Supreme Court of Canada

[August1991]

I can't believe I'm posting this. But I think this Court is really smart.

This Court says that governments should treat gay couples as any other couple. (Also my view.)

This Court says that governments should not forbid people from exercising their right to live. (Also my view.)

This Court finds ways to say this politely, respecting the legislative power to change a Court decision. (Also my view about how to effect change.)

And this Court finds ways to respect Quebec's own institutions. (Specifically my view.)

----

I too think gays should be able to marry; we should all have choice in health care; no changes should ever happen radically; and Quebec is somehow different.

[August1991]

I'll add this.

This recent Supreme Court decision was 4-3 because not all 9 judges decided. The other two (Liberal) appointees were too new to the task.

Among the four deciding judges, two were the only remaining Mulroney appointees (McLachlin and Major) on the Court. The two other deciding judges were Deschamps and Bastarache, both products of the Universite de Montreal. (BTW, Deschamps is from Quebec but Bastarache is from New Brunswick).

The three dissenting judges were Fish and Binnie, both born in Montreal and both products of McGill Law School, and Lebel, born in Quebec City, produced by Laval.

True, people are not prisoners of their law school.

----

And I'm still amazed that I started this thread.

[Bakunin]

i agree, its better to let the job to decide whats best for society to a court with experts than to give it to a bunch of politician wich are mostly not expert in these questions, who for most of them are backbencher that vote with their party and have no objectivity at all.

[mcqueen625]

I disagree! When has a bunch of lawyers ever made a smart decision? I remeber a lawyer joke that went something like how do you tell when one is lying? His lips are moving! A good many of our federal politician are lawyers and we all know how smart and honest our federal politicinas, especially after the revelations coming out of the Gomery Inquiry .

We elect politicians so that when they screw up we can hold them accountable at election time. Tell me, when do we get to hold this bunch of appointed, unaccountable judges reponsible for some of their stupid decisons? I'll tell you when, we cannot hold them responsible for anything, since they are appointed to the bench until age 75 regardless of how incompetent they are. We have simply no recourse to make them accountable, and that is especially true of the Supreme Court since our own Prime Mininster stated publically that as far as he is concerned they ARE the final word in this country. I'm quite sure that I am not comfortable with a scenario whereby a bunch of appointed, unaccountable judges get to make decisions for the whole of the country, and they are not subject to the will of the people. To me that smacks of dictatorship! Maybe it is time to just do away with elections in Canada and just admit that we are not a democracy after all, but simply a dictatorship, like Cuba, North Korea, or China. At least it would be truthful!

What did our people die in two world wars for? Was it for freedom? If it was, why are we now willing just to hand that freedom over to an unelcted body, like the Supreme Court? What is wrong with this picture, and what is wrong with you people? I for one do not want to have any body in this country not open to scrutiny, especially a bunch of lawyers!

[The Terrible Sweal]

... we should all have choice in health care;

Doublespeak.

You really mean: 'we should all have healthcare choices according to our means'.

BTW, I'm not one to complain about 'judicial activism', but if you ever wanted an egregious example of it, this case is one. Why? Well, the court majority is clearly wandering in the territory of public policy. That's bad enough, but they have chosen to do so with a partial bench, on an unclear question, with a questionable majority. From the point of view of judicial administration, this decision was a blunder.

[Argus]

... we should all have choice in health care;

Doublespeak.

You really mean: 'we should all have healthcare choices according to our means'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reality is that this is the situation today, just as it was yesterday, just as it will be tomorrow. Or as one radio talk show host pointed out, there isn't a politician in this country who waits more than two weeks for surgery. They already have the two tiers, and they're on the top.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... we should all have choice in health care;

Doublespeak.

You really mean: 'we should all have healthcare choices according to our means'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reality is that this is the situation today, just as it was yesterday, just as it will be tomorrow.

So we fix it, not succumb flapping our hands feebly.

[Redneck Savage]

All of these decisions go with the way Canada is leaning right now. It was Provincial judges that decided that homsexuals should be allowed to marry. They interpret the law how they see fit, with little or no repercussions on their decisions.

Now we have the Supreme court saying that due to the mess the federal healthcare system is in right now, it is better to have alternatives like private clinics. Agree or not, we are stuck with the decisions, because these judges have the final say on how the laws are interpreted.

It does allow some talk about judicial reform.

Personally, I think having a partial two tier system will help the needs of Canadians right now, at least until we straighten out our pathetic situation. In the same sentence, I disagree with same sex marriage. Both decisions were made by judges, all be it, at two different levels. We have a semi-democratic process going on with the ssm, by allowing MP's to vote on it(if they only voted the same way as their constituents!!), but the same thing should take place for the healthcare system. There should be an opportunity for Canadians to vote on allowing this and not the decision of the high courts.

What I am saying is, like it or hate it, our Canadian courts are making calls they have no right to make. It should be decided by Canadians in a democratic way, not by our judges. These decisions awfully seem like the communist way of doing things.

Might I remind you all, that the Liberals have been promising healthcare reform for many, many, many years and we have yet to see any viable answers. They use it as a huge election issue and once they are voted in, stuff it on the backburner to use it at a later date. When will Canadians see, there is no healthcare reform from the Liberals, it is a scare tactic? If it takes a partial two tier to straighten this mess out, it may not be such a bad thing. If it kicks the Liberals in the ass and makes them open their eyes to realize how pityful the system is right now and maybe they will try and fix healthcare. I don't think it will make us like the Americans!

[willy]

Now we have the Supreme court saying that due to the mess the federal healthcare system is in right now, it is better to have alternatives like private clinics.

Better than that they said they saw no evidence that this would undermine the public system.

[Argus]

Might I remind you all, that the Liberals have been promising healthcare reform for many, many, many years and we have yet to see any viable answers. They use it as a huge election issue and once they are voted in, stuff it on the backburner to use it at a later date.

Bingo. One of the big reasons I vote Conservative is health care reform. I don't KNOW that they will improve it. But I do know the Liberals won't. If they really had any interest or intention of reforming and improving health care they would have at least made a major attempt sometime during the last 13 years.

And they didn't.

And they aren't.

Health care, according to Martin - a multimillionaire whose friends and family all have access to immediate treatment - the health care system is "fixed for a generation".

Does that sound like the Liberals have any plans for the kind of major reform needed to let people have surgery without two year waits?

[cybercoma]

You really mean:  'we should all have healthcare choices according to our means'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll tell you what...when Windsor has more than 2 neurosurgeons (for hundreds of thousands of citizens) then you can claim the public system works. Until then people in this area are on waiting lists that are AT LEAST 2 YEARS long. Do you know what happens in the meantime to them? They die.

And why does Windsor only have 2 neurosurgeons? Because they make tons more money by driving 15 minutes to Detroit for work, while still living in Canada.

There's an article in The Windsor Star about a 73 year old man that had to go to Detroit to get the care he needed so his health wouldn't deteriorate any further or worse yet die.

He wasn't by any means overly wealthy, so the community got together and helped him pay for his care through donations and charity. OHIP also covered a small portion of it.

I hate to break it to you, people are already have healthcare choices according to their means, whether you want to believe it or not. Allowing people to die because they have to wait YEARS for their first appointment to a specialist is grossly irresponsible and quite frankly makes our healthcare system look like crap.

If you wish to support thousands Canadian dollars being spent in the United States for healthcare and you don't mind seriously ill people having to wait years to get into specialists because we simply don't have enough, then by all means support our current system. The rest of us who are tired of our broken system will continue to fight for patient's and doctor's rights.

[Guest eureka]

This decsiion appears to one made by seven ( a minority of the judfges who have considered the facts) elderly men and women who rubbed their knees and hip joints while checking their substantial bank accounts.

Without reading the decision - I don't plan to - it would seem that the judges have overlooked consideration of equality rights and the overarching authority of the government to legislate for the public good.

Cybercoma, what will you do when you have only one neurosurgeon and one has opened a private clinic?

[Riverwind]

Cybercoma, what will you do when you have only one neurosurgeon and one has opened a private clinic?

This is a red herring.

The gov't health plan hires the neurosurgeon as a contractor and negotiates a lower rate as 'bulk' buyer. If the neurosurgeon is truely the only one around then the gov't will just have to pay his/her asking price.

Most likely, the gov't an doctor will come to an agreement that will ensure that all suguries that the gov't is willing to pay for are done as they are today for the same cost.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I hate to break it to you, people are already have healthcare choices according to their means, whether you want to believe it or not. 

So how will making that worse make it any better?

Allowing people to die because they have to wait YEARS for their first appointment to a specialist is grossly irresponsible and quite frankly makes our healthcare system look like crap.

But allowing people to die because they have no money will make our health care system look better?

[cybercoma]

This decsiion appears to one made by seven ( a minority of the judfges who have considered the facts) elderly men and women who rubbed their knees and hip joints while checking their substantial bank accounts.

Without reading the decision - I don't plan to - it would seem that the judges have overlooked consideration of equality rights and the overarching authority of the government to legislate for the public good.

Cybercoma, what will you do when you have only one neurosurgeon and one has opened a private clinic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the public good would be allowing people to die while they wait for care, even though they could have things covered by third party insurances, charity, or god forbid they actually worked hard and earned enough money to cover the expenses in their life?

I highly doubt one out of the two will open a private clinic, more than likely both of them will and they'll be competing for patients. Hopefully the other doctors that live in the city will decide to open up practices over here as well and maybe, just maybe, we'll actually get more of our doctors back.

Don't forget that OHIP still covers what OHIP covers, regardless of whether you go to a private or public clinic.

[cybercoma]

I hate to break it to you, people are already have healthcare choices according to their means, whether you want to believe it or not. 

So how will making that worse make it any better?

Allowing people to die because they have to wait YEARS for their first appointment to a specialist is grossly irresponsible and quite frankly makes our healthcare system look like crap.

But allowing people to die because they have no money will make our health care system look better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How's it making it any worse? All it's doing is allowing them to stay in Canada for care instead of going to the United States. They're doing the exact same thing they would've normally been doing, except they can actually be referred by public doctors to private doctors here and use their public insurance to pay for the private care. If anything it's better for our economy and healthcare industry because money and doctors will stay in Canada.

As far as your second point, you're ALREADY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DIE. People who could otherwise pay for the care they need BEFORE it gets to the point that irreperable damage has been done are dying because they're forced to wait. This is a system that allows people to die everyday.

Having a two-tier system is NOT the end of the world, as has been said a thousand times before, some of the greatest healthcare in the world is from nations with two-tier systems (such as Japan) and you don't hear about people dying in the streets because they can't afford healthcare there.

Don't confuse two-tier with the american purely capitalist system that would allow you to die because you can't afford care (even though this is a myth, doctors MUST treat you if your life is in danger). Public healthcare is NOT being eliminated, it's being relieved of the overburden.

People need also need to stop passing the buck and start taking responsibility for themselves. Living a healthy life and working hard to be a productive member of society shoudl grant you certain benefits. Those who choose not to take responsibility for yourselves should not automatically expect the productive members of society to fork over cash to support them.

[I miss Reagan]

With PM's leadership, or I should say lack of leadership, we are headed for the worst of both systems. Because of the Liberals failure to act, we're going to have the doomsday scenario they're trying to scare everyone about. People dieing even more as lines get even longer, rich (politicians) jumping the lines because of contacts and money, ....er wait that's already happening.

[cybercoma]

With PM's leadership, or I should say lack of leadership, we are headed for the worst of both systems.  Because of the Liberals failure to act, we're going to have the doomsday scenario they're trying to scare everyone about.  People dieing even more as lines get even longer, rich (politicians) jumping the lines because of contacts and money, ....er wait that's already happening.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought I was reading a campaign ad there for a minute...

[jimrahn]

I argued before the Romanow Comission that Canadians needed a constitutional amendment, similar to the Charter of Rights and Freedonms, to fix the healthcare system, in fact, as the only way to fix the healthcare system.

I thought my argument was very well thought out and practical, but unfortunately got laughed at mostly: Mr Romanow himself was very tactful, but basically said it would never fly.

I'm hoping the recent Supreme Court decision creates some momentum for such a measure.

If Canada is going to have single-tier, accessible, publicly-funded and administered healthcare, Canadians need to be able to hold their governments accountable in the courts for healthcare commitments.

Healthcare is possibly the most important issue facing Canada today.

It wasn't addressed constitutionally back in 1867 because the issue byand large was non-existent.

It's time to address it constitutionally before we lose it for good.

Cheers!

[Adelle]

The Supreme Court deals with only the legal issue in isolation, not the social or political issue that exists or may arise. These other issues not only do not concern it but also are outside its jurisdiction. People may call them ‘activist’ but they can only present their opinions and interpretations within the framework of existing laws. If a law, once it is presented to them, if found to violate a greater law or is being used incorrectly, then it is their duty to correct the problem. The people and politicians must then deal with any fall out. You would think that the lawyers that run the country could make laws that pass all three tests.

Regarding health care in Quebec, I’ve tried to listen closely and it is my understanding that the problem related to using private insurance to pay for services provided by the public insurance system, thus creating a monopoly (which wasn’t providing sufficient service). If a person had the money in the bank they could, and still can, ‘jump the queue’ and get health care at a private facility (which there are many of) and in a timely fashion. The wealthy could, and can, get proper health care any time and any where they want (Mexico, US, Europe), it is only those without money that are forced to wait (because of their financial situation) and die. As I understand it, most of these medical services are amply and fully available even in Canada but the poor members of the downtrodden proletariat must way because the money isn't available in the public insurance system to pay for the procedures. Once the money for a fiscal period is spent, people have to wait till more money is allocated. The funny thing is, increasing the money allocated doesn’t seem to fix the problem, which is why the provinces (who are responsible for Health Care) are calling for restructuring and new ideas (as long as it doesn’t violate the Canada Health Act or the Federal government’s interpretation of that Act). The provinces are responsible for providing health care but the Federal government has taken on the responsibility of regulating health care and controlling the purse (to which it has contributed less and less money every year, until recent promises). If a province does something the Feds don’t like, legal or not, the provinces will be punished (via transfer payment fines, etc). Very few provinces can afford that or to take the Feds on in court (which they stacked to begin with).

[Riverwind]

I argued before the Romanow Comission that Canadians needed a constitutional amendment, similar to the Charter of Rights and Freedonms, to fix the healthcare system, in fact, as the only way to fix the healthcare system.

You must be kidding. People are suffering and dying on waiting lists because the gov't is forced to prioritize how the limited amount of public funding get spent. The supreme court says this violates a person's rights and your solution is to make this suffering and dying constitutional?

Our system cannot be fixed without changing the way it works. It is a monster that WILL consume every tax dollar that we spend on it because the cost of healthcare increases as the amount of money available to spend on it increases.

A leader with vision and imagination could re-structure the system to allow a private system to supplement the public without undermining the public system.

For example, rules could be put in place that only allow private care only if the public system is not able to provide care in a timely fashion (i.e. any surgury within a few weeks). You could add a special 'luxery' tax to private health care fees that are used to fund the public system.

The next few months will show which of our leaders has vision. Layton will likely spout the usual 'money will solve everything' garbage so the vision contest will between Martin and Harper. I bet both parties are going to be polling like mad for the next couple weeks before they say anything concrete. My guess is the polls will be mixed depending on the question. I think that the majority of Canadians will agree with the supreme court ruling once they realize that it does not mean that the US system is coming to Canada.

[Guest eureka]

Hopefully, Cyerbocoma! Dr. Pangloss is alive and well it seems. Your idea of what would happem could only lessen access and increase prices. Doctors who went to the US to make more ,oney ( for less work, incidentally) will not be coming back.

I think you should take another lookat the Japanes system. It works only because of the still omnipresent cult of family. Do you think we could get a "ticket" system going here - one that families build up for future needs?

Two tier is not more common in European systems than it is here. One or two tier reflects only different approaches to public vs private expenditure. Canada is at the loer end of public spending now compared to the 15 most advanced European systems.

Not by you, but the Canada Health Act has been mentioned and the ability (or failure) of the federal government to punish provinces. The fact is, that the Act is almost toothless as are most of the federally funded iniatives. The federal government dare not take on the provinced given the power of the provinces and the current national regionalist bias. In mist of these arrangements, the provinces would gain more than they lose by allowing the feds to "fine: them. This happened when Klein "shipped" welfare recipients out of the province and saved more than the feds could "punish" him by.

[Riverwind]

I think you should take another lookat the Japanes system. It works only because of the still omnipresent cult of family. Do you think we could get a "ticket" system going here - one that families build up for future needs?

I have had first hand experience with the Japanese system and it does have flaws but, on the whole, provides better healthcare to more people than the Canadian system. The most important difference is competetion: hospitals and doctors must compete for patients and, as a result, are motivated to invest in equipment and provide better care.

[cybercoma]

I argued before the Romanow Comission that Canadians needed a constitutional amendment, similar to the Charter of Rights and Freedonms, to fix the healthcare system, in fact, as the only way to fix the healthcare system.

I thought my argument was very well thought out and practical, but unfortunately got laughed at mostly: Mr Romanow himself was very tactful, but basically said it would never fly.

I'm hoping the recent Supreme Court decision creates some momentum for such a measure.

If Canada is going to have single-tier, accessible, publicly-funded and administered healthcare, Canadians need to be able to hold their governments accountable in the courts for healthcare commitments.

Healthcare is possibly the most important issue facing Canada today.

It wasn't addressed constitutionally back in 1867 because the issue byand large was non-existent. 

It's time to address it constitutionally before we lose it for good.

Cheers!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen to that. Try to hold the federal government responsible and they pass the buck saying it's the province's jurisdiction...try and hold the province accountable and they say they require federal funding with which the federal government tells them what to do....

[cybercoma]

I think you should take another lookat the Japanes system. It works only because of the still omnipresent cult of family. Do you think we could get a "ticket" system going here - one that families build up for future needs?

I have had first hand experience with the Japanese system and it does have flaws but, on the whole, provides better healthcare to more people than the Canadian system. The most important difference is competetion: hospitals and doctors must compete for patients and, as a result, are motivated to invest in equipment and provide better care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka doesn't believe in competition, he believes in the government taking everything you have and providing you with what they feel is the best service (after they take their cut of course).