|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 6584
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:55 am
The Supreme Court ruled today that it was against Quebec's charter of rights to ban private insurance to pay for fees already covered by Universal Healthcare.
Maybe at last a two-way system will take place !
What do you think ?
Supreme Court strikes down Quebec law
|
DuncanM
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:46 am
I think it is great!
Let's hope it opens the door wide to the private sector, and the rest of Canada follows Quebec's lead.
|
PORK
Junior Member
Posts: 66
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:52 am
To allow a choice would be optimal in my opinion. Alot of what canadians put up with, just to get medical care seems utterly ridiculous, to me anyway.
Having a universal tax-based system would work for alot of people, but it isn't sufficient for people who are able to, and used to paying for, and getting, exactly what they want and need, when they need it.
Choice is never a bad thing.
Proculation Proculation: The Supreme Court ruled today that it was against Quebec's charter of rights to ban private insurance to pay for fees already covered by Universal Healthcare. Maybe at last a two-way system will take place ! What do you think ? Supreme Court strikes down Quebec law
|
Posts: 6584
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:29 am
Paul Martin said about the decision that a having a choice for a private insurance is a system "nobody wants".
I was listening to some radio phone tribune and everybody but 1 person said it was a good thing.
Again, it seems Mr. Martin is living on another planet !
|
Posts: 35280
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:33 am
The liberals answer, again and again in the house, is 41 billion over 10 years. 4.5 Billion toward wait lines BUT THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Clearly the Grits are without a plan (again) and this is a problem that has been a very long time in the making.
There is no excuse for this. It could have been prevented with decisive action but the Grits answer was to throw more money at it and hope it goes away. The only solution is the Roy Romano one. We will need a public/private system but the way we have it now the public system will be feasted on by the private one and we will have American health care. Choice is good but not if it brings down the entire system.
|
Posts: 6584
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:43 am
The only other country not having at least two different systems is North Korea.
What an example we are !
|
PORK
Junior Member
Posts: 66
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:38 pm
Regarding the choice between slow, arguably adequate national healthcare, and private healthcare on your own terms: If the freedom to choose between the two brings the system down, the system isn't worth a damn to begin with.
Scape Scape: The liberals answer, again and again in the house, is 41 billion over 10 years. 4.5 Billion toward wait lines BUT THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Clearly the Grits are without a plan (again) and this is a problem that has been a very long time in the making.
There is no excuse for this. It could have been prevented with decisive action but the Grits answer was to throw more money at it and hope it goes away. The only solution is the Roy Romano one. We will need a public/private system but the way we have it now the public system will be feasted on by the private one and we will have American health care. Choice is good but not if it brings down the entire system.
|
Posts: 19933
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:49 pm
The only problem with a such a two-tier system though, is that the private clinics will siphon away all the good doctors and nurses away leaving the public system a second class system.
|
Posts: 2301
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:03 pm
I think this is a very good idea. Not only will it reduce waiting times for regular healthcare patients but it will increase the number of healthcare positions. Of course here in backasswards Saskatchewan our Premier says it's a bad idea. Of course he would say this because having some privatized healthcare would remove the governments control of where the funding goes.
For those people who have the insurance that will cover private procedures it will decrease their waitlist and allow the insurance that they pay for to do what it is intended to do.
|
Posts: 35280
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:10 pm
PORK PORK: If the freedom to choose between the two brings the system down, the system isn't worth a damn to begin with.
You care to explain that to GM workers or the Airline industry of the US who lost billions in benefits then?
|
PORK
Junior Member
Posts: 66
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:28 pm
Scape Scape: PORK PORK: If the freedom to choose between the two brings the system down, the system isn't worth a damn to begin with. You care to explain that to GM workers or the Airline industry of the US who lost billions in benefits then?
They're not affected by a canadian two tier system, are they?
If we had a national system, or even a two tier system, I'd be explaining to them why their taxes are so freaking high, and also why they have to wait
in pain for weeks or months for elective surgery. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other.
|
MAPLELEAVES
Junior Member
Posts: 59
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:54 pm
I believe there was a study, I have to look into it further, Healthcare is more expensive in a two tier system when compared to the single payer system. The U.S. and Britain both pay more than Canada, on a per capita basis, on their Healthcare system.
What is required in our system is a guarantee on waiting times. If a patient cannot get treatment within a required time period he/she should be able to obtain treatment elsewhere. Limit this to criticall illnesses/conditions. Insurance companies in Canada actually already provide this service on a limited basis under the "Best Doctors" program.
This could go a long ways to helping people and cutting down our waiting list.
|
Posts: 3362
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:45 pm
Scape Scape: We will need a public/private system but the way we have it now the public system will be feasted on by the private one and we will have American health care. Choice is good but not if it brings down the entire system.
I tend to agree with that.
Also, the government has to be careful how they would legislate this issue.
Right now it looks like it would put a divide between the rich & the poor. Mario Dumont from the ADQ ran on this platform ``systeme santé 2 vitesses`` (in the last election) and it created a lot of contreversy. I am for a private system, depending on the way it is established, but for right now, I do not know enough about it to comment further.
|
Posts: 19933
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:18 pm
LEt's not get ahead of oursleves. SO far, the ruling applies only to Quebec, whose Health Care system is independant of the Canada Health Act.
|
|
Page 1 of 4
|
[ 57 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|
|