Canada's health care system sucks

[Guest American Woman]

Accept Chaoulli v. Quebec found health care as a right under section 7 of the Charter of rights and freedoms. Sorry you know nothing about Canada big guy.

In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a politically controversial decision in the case of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), finding that citizens had a right to access private health care when the public system failed to provide adequate health services.

I don't read that as saying getting health care, ie: having health care provided, is a right; it's saying being able access, ie: pay for, health care is a right. Of course Americans have that same "right;" the right to access private health care.

Or am I reading that wrong?

Edited July 20, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

I don't read that as saying getting health care, ie: having health care provided, is a right; it's saying being able access, ie: pay for, health care is a right. Of course Americans have that same "right;" the right to access private health care.

Or am I reading that wrong?

That's not really what it says. It says that people should be able to get private care if the public system isn't meeting the needs (since the government is providing care, they must do it to reasonable levl). At the time, the court found that Quebec was ot meeting its obligations...hence the ability to buy wait time insurance.

[Topaz]

I don't know about other parts of the country but I live in Ontario and things changed after Harris got his hands on the health system. We have doctors and nurses being bribed over the border to the US. They have the same problems of shortage of doctors and nurses as we do. I'm sure some of those people would come back here if the pay was there and some wouldn't because of the weather, like Texas taking a number of them. The College of Physicians need to graduate more of them. People need to stop going to the ER and doctors need to have some in their offices on weekends and holidays to take that away from the ER. They used to offer this then stopped. Society has to do a better job of looking after oneself and we need to be after those food companies that put all those sugars and salts, etc. in their foods, that do more harm than good. I also, have no problem with wait times but I think you will see that more problems in the large cities than elsewhere in the country, there just more sick people to deal with.

[punked]

In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a politically controversial decision in the case of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), finding that citizens had a right to access private health care when the public system failed to provide adequate health services.

I don't read that as saying getting health care, ie: having health care provided, is a right; it's saying being able access, ie: pay for, health care is a right. Of course Americans have that same "right;" the right to access private health care.

Or am I reading that wrong?

NO the decision said that if you are not getting health care or the government isn't providing it, then they have to pay for private health care for you to get it. This is because Health care is a right in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't read that as saying getting health care, ie: having health care provided, is a right; it's saying being able access, ie: pay for, health care is a right. Of course Americans have that same "right;" the right to access private health care.

Or am I reading that wrong?

No....you have splendidly updated our comrade with the proper understanding of the court's ruling in context. Health care in and of itself is not a Charter right in Canada. The constitution itself places reasonable limits, further eroding any such unalienable right.

[August1991]

NO the decision said that if you are not getting health care or the government isn't providing it, then they have to pay for private health care for you to get it. This is because Health care is a right in Canada.

I disagree with you and think that b_c has the right interpretation of the Supreme Court decision. (And BTW, the Court did not refer to the Federal Charter but to Quebec's own Charter of Rights.)

The Court gave the Quebec government one year to make health care available, or allow private health care.

----

Punked, when you health care is a "right", what do you mean exactly? How much "health care" is a person entitled to and who will decide this?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know about other parts of the country but I live in Ontario and things changed after Harris got his hands on the health system. We have doctors and nurses being bribed over the border to the US. They have the same problems of shortage of doctors and nurses as we do. I'm sure some of those people would come back here if the pay was there and some wouldn't because of the weather, like Texas taking a number of them. The College of Physicians need to graduate more of them...

That's OK...Canada recruits (bribes and steals) highly skilled medical professionals from many other nations (e.g. Philippines, South Africa, Kenya).

[Michael Hardner]

I used to be against private health care, but I now just want the system to get better and I want the province of Ontario to provide an independent entity to provide frequent measures of costs and service levels in a user-friendly format.

That way, we won't have to argue things in terms of "well, I have NEVER experienced that". We can point to the charts and say "there it is".

McGuinty is nearing the end of his rope... the game of playing public relations doesn't work forever.

[punked]

No....you have splendidly updated our comrade with the proper understanding of the court's ruling in context. Health care in and of itself is not a Charter right in Canada. The constitution itself places reasonable limits, further eroding any such unalienable right.

The Canadian Constitution which the Charter is part of unlike the American one is a living document. It is changed with every court ruling you don't understand that. Health care as ruled by the supreme court of Canada is protected under Section 7 of the Charter as a human right. Chaoulli v. Quebec has already been decided you are wrong.

You can look at the New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia to see the ruling that the Constitution is made up of written and UNWRITTEN parts AND can change as the courts rule on parts of it. Sorry you are dead wrong on this one.

[punked]

Punked, when you health care is a "right", what do you mean exactly? How much "health care" is a person entitled to and who will decide this?

Well the ruling was under the "life" portion of the Charter. So I guess you are entitled to as much as to pertains to you living. Not sure what that would mean and we would need more court cases to hammer out those details but Health care in Canada is covered by your right to life under section 7 of the Charter as I understand it.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Canadian Constitution which the Charter is part of unlike the American one is a living document. It is changed with every court ruling you don't understand that. Health care as ruled by the supreme court of Canada is protected under Section 7 of the Charter as a human right. Chaoulli v. Quebec has already been decided you are wrong.

No....what you are proposing would bankrupt Canada very quickly. You do not have the right to a triple organ transplant. I know it is very important to the collective Canadian psyche to believe otherwise, but not even Charter Politics can instantiate health care (actual enumerated care, not just payment offsets or insurance) as a citizen's right.

You can look at the New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia to see the ruling that the Constitution is made up of written and UNWRITTEN parts AND can change as the courts rule on parts of it. Sorry you are dead wrong on this one.

Nope....you are dreaming...the reality is otherwise. Liberal theory for "positive" rights can quickly be extinguished with logic and precedent. You do not have a right to many things considered to be needs, and that includes health care.

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/aubrey.html

[punked]

No....what you are proposing would bankrupt Canada very quickly. You do not have the right to a triple organ transplant. I know it is very important to the collective Canadian psyche to believe otherwise, but not even Charter Politics can instantiate health care (actual enumerated care, not just payment offsets or insurance) as a citizen's right.

Nope....you are dreaming...the reality is otherwise. Liberal theory for "positive" rights can quickly be extinguished with logic and precedent. You do not have a right to many things considered to be needs, and that includes health care.

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/aubrey.html

You have a right to life under the Charter there is no changing that no matter how much you don't believe it. The section reads and I quote:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Now if the courts as have ruled that covers the right to Health care then health care is a human right in Canada sorry you are wrong. Just because your link disagrees that it should be a right doesn't change the fact that it is.

BTW your article was published 5 years before the Quebec court ruled health care was a human right in Canada. It is a bit dated on the subject.

Edited July 20, 2010 by punked

[Guest TrueMetis]

I wonder if people like my Mother are included in this study. She's going to be waiting several years for the surgery she needs to fix her leg problems, but that because it is only a temporary solution and the want to do it at a time when it will have the most benefit for her. If those types of waits are being included it would seem to me that the wait times are higher than they actually are. Any thoughts?

[Michael Hardner]

I wonder if people like my Mother are included in this study. She's going to be waiting several years for the surgery she needs to fix her leg problems, but that because it is only a temporary solution and the want to do it at a time when it will have the most benefit for her. If those types of waits are being included it would seem to me that the wait times are higher than they actually are. Any thoughts?

The wait lists tend to be broken out around types of care: such as emergency, cataract surgery etc.

And Ontario's own data showed that emergency chemo is not getting any better. And furthermore the costs are going up up up.

What do people care about ? Quality of care, timeliness, and costs.

Provide us metrics on that, and let us start paying attention to it.

[bush_cheney2004]

You have a right to life under the Charter there is no changing that no matter how much you don't believe it. The section reads and I quote:

That does not mean that commies can demand the services and goods of medical professionals as an unalienable right. Ditto food, clothing, and housing. You are fabricating rights out of thin air.

Now if the courts as have ruled that covers the right to Health care then health care is a human right in Canada sorry you are wrong. Just because your link disagrees that it should be a right doesn't change the fact that it is.

No such right exists because of unequal protection and services across provinces....you have no legal reason to believe otherwise....you just wish it was true.

BTW your article was published 5 years before the Quebec court ruled health care was a human right in Canada. It is a bit dated on the subject.

The court ruled no such thing....and certainly not for all of Canada. Health care is not a right in Canada.....sorry comrade.

[Guest American Woman]

No....you have splendidly updated our comrade with the proper understanding of the court's ruling in context. Health care in and of itself is not a Charter right in Canada. The constitution itself places reasonable limits, further eroding any such unalienable right.

So they have, through a court ruling, the right to seek medical care outside of the government when the government doesn't provide it. And they actually had to have a court rule that they have that "right" before they were able to pursue it.

Hardly the "right to health care" that it was being presented as.

[nicky10013]

So they have, through a court ruling, the right to seek medical care outside of the government when the government doesn't provide it. And they actually had to have a court rule that they have that "right" before they were able to pursue it.

Hardly the "right to health care" that it was being presented as.

Politically speaking it's enough of a right. Anyone campaigning on any kind of a privitization will lose big time. Any party that doesn't campaign on it but does it will never win government again and the next guys will nix the entire thing. The status quo can change, but this one ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

[bush_cheney2004]

So they have, through a court ruling, the right to seek medical care outside of the government when the government doesn't provide it. And they actually had to have a court rule that they have that "right" before they were able to pursue it.

Looks that way.....so entrenched is this collective entitlement mentality that rights appear from nowhere, and new rights are always available through Charter Politics. In essence, some would have us believe that Canadians have infinite rights to all sorts of things related to Charter provisions for "life, liberty, and security", but it just takes court rulings to make these "hidden" rights appear...maybe...depending on which province...and the party in power.

[Wild Bill]

McGuinty is nearing the end of his rope... the game of playing public relations doesn't work forever.

I hope you're right Michael but geez, sometimes I just can't believe how McGuinty can keep doing such goofy and expensive things yet people still seem to be supporting him, just drifting along and not getting the least upset.

It just shows my perennial point that it's not enough to show that an incumbent choice is bad. You also have to show that the alternative could be better! So far Hudak is about as inspiring as cold toast and old coffee.

[Bonam]

I dunno what kind of complete moron can read "right to life" as right to unlimited, free, health care provided by the labour and money of others, endlessly, without recompense.

[Bryan]

Health care is not a right in Canada.

You can disagree all you like. You sit in the US and complain that I don't have the right, I'll stay here and enjoy the fact that I do.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can disagree all you like. You sit in the US and complain that I don't have the right, I'll stay here and enjoy the fact that I do.

I'm not complaining at all....it's just a fact regardless of what I think in the USA. I know it is very very important for you to believe that you have this "right", and respect that you will cling to this comforting myth. That's OK.

Edited July 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bryan]

I'm not complaining at all....it's just a fact regardless of what I think in the USA. I know it is very very important for you to believe that you have this "right", and respect that you will cling to this comforting myth. That's OK.

It is OK, because it's not a myth, it's a fact. Canadians do have the right to health care, with greater certainty than Americans have the right to bear arms.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is OK, because it's not a myth, it's a fact. Canadians do have the right to health care, with greater certainty than Americans have the right to bear arms.

I believe that you have been led to embrace this myth for political purposes as described below:

The Right to Health Care ** Public Perception or Legal Right? To begin,

it is important to distinguish between a legal right to health care and the public perception of the existence of that right

. In Volume Four, the Committee noted the existence of public opinion polls that reveal that Canadians, encouraged by politicians and the media, believe they have a constitutional right to receive health care

even though no such right is explicitly contained in the Charter. Nor does any other Canadian law specifically confer that right

, although government programs exist to provide publicly funded health services.

http://www.righttohealthcare.org/Intl/Can.htm

[Hydraboss]

It is OK, because it's not a myth, it's a fact. Canadians do have the right to health care, with greater certainty than Americans have the right to bear arms.

Canadians have the right to health care under Security of Person about as much as I have the right to drive a car under the Mobility clause. A commonly accepted notion does not a right make.

And as for the US right to bear arms, comparing that to a Canadians right to health care is ridiculous. It is written on an old piece of paper in black and parchment. Very clear and concise. There are Americans that would die to defend this right, whereas there are some Canadians that would whine to defend health care.