, but I sure hope her party suffers.

WE already have a two tier system, only the elites like BS have access to it, its a couple hours drive south from most cities. While hard working middle class individuals who have worked their whole life get put on a waiting list behind a homeless guy, a drug addict and three refugees. Isn't the canadian system great (for all but the middle class)

Oz: I would think doctors would support a little more private health care as then it would be profitable to be a family doctor.
~duffman

That depends on whether or not the doctor is competent.
My wife and I have had the services of a number of incompetent immigrant doctors and I'm pretty sure they prefer the protection of a public healthcare system to work in.

No one should tell anyone- politician or not- to not travel or seek a certain treatment. If someone is sick and needs to travel for treatment, fine. That person shouldn't trample people with his high horse and insist they rely only a public system.
We should also be asking why certain treatments, devices, medicines, ect. are not available in Canada.

Oz,

First, it's actually illegal to have a private option in Canada (note what happened to Alberta when it tried to allow private hospitals ten years ago). Second, marginal doctors (ie. no patient skills, continuously make errors in their diagnoses, don't do follow-ups, etc)--would see their patient list go down tremendously and those with excellent skills would become very rich in a very short time. It's logical that marginal doctors would fight for the status quo. Because in a private medical system, word of mouth could make or break a medical career/practice.

Tommy Douglas was a really decent Christian who cared deeply for his fellow humans. You may disagree with his politics but attacking his good name just makes you look like a real sicko.

Under the health care plan that civil servants have you can receive out of country care. They do not pay the whole schmear but the rates are higher for the US. I think they can have out of country care but only if they are re-imbursed at the rate the insurer would pay in Canada. Otherwise we are denying health care. I should have the right to get the health care I require and so should they but they should not receive better health care than me or you. Anytime I travelled in the US I always bought extra health care. It cost about 3 bucks a day for about 2 million in insurance. Not that they would pay 2 million. They would put my sick arse on a flight to return me to Canada where they would no longer have to pay but they would have to stabilize me first.

Says commieBob who knows a Christian when he sees one. Right, Comrade?

Now then, for all you guys above who think this is a silly question, try this. We have a system enforced by government where people die on waiting lists. Is it reasonable that politicians should be able to que jump, given that there IS a que?

No. It is not reasonable. Politicians of all people must be held to a higher standard. They should get to wait -more- than usual, not less.

And while they are waiting for that hip replacement or that pace maker or the cobalt bomb for their brain cancer, they can reflect upon the state of the Canadian health system and what might be done to improve it.

Like making it legal for PRIVATE COMPANIES to set up PRIVATE HOSPITALS where politicians don't have to wait 6 months with the rest of the cattle.

Because say what you want about Britain's crappy public health system, they at least have an alternative. We should be so lucky.

...it's actually illegal to have a private option in Canada

Yeah, I know that.
If the majority of doctors, as a group, wanted a private option the law would change fast because doctors are irreplaceable.

If Tommy Douglas was a Christian who cared so deeply for his fellow humans he would have allowed his fellow humans the freedom of choice that the biblical God created humans to exercise in all circumstances, including choosing their own beliefs or choosing their own healthcare options.

In short if God didn't make humans into automatons than who is Tommy Douglas to try?

Most doctors I know would be more than happy to permit greater private options. I certainly would. The problem, as pointed out, lies with the health workers' union leaderships who don't want their power diminished. I have no problem with someone leaving the country for private care. I just wish private care were available in this country.
Out of more than 200 countries in the world, at least thirty provide a better health care service than can be obtained in Canada. All thirty of those mix public and private care. Could that be a hint?

A couple of points -

As long as it is legal for me to cross the lines to obtain medical care I would not be in favor of giving politicians a criminal record for doing the same thing. Do we really want to have that law on our books? - forget the fact that it would not pass a Charter challenge.

And, given the long waiting lines across the country I would mandate that should paying customers from other companies come to Canada for their care - they have to get to the bottom of the line just like everyone else.

How much do you want to bet they don't have to?

"companies"?? Make that read "countries".

Sheesh Bob - preview that post, man!

OK

Are we speaking of the same Tommy Douglas who suggested rounding up the subnormal human beings and putting them into camps?

http://katewerk.com/tommy/

It seems there is a general concensus that many of the health industry's ills stem from union meddling. Perhaps the answer is to make a province-wide law that paying into a union is strictly on a voluntary basis and that coercing people to pay union dues is punishable by jail time. If a politician in Ontario were to run on this idea as a part of his/her platform, what do you think his/her chances of winning the Premiership would be?

"The problem, as pointed out, lies with the health workers' union leaderships who don't want their power diminished"

I have no love for big unions and the above statement is right on the money ... however ... another problem lies with the management, administrators and other "empire builders" and "turf protectors" in our system. These paper shufflers do not want to lose the power and control that they now possess. Witness the common practice of closing patient wards and the subsequent conversion to offices. Certainly the big unions are obstructive and backward but the entire system is top heavy.

People who have worked in sausage factories generally don't eat them because they have seen what has gone into them. Why would you expect NHS employees to do any different?

Nice to have the balance that you provide, Kate, on this 5th Tommy Douglas Day in Sk.

biffjr,

You hit the nose right on the head. Because our system is gov't run...there is a huge bureaucracy that runs the hospital. In a private system, the bureaucracy would be as minimal as possible and the money spent on health care and medical professionals. In a private system, each patient is income for the hospital, hence, the ability to take care of more patients translates to more doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, more rooms in which to take care of them and more money for the hospital. Look at your local dentist's office, there's usually one (maybe two if it's a large office) admin/receptionist and a larger number of dental hygienists, dentists and dental chairs; the waiting rooms are small and there is a very short wait time. Contrast this to a hospital and you will note that the admin staff usually takes a wing or two of the actual hospital space.

I know there's humor in the poll, but doing to so would hurt the process of introducing change. We want to loosen the bindings on options.

Voted no. I appreciate the sentiment behind the poll, but some things are always wrong. Limiting freedom of choice vis-a-vis medical care is one of those things.

Oz 2:07, and Kate 2:14, good for bringing a proper perspective to Tommy Douglas. If he was such a good "Christian" why was he best pals and fellow traveller with those who would slit many throats to implement their Marxist agenda. Oh I know, it would be good for the "people".

a long time ago (20 yrs) in a place far,far away (NL) i was listening to "As it happens" on the radio. They were interviewing the Head of VIA Rail who was expounding on what a great thing rail travel was. After the interview the voice-over person reported that they had talked to him on his carphone on his way to the airport.

As for the poll, i would not go as far as to criminalize it but i would make it grounds for instant termination.

I voted no. However the MLA/MP in question should not be allowed to vote or speak in favour of the Canada Health Act. The Chaoulli decision by the Supreme Court shows that the current Canadian system is UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" for what that's worth.

"Tommy Douglas was a really decent Christian who cared deeply for his fellow humans. "

ya right . . . except he wrote his graduate thesis on the benefits of Eugenics.

How very Christian of him to embrace Eugenics.

I don't think any politician should be limited in where they legally go, or what they legally do, anymore than any other Canadian.

I do think that jumping the queue here in Canada, by any health worker, government employee, or politician should be against the law.
Other Canadians who are then forced to wait longer, are at lethal risk. The charge should be whatever we already levee against anyone who knowingly places another person's life at risk.

Wait lists are criminal. Period. Forget the U.S. Europe does not have the wait lists as we do. Does it surprise anybody posting on SDA that the status quo supporters are on the same ideological team as Cuba and North Korea. These two countries also have those who are more equal than others.

I voted No. Simple reason is that we should recognize that ALL Canadians have EQUAL rights and that MP's and MPP's are not better than we are.
If I can go to the US for medical treatment, then they should be free to do so as well.

As for the "Private Clinics" that folks such as Martin et al frequent, a resounding NO!!!!!
Well, not until we peons have the opportunity to do so as well.

tommy douglas and Christian in the same sentence. That's quite a stretch commieboy.

Me No Dhimmi @1:29 and Indy, Osumashi, Colin, sorry-if-I-missed-anyone - I voted no. (By the way, in general, don't you wish Kate's polls were legally binding? We all pray for that day...)

This is similar to insisting that all politicians send their children to Public Schools. Real ones, that is; not necessarily Michelle Pfeiffer territory, but not The Toniest "Public School" in the Capital stuff either. British Labour pols - most recently former Education Secretary Ruth Kelly - are notorious for this kind of... um, what's that thing lefties hate so much?... oh, hypocrisy. They're shameless. And it's because they see themselves as governors of the people, rather than servants, or fellow-citizens.

A law like the one proposed in Kate's poll is tempting, but wrong is wrong. And some legislators are decent. An MP is not responsible for all the evils of a legal system. Some of them want to change it. I don't want to decrease their rights; I just want them to stop taking away everyone else's.

But we have no choice, medically, do we? Unless we're very rich.

It's important: The Left takes rights away from the non-rich. The Rich have very rarely needed their rights protected. Wat Tyler votes Tory now.

Or if your attitude is, "the hell with them all", how about:

At first they came for the Totalitarians...

I see from the SDA flashback I've been saying -exactly- the same thing about this since 2005.

Note to the CPC, I am NOT getting any younger or happier with the foot dragging.

This is not a practice boys, this is the REAL, EFFING THING, so get on it or get the F- put of the way.

Like mamma said ... Two wrongs do not a right make.

The problem is not who uses alternative health care options. The problem is that the government is trying to limit those options.

Succeeding as well...............

I thought I made my vote clear.
People should pursue what medical treatment they deem fit. They just don't have the right to bar anyone else from that option.
Sorry if I was unclear.

I thought the law in England states if you use private healthcare just once you lose the public option for life? Oh wait they are politicians they are above the law as governing socialist scummy elites.

Osumashi Kinyobe - No, I got that.

Remember, people, the British Dental Service is NHS. Think about it.

Let's look at a picture book: The Big Book of British Smiles....

Meanwhile, back in the Nation's Capital:

"Health care: The public (non) option"

Mark
Ottawa

Yeah Baby!

Hey, Christ said "whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do for Me" so anyone who's trying to make the point that He'd be for denying health care to the poor and their children is ignorant or a liar (or both).

Yes bleet. We want children - preferably minorities, but really we're not picky - to die for want of simple pills, which the government is trying to dispense like candies tossed from a rich man's horse-drawn carriage. We want old people to snuff it in hospital corridors because Bill Gates stole all the medicine, and we like it like that. Those of us who are keen on Jesus mainly fancy him because we think he tells us to nuke foreigners.

Shut up, would you?

OOoohh, black Mamba you're so tough! Witty, too! "Shut up would you?" Ouch!

Were you aware that this site follows a specifically anti-Christian philosophy?

"Hey, Christ said "whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do for Me" so anyone who's trying to make the point that He'd be for denying health care to the poor and their children is ignorant or a liar (or both).

Posted by: bleet at October 20, 2009 8:11 PM "

So. Are you saying that your commie/green hero and the socialists at WHO that banned DDT,and thereby condemned millions of African children to death,did it for Christ?
Your Momma out of the house again?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bleet

welllll now, if'n the politicians couldn't scoot off and git better health care on our dime (or even their own) then they would govern, and fix the health care mess, and that is their JOB, so why would some of you allow them to politic with your and your loved one's lives, just because they can circumvent the system. If any of you nay sayers have a better way of holding them accountable, spit it up!!!!!!

Two-tier health care in Canada is on its way. Do you think that I (and others), one of the 10% who pays 90% of taxes, and who has paid for everyone else's health care my whole life, am going to sit here in the line? No. Canada will never be able to continue to fund the current system! Private health care including hospitals should be allowed - and fast!!! And all Canadians should be charged a non-means-tested fee for ALL services, waived for the poorest.

It is not illegal to pay a Canadian doctor for medical services outside the provincial health plans. It's actually quite common.

Black Mamba, don't bother talking to bleet. Bleet is a moron and a troll. I mean- who heads for the lowest common denominator in an argument (ie- what would Jesus do?)? Any level-headed person would know full-well that Jesus wouldn't back liberal nonsense EVER. That is beside the point. It's a button for a moron to press. It's all bleet knows how to do.

Actually, I'm rather touched by bleet's concern for my spiritual welfare. I'm agnostic, but just to be on the safe side I say five Hail Marys and do a shot of holy water (as is my understanding of how that works) before logging onto this "specifically anti-Christian" site.

Truely, bleet, I wouldn't condemn "the least" of almost anybody to the kind of neglect to which the seriously ill are often consigned under socialized medicine. Osumashi Kinyobe's right: "Why can't you mean people be more caring!?" is such a lame addition to a conversation. I wish you would put more effort into your trolling.

I suppose it should be no surprise that since Kinyobe thinks it advances his argument to lob ad hominems he also makes preposterous statements like

"Any level-headed person would know full-well that Jesus wouldn't back liberal nonsense EVER."

Yeah, bro. Caring for the "least among these" and Christ's command to give all you have to the poor and follow Him are really right-wing boilerplate rhetoric.

Quite simply, it is impossible to be a modern day conservative and also claim that one is a follower of Christ.

I guess you'll just have to lob more ad hominems at me in place of an argument, Kinyobe!

Seriously folks, while I fully understand the temptation involved, please don't feed the trolls.

You're completely right, Colin.

Laura,

Two tier health care already exists in Canada. For the people who can afford it, they go to the US to get timely medical care. Some people even go to India for medical procedures. The existence of full-service "clinics" in Quebec and Ontario allows one to jump the queu as well. I believe Jack Layton attended an exclusive clinic in the Toronto area (Shouldice Clinic) for his hernia surgery. So it does exist. The clap-trap you hear about our "Universal Healthcare" is nothing more than propaganda.

bleet,

Christ promoted personal generosity and volunteerism, not support for publicly funded systems that pretend to offer equal access to quality services. I find it funny when you guys use the teachings of Christ to promote "generosity" by government proxy - industries controlled by bureaucrats and public services aimed at helping out those in need, but refuse to eliminate the real source of the problems.

Kaga -

Just like Kinyobe's ludicrous assertion earlier you have nothing to back up your idea that Christ merely promoted "personal generoisty and volunteerism". Just where did Christ encourage volenteerism? Utter nonsense.

I provided specific quotes to back up what I said. why can't you you do the same? Because there arent' any. You're making stuff up whole cloth.

Christ's command to care for the weakest among us, and his message of non-violence is irreconcilable with what passes for modern conservatism. Anyone heeding the message of Christ would be against the principles you espouse. Specifically they would be against the mania you have for denying poor children health care.

Final judgement by God will come to the individual, not to entire groups. Much of Christ's teachings are focused on individual faith, moral choices, generosity and kindness. The parable of the sheep and the goats (where the verse you posted came from) talks about how individuals will be judged by God based on the moral choices we made in life and the genuine kindness and love we show others.

Instead of volunteerism, I should've said unselfish acts of kindness. I'm talking about charitable donations and work, helping out with the sick and elderly. Conscious decisions with the intent to perform acts of kindness or sacrifice to help those in need.

Which led to my main point: I don't think God will judge you based on the "generosity" of the government with your tax dollars. While support for free health care for all is a noble idea, I don't believe it determines if you truly are a more righteous person than the next guy simply because we're all forced to pay into it.

And finally, since you brought out the accusation that I would like to deny poor children health care (even though I didn't mention anything about being completely against public health care), then I'm going to ask you why you support a system that lets actual sick people in need of care die on waiting lists?

The only reason i voted no is because there maybe services provide in other countries that we may not do here.But if it is provided here then they should go through our system just like the rest

Kaga

In Christ's comment that "What you do for the weakest you do for me", in his comment "Give all you own to the poor and come follow Me", in his comment "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven" we see the precepts we are judged by, and so do not need to know what you "think" God will judge us by. It's all been written out quite clearly. Evidently a bit too clearly for some.

It simply is not credible that any individual following these precepts of Christ would support a party which denies health care to the least and most vulnerable among us. It isn't about being "righteous". It's simply about recognizing what Christ said and aligning one's behaviour with those principles.

However, it seems you are not discussing this sincerely in any case, given your mention of waiting lists which gives your argument the feeling of propaganda. Your position seems to be: since our health care system has problems, abolish it. The millions of children whose lives have been saved, in an out of the womb, who would have been allowed to die in the US, don't figure into it all, huh? Just the buzzword 'waiting list' which has been fed to you by your masters. In this you are like your brethren to the south: suck up to the rich and the insurance corporations, and the weak and poor be damned. What's Christian about that?

"Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for life."

"Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give unto God whart is God's."

Why do people have to be dependent on Ceasar all their life? What organization invented hospitals?