Canadian Court Chips Away at National Health Care (NYT RSS)
The Canadian Supreme Court struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance today, dealing an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system. The court stopped short of striking down the constitutionality of the country’s vaunted nationwide coverage, but legal experts said the ruling would open the door to a wave of lawsuits challenging the health care system in other provinces.
The system, providing Canadians with free doctor’s services that are paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character. But in recent years, patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either seek care in the United States or use influence to jump ahead on waiting lists.
The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients’ “liberty, safety and security” under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada’s population. “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 Supreme Court ruled. “In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.”
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a Montreal family doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, who argued his own case through the courts, and by a chemical salesman, George Zeliotis, who was forced to wait a year for a hip replacement while being prohibited from paying privately for surgery
Interesting. In the United States, many advocates of nationalized health care point to the Canadian model as an exemplar. Perhaps they should rethink that.
via OTB
Canadian Court Chips Away at National Health Care
Canadian Court Chips Away at National Health Care (NYT | RSS)
The Canadian Supreme Court struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance today, dealing an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system. The court stopped…
No Grewal headlines today? hehe
Check out Nealenews.com regarding the Grewal tapes. Not altered according to the expert hired by Conservatives
James, pursuant to your conclusion there, check out this hilarious scenario played out by Evan Kirchhoff a couple of years ago (http://www.101-280.com/archives/000041.html):
…it’s funny to imagine a straight-faced attempt to sell this to Americans:
“Here’s our idea for “Canadian-style” health care: everybody will be part of the same, giant HMO, run by the government. Yes, the Bush government. Plan choices? No, it will only offer one plan. But it’s a pretty good plan: your copays are all zero, or at least close to zero — that’s good, right? Drugs? Sure, it covers some drugs. You know, the cheaper ones. Lab fees? Nope, all covered, it’s really comprehensive. Of course, there will be fewer labs around. And fewer clinics, and operating rooms, and we’ll be selling off most of the MRI machines. But this country has too many MRIs anyway, they’re too expensive to operate and mostly redundant; it says so right here in this study. From the government. Yes, the Bush government. So you might have to wait a bit longer for a scan if it looks like you have something really terrible. How long? Well, maybe a year. Wait, calm down! Long-term patient mortality rates for serious diseases are not affected very much by an additional 12 months before diagnosis, statistics prove it! Look, don’t get upset, what are the odds that you’ll actually get that sick?”
“Let’s move along to other questions. Lifetime coverage limits? In a sense, yes; we can’t have one person using too much healthcare, especially if they’re really old already. Can I put a number on the limit? I can’t believe you asked that, how crass! You’ll have to wait and see. But I think you’re misunderstanding the principle here: nobody has a right to excessive healthcare, it just reduces the available care for others. Sensible limits need to be set. By the government. No, you can’t just pay cash if you disagree with the limits set by the government. Yes, I’m sure your doctor would cut you a deal, but we’ll have to put her in jail if she tries that. It wouldn’t be fair if you could just go out and buy better healthcare for yourself, it would undermine the principle of “universality”. You do understand that, right? We’ll send you brochures until you understand it. Oh, and you’re going to pay $9,000 per year for this. Yes, per person. Yes, that is a 300% increase over your current insurance premiums; I don’t understand the question. You’re a member of a dual-income, professional, Marin County household, filing jointly, and we’re replacing your current flat-fee insurer with a system funded by the progressive income-taxation you’ve been voting for all these years. That’s what you wanted, right? We said healthcare would be cheaper on average, not cheaper for you personally. Hello? Where are you going?”
You hit that one out of the park, Matt.
MRI Machines: Syracuse NY vs. Ontario
Contemplate these numbers:
Canadian Institute for Health Information/Medical Imaging in Canada, 2004
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_13jan2005_e
“Across the country, Ontario had the most MRI machines with 52.”
Ontario has a population of some 12.5 million.
Meanwhile, in the Syracuse area, New York, population around 750,000:
http://www.excitepr.com/03b_nyt031304.html
“The five counties surrounding Syracuse have 27 M.R.I. machines…” (this includes the city itself, 2004).
Thus the Syracuse area has about 6% of the population on Ontario but about 50% as many MRI machines.
Keep waiting.
Mark
Ottawa
Turkey and Portugal have more MRIs than Canada does. The Canadian Society of Radiologists did a study on this ?last year or the year before. It was an embarrassment to say the least. Canada, Chile and Cuba have the fewest, if I remember correctly. PLUS, Canada shares the same model of healthcare as – ta da – Cuba and North Korea. Public funded only – government monopoly.
Canada Supreme Court: Prohibitions on Private Insurance are Invalid
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that prohibitions on private insurance are invalid since the public system has failed to deliver medical in a timely, reliable way and that Government bans on private health insurance have increased the risk t…
Out of morbid curiosity- what are the complete LEGAL COSTS of this? (Cant have them governmint lawyers and judges chasing ambulances for a living, can we?
End of Medicare?
Now, I’m frequently unenthused by the rulings of the Supreme Court, but this one they got right. Though I find the headline at CBC interesting, “Strike down private health care ban”, it wasn’t a private health-care ban, just a private insurance ban, …