Canadian Supreme Court Ruling

Saw the belowarticle and am just amazed.

What in the heck is going on up in Canada? A person doesn’t have the right to buy his own health insurance? Someone please explain to me how this is OK. I am afraid this is what our health system system will end up being in the next 10 years, more welfare. Too many people not willing to take responsiblity for their own health care. I know someone will say that I am a hypocrit because my employer, the government, pays for my health insuarnce. Before anyone jumps on that argument I am not saying an employer should not pay for a persons health insurance , only they should not have to.

Quebec Private Health Insurance Ban Nixed
June 09, 2005 9:57 AM EDT

TORONTO - Canada’s Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Quebec law that banned private insurance for services covered under Medicare, a landmark decision that could affect the country’s universal health-care system.

The justices took a year to rule on a case that began in 1997, when George Zeliotis, an elderly Montreal man, tried to pay for hip replacement surgery rather than wait nearly a year for treatment at a public hospital.

Zeliotis told the high court that he suffered pain and became addicted to painkillers during the yearlong wait for surgery, and he should have been allowed to pay for faster service with private insurance.

“It is indeed a historical ruling that could substantially change the very foundations of Medicare as we know it,” said Dr. Albert J. Schumacher, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

Although the ruling was made on the Quebec law, it likely will affect other Canadian provinces that forbid residents from buying private health care insurance for treatment under the country’s Medicare system.

Opponents of changes to Medicare claimed it could force Canada into a two-tiered health care system in which those who have deeper pockets get faster, better service from doctors who opt out of the public health-care program.

Zeliotis’ doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, argued that his patient’s constitutional rights were violated because Quebec could not provide the care he needed and did not offer him the option of getting it privately.

Chaoulli also argued that doctors should be allowed to open private hospitals if patients are willing to pay.

The 1984 Canada Health Act affirmed the federal government’s commitment to provide mostly free health care to all, including the more than 200,000 immigrants arriving each year, under a system called Medicare.

But the universal health-care system - while considered one of the fairest in the world - has been plagued by long waiting lists and a lack of doctors, nurses and new equipment. Some patients wait years for surgery, MRI machines are scarce and many Canadians travel to the United States for medical treatment.

In most Canadian provinces, it is illegal to seek faster treatment and jump to the head of the line by paying out of pocket for public care. Private health clinics have sprouted up even though they are technically illegal, though the provincial governments tend to look the other way.

If Zeliotis had been from outside Canada, he could have bought treatment in a private Quebec clinic. That is one way the system discourages the spread of private medicine - by limiting it to nonresidents.

Most polls indicate Canadians support Medicare, despite the high taxes needed to fund the service, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance.

I am not sure I understand the significance. I thought that Canadians were banned from paying for private healthcare at all, much like the Clinton plan from 10 or so years ago.

it’s all related to equal access health care. why should you be able to get fast medical care just because you have money? there shouldn’t be 2 tiers. one for the suckas who can’t scrape together enough money eat; and one for the gal so rich she can but her own mri. up here everyone is given equal access. it’s may be a pain if you’ve got the dough, but it comes in pretty handy if you don’t have to worry that you’re going to get turned away because your health insurance only covers 100 large and to stay in the hospital to actually recover from your heart surgery is going to cost a quarter mil.

of course if you do have the money, you can always catch the next flight to buffalo (or wherever) and get it done at a private clinic.

Gee, should the government tell you what kind of car to drive and how big a house to live in too?

The Court’s reasoning was that people were dying because of long waits. For some reason, they had a problem with that.

Of course, if I understood the nuance, I might also conclude that it is OK to die waiting so long as everyone has equal access. So long as everyone gets the same terrible result, everything is fine I suppose.

This case involved a kidney transplant that the medical system refused to perform despite the availability of a willing donor. The patient will die without the transplant. So tell me, what is your call, and will you explain it to the widow?

People in this country always give socialized health care a bad rap, and use one or two bad cases to illustrate how evil it is, but the intent is pretty good. Just like any system, some people will fall through the cracks. However, if you have a two tiered system, you get something like our education system where rich people can afford to get their kids educated by quality teachers and poor people have to take what they can get with the public schools and hope their kids can play basketball or something. When it comes to medicine, I can certainly understand the desire to make sure people don’t die or get sick just because they are poor.

“why should you be able to get fast medical care just because you have money? there shouldn’t be 2 tiers. one for the suckas who can’t scrape together enough money eat; and one for the gal so rich she can but her own mri”

Hey, why don’t we do away with money altogether? Why should you be able to buy a nice meal while the guy on the street corner has to beg? Why should you drive a nice car when some people have to take the bus? Why should those rich bastards live in a mansion while others are homeless. We should ban money and just let everyone take whatever they need.

While were at it, we should ban work. Why should some people have to put in 60 hour weeks while others sit on their butt all the time. Why should some students have to study their ass off while others get by on raw talent or Daddy’s connections and money. Everyone just do what they feel like they can do, no need for all this competition.

While we are at it, we should change our flag to a big red flag with a picture of Karl Marx on it. And we can all just relax and be happy and let the government take care of us from the giant pile of money out there that “big business” is hiding from all the people.

Settle down Dan. Universal health care isn’t the first step on the path to evil godless pinko communism. Medicine is a little more important than having a nice car or mansion.

So maybe you will answer my question then. Does the plaintiff have to die and will you explain it to the widow?

When my doctor thought I had melanoma, I was in the hospital the very next morning getting cut. The results were in the next day. I bet you that for every story like the court case there are millions of stories like mine.

The last paragraph of the article explains it:

" Most polls indicate Canadians support Medicare, despite the high taxes needed to fund the service, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance. "

Were you creating a hypothetical there about the kidney transplant, or is that a part of the case that was just not in empty’s article?

That was the case before the court. There was one other case involving a hip transplant, I think. In that case, the patient had to wait over a year with chronic pain before they would do the operation.

I am not knocking the Canadian system actually. I am only questioning where they get off saying a patient must die because they will not allow an operation that he will pay for himself. I don’t even have a problem with their not paying for such an operation.

Does that mean that you will answer my question and agree to inform the widow then?

Art, what are you talking about. The case invovled a hip replacement surgery, not a life-saving kidney transplant.

People in this country always give socialized health care a bad rap, and use one or two bad cases to illustrate how evil it is, but the intent is pretty good. Just like any system, some people will fall through the cracks. However, if you have a two tiered system, you get something like our education system where rich people can afford to get their kids educated by quality teachers and poor people have to take what they can get with the public schools and hope their kids can play basketball or something. When it comes to medicine, I can certainly understand the desire to make sure people don’t die or get sick just because they are poor.

I’m not so sure a two-tiered system is so bad. The complaint about our health care system in the US isnt that the poor cant get the same health care as the rich, it’s that many of the poor have no health care at all. That problem at least is alleviated in Canada’s system.

Face it, we live in a two (or more) tiered world. I think as a society we should take care of those who can’t take care of themselves, but I see absolutely no reason to prohibit those can independently take care of themselves better than the government is able to from doing so. (sorry for the grammatically-challeneged sentence there)

Just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean that they can’t get health care. Emergency rooms can’t turn anyone away so if you really and truly are sick/injured you would go to the emergency room same as someone with insurance. then there are also free clinics to go to. Each county will have their own health department that one can go to.

In fact, according to this article the insured are paying $900 a year to provide health services to the uninsured.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/08/health.costs.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Going to the emergency room for a sore throat or a fever costs a LOT more than getting to see a regular physician, this is a part of the cost of paying for the uninsured. Free clinics also cost money to fund.

Full disclosure: I have no problems paying that much for the uninsured, I’d gladly pay more

There were actually two cases rolled into one. One was a hip replacement, the other involved a privately found donor for a kidney. The patient couldn’t wait through the kidney queue in that case. He would have died.

The Quebec court apparently didn’t have a problem with the fact that one patient would suffer debilitating pain for an extended period and that the other would die under the nationalized medical plan. It did have a problem with stopping those patients from solving their medical problems outside the socialized medical plan.

I can’t comment on the Canadian judicial policies or whether this was a legally correct conclusion, but it sounds like the “right” conclusion to me.

If Canada wants socialized medicine, that is fine by me. I don’t understand the logic of outlawing private practice outside the system and the implied death sentence or needless suffering that results from such a policy.

I hope someone on this board will take a shot at justifying that policy.

Source for your kidney information pelase? All the news reports I saw only mentioned the hip replacement.

And just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean that they couldn’t afford it. Tom Demerly has said that he doesn’t carry health insurance, doesn’t think it is a good value. But I have no doubt he could afford it if he wanted to. I know many people who are similar…they chose not to carry it but could if they were willing to sacrifice their living standard a little.

The cost of insurance is not THAT high that a decently employed person cannot afford it. Not everyone is decently employed, but I don’t have a particularly soft heart for those people because I see many high paying jobs going to immigrants every year because americans have not done the work needed to qualify for the job. We have too much of a welfare state already, and adding additional safety nets will only make it worse until all the tax payers (corporations and individuals) decide to go someplace else…I see it happening every day already.

The only thing needed to fix health insurance in the US is to get rid of the lawsuits. When you go into surgery, there is risk. Part of that risk is your doctor might screw up. That’s why you pick a good doctor. We don’t necessarily have to allow people to become instant millionares just because the doctor didn’t remove a piece of gauze, such problems are often repairable. Yes, the doctor made a mistake, but doctors are human and you have to assume a certain number of mistakes are inevitable, and suing doctors isn’t going to stop them. Maybe it will reduce some of the mistakes by bad doctors, but what it mainly does is cause a lot of bad defensive medical practices which further inflate insurance costs. Heck, you can’t even find a doctor for some specialties because of the malpractice risks.

Sorry, the case before the Court involved only the hip replacement. The case with the private kidney donor is a seperate case all together.