Supreme Court Justice Heal Thyself!
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Quebec must allow private insurance because timely medical care is a human right. Some people are afraid that this decision could cause the destruction of the public health care system, but that need not be the case.
Twenty-five years from now, when the wealthy have developed their own system of private health care and lineups at public hospitals are far worse than they are today, the families of those who died because of the inadequate public system can sue the government, claiming their right to timely medical care has been breached. And, so long as a NAFTA trade panel doesn't mind, the government will be forced to improve the public system.
And, the best part is that the Supreme Court will be ready to hear such a case because it will have spent the intervening years hearing cases to determine just how long a wait is "timely." ("Six months for a splenectomy? I rule that four months is the limit for timely care. Anything more than that undermines a Canadian's personal rights. Three months for an MRI scan? Uhh, yeah, sure, that sounds timely enough...")
Shh Shh...Listen...Listen Closely... What Is That?
Is it Roy Romanow trying to remind people of his prescriptions for saving public health care? It's hard to tell - could you get Ray Romano to shut the hell up already about the cancellation of his TV show?
What's So Bad About Letting a Little Privacy Into Health Care?
Those who are clamouring for it are claiming that it will put more money into the system, which will make things better for everybody. To understand why this is not the case, I have developed the following handy-dandy chart for your reading horror:
| where they say the money will go | where the money will actually go |
|---|---|
| more doctors | higher salaries for current doctors |
| more nurses | higher salaries for skilled nurses |
| more MRI scanners | corporate profits |
| more CAT scanners | those who can afford to getting their cats scanned |
Private money will enter the Canadian health care system if it is allowed to, but it won't alleviate long waiting times. It will just ensure that different people are at the front of the line.
Thank you for asking.
Ask A Silly Question
The problems with medical care in Canada started, as so many of this country's ills did, in the 1980s, when a Conservative federal government asked citizens, "Do you want to pay less in taxes?" This was a fundamentally dishonest question, since it didn't address what citizens would have to give up in order to get lower taxes. A more honest question would have been: "Mind if we cut essential services so the wealthy can get more in tax breaks than you pay in taxes?"
Yeah, right. Like that was going to happen. Honesty = political suicide.
Many Canadians responded with their own wrong question, "How much?" What they should have asked was, "How much is this gonna cost me?" Despite all of the press to the contrary, there is no such thing as free money. Even Charles Addams Smith argued that wealth didn't just magically appear, that it had to be created (right before Gomez convinced Morticia to be part of his ill-conceived knife-throwing act for a local charity ball).
The questions haven't gotten much better. Now, provincial governments are asking, "How much privatization are you willing to accept?" This is a clever ploy to make people ignore alternatives to privatization, like properly funding the public system - "Don't look at that tax increase behind the curtain!" It does have the beauty of simplicity, though. A question that started "Which of the following methods of cutting waiting times for medical care would you most support?" would get a bored stare and the vacant look that tells you that a person is calculating how much of the latest episode of The Apprentice she is missing because of you before you got to the end of the first option.
A lot of columnists are asking, "What's wrong with allowing people who can afford it to pay for their health care?" The question used to be, "What can society do to help people who cannot afford to pay for their health care?" but that had a bad beat and nobody seems to dance to it any more.
Who's Your Activist Daddy Now?
Definition of mixed emotions: a Conservative who opposes "judicial activism" after a Supreme Court ruling supports one of his pet causes, like health care privatization. Or, a Liberal who believes in "judicial activism" after a Supreme Court ruling that undermines one of her pet causes, like public health care.
This was one Supreme Court decision that truly had something for everybody...