Quebecers have a fundamental right to seek Health Care

I have to agree with you Samuel. I believe the Supreme Court is heading in the right direction on this one. I did not know what to think about a 2 tier health system until I experienced it firsthand while living in England. I was floored by the quality of the system there. Living with a young child and her young adult nanny, let's say I had the "pleasure" of testing their emergency rooms, one day surgery facilities, nursing housecalls for recovery services, assigned family doctor visits etc...all the while using their public services. Our health system has to be revised and if paying for services can improve the public one, I don't see where the problem is as long as quality services are maintained and hopefully improved for all users, private and public ones. Many Canadians will wince at this decision because, believe it or not, they think Canada's health system is some kind of a national unity factor (???).

It just goes to show the depth of ignorance and length people are willing to go to prop up this sham federation. People are dieing today because of this. <a href="http://www.bluecross.ca">Blue Cross</a> will offer full private health care insurance coverage for Quebecers and I will be the first to buy into it after having experienced the dangerous waiting times first hand with an elder.

Insurance determines who pays, not when a person is seen. The only way I can see private insurance making a difference is if they pay to ship people to the states, which medicare currently already does, but only in emergent cases. If I have to wait six months to see a specialist that is because there are not enough specialists. I currently have the choice between waiting and going to the states. The only other way is if you have private insurance which will basically give the insuree the spot of somebody else who doesn't have the insurance. Otherwise, the insurance company will use its resources to hire and staff it's own doctors. Since much of the problem in most provinces is an inadequate number of doctors and specialists then this will only add to the problem. Of course so long as you have the money for private insurance then I have no doubt that you'd be all for it. Some of us are interested only in number one, some of us are interested in a community. A far better way of going about it is if we actually lived in a democracy and people could have put the brakes on Martin before he gutted the system. Healthcare costs could have been aligned with GNP or we could have slowed down on deficit reduction as sweden did. Now we can look for more court costs since they now have to prove that services are inadequate. Here's an idea, how about a taking a percentage of that 9 billion dollars that the pharmaceutical industry takes out of the country on investments of 1 billion and only 15,000 employees.

Physicians can opt out of the public system in Québec, the problem was a prohibition on citizens being able to purchase private health care insurance coverage and companies prevented from offering it. Now that it's been struck down, the commercial viability of private facilities will become reality. This is not a short term fix, but a step in the right direction.

I agree that individuals who wish to purchase private health insurance should be entitled to do so. It will be interesting to see whether any insurance companies are able to offer the insurance at an affordable rate, as there may not be a large pool of people willing who see any reason to purchase the same (in Canada) until something occurs that makes them wish they had. When that something occurs, they won't find any companies interested in insuring them. Also, given that insurance companies are more interested in acquiring premiums than paying out benefits, it may be that there will little interest in insuring those who can be expected to need it the most, such as 'elders', individuals with a genetic propensity towards heart disease, etc., or at least not at any rate most could afford. It will be interesting to see how this goes.

So a doctor can opt out of the public system yet nobody could pay him and no insurance companies could exist? So how does such a doctor get paid currently? In other words there is already a private system and this just entrenches it. No doubt plenty of insurance companies will take a loss just to wrench open the doors. This is pretty much how it works in the states, ironic that Quebecers call canadians to be just americans.

The private system that exists at the moment are for services such as cosmetic surgery and other lower cost diagnostics such as MRI (catscans) etc. The case before the court was a man who had been waiting for over a year to have expensive hip replacement. His was a case of suffering through the wait, but the court also considered cases where life threatening situations were not exempt from the waiting time such as cancer treatments. A parallel commercial system supported by those who can afford health insurance can only elliviate the waitng time for those who depend on the public system and is urgently needed. Have private schools undermined the public education system?

[QUOTE]So a doctor can opt out of the public system yet nobody could pay him and no insurance companies could exist? So how does such a doctor get paid currently? In other words there is already a private system and this just entrenches it. No doubt plenty of insurance companies will take a loss just to wrench open the doors.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean. Those with the cash have always been able to go elsewhere, e.g., the U.S., Europe, etc., to obtain treatment. I may be wrong however, I think the point made by Zeliotis was that this is what he would have done had he been able to afford it. He did not have the resources to do so however, contended he would have had those resources had he been able to purchase private insurance, his presumption being that the insurance would have paid for his operation being performed elsewhere, e.g., the U.S. I haven't read the decision however, from the articles it seems all the SCC did was strike down the Quebec legislation (paralleled in other provincial legislation) ban re: purchasing private insurance to cover health issues currently covered under the Canada Health Plan. Assuming the decision was not more far reaching, all this will at the most do is put purchasers of the insurance in the same category as those whose income is such as to enable their going outside of Canada for quicker treatment than they can receive here. If Zeliotis was able to find a company to insure him, he'd presumably be able to seek treatment elsewhere. The situation is not the same here as the U.S., in that all citizens are covered by the Canada Health Plan. So, the question is, are there sufficient numbers of insurable individuals desirous of paying monthly insurance premiums to cover off the possibility that at some point they will find themselves needing serious treatment which will not be available in a, in their view, timely manner? If there aren't it won't be worth many insurance company's time to offer insurance. And what insurance is available will doubtless outline what 'timely' is in the insurance company's eyes. Unless I'm missing something here, there is nothing in the article that indicates any other change to the status quo.

I think absolutely the public educational system has been hurt by private schools. Those most able to contribute to the educational system hereby get the best possible education while all the others have to make do. Those with deep pockets can obviously afford the best of everything, if taxation were marked toward income then that money could be utilized by the public school system. I'm still looking for a link to the actual ruling.

If you see a problem with the public education system, it doesn't stem from the existence of private institutions. It stems from underfunding and under staffed. Look to government for the cause and not those who can afford a private system while still contributing to the public one through their taxes.

[QUOTE] I think absolutely the public educational system has been hurt by private schools.[/QUOTE] I'd give more credit to the bureaucrats running the system and various 'theories' utilized within the system throughout the past thirty-forty years. Actually, the entire system for the most part a waste of time, as it generally does more to indoctrinate than educate. However, that's another discussion entirely. The article with the Maude Barlow quote came up after I'd posted my comments. It will be interesting to see the decision because I can't see where Maude's conclusions make sense. It doesn't follow that the ability to purchase private insurance necessarily leads to a parallel private system becoming available in Canada. If this could occur, it would have been present long ago as there have always been plenty with the cash to pay for it. All private insurance does is make cash available to those who would not otherwise have it and who wish to obtain treatment from a private source more quickly than would be the case in the public system. It doesn't necessarily follow that the 'private' treatment must be available in Canada. But, what if it was. Why not allow it and charge very substantial licensing fees for the privilege, e.g., you want to run a private hospital, it's 10 million a year. You get 20 of these across Canada, that's 200 million extra a year that can go into improving the public health system structure and health related educational institutions. Plus, strain on the public system is reduced. Add a few hundred private clinics at a couple of million a pop and you have oodles of new cash flowing into the system. Can't operate at a profit with these fees? Too bad, so sad. The licensing fees get passed onto the customer, so where's the harm? Make what are in fact 'optional' medical expenses paid by choice to these facilities non-tax deductible and you're all set. In the current system, a lot of money is going to pay for healthcare provided outside of Canada anyway, then generating an income tax credit claimable in Canada, so the above might be an improvement. Lot's of innovative ideas are available that could be utilized to improve the system for most by use of money more or less voluntarily contributed by the few. Folks want private care, fine...but by rules that benefit the majority, not themselves.

I always love how the proponents of privatized health care frame it as a question of "rights", ie that people have the "right" to buy health care if they can afford it. It comes down to a fundamental distinction between whether health care is a "right" for EVERYONE regardless of their financial stability or whether it is only the "right" of the people lucky enough to have money to pay. While I'm very sorry for the pain this man went through, and I agree we should address waiting times, that doesn't make private insurance the answer. The Romanow report outlined ways to reduce waiting times without this step, but we haven't been able to try that because the Liberal government hasn't acted on the recommendations of the report yet. The ruling only says privatization is necessary when the public system fails, and it fails only because of lack of funding and lack of commitment to it from our governments. So why not reinvest in our public system and work on strengthening it instead?? And the experience, under Thatcher for example, has even been in many cases that offering private insurace/services alongside the system has INCREASED waiting times--because doctors who worked in the public system and the private system found it to their advantage to play both sides, ie keep waiting lists long in the public system to increase the demand for their private services. We might also note that red tape is a huge problem in the U.S., since with hundreds of different private insurers hospitals must have staff able to sort out who is paying what when. And as I noted elsewhere, there are 45 million Americans without any insurance (and therefore care) at all--what a great system to emulate, eh? Let's just let those oh-so-compassionate insurers walk right in. I'm sure they're salivating like a pack of rabid dogs at the chance to break into the Canadian market. Lastly, I also find it incredibly interesting that the more outspoken separatists here are so eager to embrace a change that REDUCES the distinctiveness and progressiveness of the Quebec system, at the behest of the CANADIAN Supreme Court no less. And yes, I believe that the Canadian health system is a part of our national identity, because it expresses an emphasis on an egalitarian, progressive understanding of human rights and collective responsibility which is one of the redeeming qualities/better aspects of Canadian public policy--ie one of the things about the country, and about Quebec (which is generally more progressive than the country as a whole and certainly constantly contributing to keeping us going in that progressive direction), that we should preserve.

When the water issue becomes those who can pay, are allowed to drink first, will we see it the same way? Public treatment centers cost money, private offers to those who can pay, those who can't will drink tainted water or wait in lines to get the public water. There are parallels on all of these issues. The gov has said throwing money at the problem isn't the solution, but clearly it is, as we see. I agree with Susan, the Romanow report was paid for by Canadians, but nobody in gov seems to want to touch it. That leads me to believe this situation has evolved by design, not accident. The big drug companies, insurance co's etc want into a very profitable market. The public system will not be sustained. Why are people always complaining about paying high taxes, but not opposed to paying premiums for private healthcare insurance or private hospital care? Apparently if they are paying for themselves it is ok, but paying to ensure their neighbors also have treatment is repugnant.

This is not a new issue, the court challenge was filed 7 years ago and the person who filed it did so after a year of suffering. We all know the issue hasn't been resolved for more than the 8 years now, what is it with you people and endless faith in federal government. Don't you ever get pissed off and put your foot down? Another troubling notion is that if the system sucks it should suck for everyone and denying the rights of people to protect their lives is acceptable for the greatrer good. What good?