Supreme Court of Canada

[August1991]

*Bangs head against the wall again*

My three year old son is sick with a fever, I need to take him to the doctor, which I can do, having paid for improvements to the public healthcare system...

You say that you have paid for improvements to the public health care system, but how does your payment connect to making a doctor available to examine your son? It doesn't. And that's the problem.

*Sigh*

[i'm sorry, this discussion is depressing.]

[The Terrible Sweal]

Okay, let me be serious here for a moment and ask the same of you. If the money exists to pay for more health care, and the desire exists for more health care, why not tax it and provide that healthcare universally?

While the money appears to exist now, it won't exist if you try to tax it.

I disagree, but what is your rationale for that position?

*Bangs head against wall*

That's a bad habit which may be causing you adverse cognitive effects.

TS, let me simplify down to the lowest level possible:

Why not just answer the question as put?

I have time to wash dishes, and the desire exists to have cleaner dishes, so why are you surprised when I don't come to your house to wash dishes?

This analogy (or whateverit is) seems to me to lack ay coherent connection to the question: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is a public/private two-tier model that actually works in Canada - the education system.

... Just like the public medical system, the public education system does have its drawbacks - big class sizes, many kids with ADHD and learning disabilities needing help, tons of ESL kids who struggle, whatever -

Amazing. Out of one side of our mouth you say it works, while onthe other you're fully cognizant (even critical) of the problems.

... but the option to go elsewhere and pay money for a supposedly "better"  or more elite experience does not evoke the outrage that privately available medicine does - and is there really a difference?

The public education system has the problems it does because of insufficient ingenuity and resources. Rather than contribute to success of the important community value of education through moderately higher taxes, some people prefer to take care of only themselves.

How is this diffferent from private halthcare? Not very much. Only in the difference in the harms percieved between large class sizes and people dying.

As long as those seeking private health care continue to pay taxes to support the public system, who cares?

I care. First, I believe that like police and courts, the right to be cared for if we are ill is one that our society should provide. Societal rights should be provided equally.

Second, a so-called 'single payer' model is demonstrably the most economically wise.

Resources for public medicine will continue at the same rate.

Certainly not. One thing: the incentive to ensure high quality in the public system would be eroded. Another thing: efficencies related to scale would be sacrificed. A third thing: competion between the systems would raise costs in the public system.

What has to happen with public health care is stopping abuse of the system -

Absolutely true. You identify many important problems. But the solution is not two-teir care. (However, some resort to market-type incentives for patients, and use of private providers competing against eachother might be worthwhile.)

[kimmy]

Okay, let me be serious here for a moment and ask the same of you. If the money exists to pay for more health care, and the desire exists for more health care, why not tax it and provide that healthcare universally?

The level of funding of the public system is a related issue, but it's not the issue. We'd all like to see shorter waiting times in the public queue, but doe.

The ruling made by the Supreme Court last week said, basically, that preventing people from purchasing medical insurance and services is a violation of the rights to life and personal security guaranteed under Quebec's charter. While it's uncertain what the impact in other provinces will be, it seems certain that this ruling will result in legal challenges all across the country.

So, by all means advocate for the strengthening of the public system... and there's nothing in the ruling that prevents that. But our hypothetical guy now has the right to spend his $60,000 on a lifesaving operation instead of that stupid SUV (... provided he's a Quebec resident, at least.)

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm not sure the decision is quite as sweeping as you think. But your post givesme an idea I'll run by you on a fresh thread.

[Guest eureka]

What the SCC ruled, in essence, was that "waiting times" are unreasonable. That is not a legal judgement but a subjective, personal one. It is also a judgement that the Court is not qualified to make.

The dissenting opinions show that. The Court had neither the time or the expertise to judge between the alternatives and, as I noted earlier, it neither called the necessary expert witnesses nor included the testimony of those experts it did hear in its judgement.

This is a most disturbing case where the Court has not made a ruling based on the Charter or on evidence. It is, like the admitted policiy towards Quebec's laws in general, stooped to political decisions of expediency

For the first time in Canadian history, the Canadian SCC has allowed itself to be politicized.

[shoe-in]

Milan Kundera explained all of this much better than I can. You can also try Franz Kafka.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most Czechs can explain things better than you can, most of the time.

[Argus]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!  HAHAHAHA!!!

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!\

Childish response. So you're saying the Tories are not ideologues, do not actually care about traditional things like family, have no particular axes to grind or desires to change the system? Then why are you so afraid of them?

Laughter is an honest response to a ridiculous argument.

I'm not saying tories are not idealogues. I'm saying their idelogy is not consonant with social or human weal.

Then you're being even more childish.

Are you actually going to try and make the claim that the Tories and their supporters don't think their ideas will actually be better for Canada? I might dismiss the NDP ideas as idiotic, but I have little doubt that to them, those ideas are somehow workable, and they actually think those ideas will make a better Canada. Anyone who thinks an entire party made up of hundreds of thousands of people is actually devoted to somehow making the lot of the common man _worse_ is a flaming ideological imbecile.

Okay, let me be serious here for a moment and ask the same of you.  If the money exists to pay for more health care, and the desire exists for more health care, why not tax it and provide that healthcare universally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I answered that already.

[Argus]

Argus, sounds like you've put some thought into this,but you're also making some unsubstantiated claims.

I don't think anyone is saying leave the system as it is.  And I'm now sure how you can make a statement that most seniors are over-medicated.

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I said was that seniors, as a group, were overmedicated. And there have been ZERO ideas for change to the system coming from its defenders. The only "change" any of them have advocated is more money. And then more money. Oh, and more money. And then after that, we can spend more money.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm not saying tories are not idealogues.  I'm saying their idelogy is not consonant with social or human weal.

Then you're being even more childish.

Are you actually going to try and make the claim that the Tories and their supporters don't think their ideas will actually be better for Canada? ... Anyone who thinks an entire party made up of hundreds of thousands of people is actually devoted to somehow making the lot of the common man _worse_ is a flaming ideological imbecile.

First, I never claimed to know what tories THINK they are doing, only to observe what it is they actually do. Second, if you observe someone whose every idea would have the effect of making things worse, it becomes reasonable to wonder if such outcomes may be intentional.

Okay, let me be serious here for a moment and ask the same of you.  If the money exists to pay for more health care, and the desire exists for more health care, why not tax it and provide that healthcare universally?

I answered that already.

Where? What did you say?

[Argus]

I'm not saying tories are not idealogues.  I'm saying their idelogy is not consonant with social or human weal.

Then you're being even more childish.

Are you actually going to try and make the claim that the Tories and their supporters don't think their ideas will actually be better for Canada? ... Anyone who thinks an entire party made up of hundreds of thousands of people is actually devoted to somehow making the lot of the common man _worse_ is a flaming ideological imbecile.

First, I never claimed to know what tories THINK they are doing, only to observe what it is they actually do. Second, if you observe someone whose every idea would have the effect of making things worse, it becomes reasonable to wonder if such outcomes may be intentional.

Not really. I don't think you've ever had a suggestion or taken a position I didn't think was simple minded nonsense which would cause more harm than help. But I just think you've wrapped your mind in a simplistic version of leftist kant and don't know anything about what you're talking about. Then again, much of the NDP is like that. I'm not bitter enough to think they all want to destroy the country, though, just because they won't accept my clearly superior reasoning, logic and ideas.

[cybercoma]

I get a kick out of this Sweal...

I care. First, I believe that like police and courts, the right to be cared for if we are ill is one that our society should provide. Societal rights should be provided equally.

Second, a so-called 'single payer' model is demonstrably the most economically wise.

What does any of that matter when you can't afford food, water, hydro, gas, or shelter?

Why doesn't society provide the necessities of life, why do I have to pay for all of those things when I can and will die if I don't have them?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why doesn't society provide the necessities of life, why do I have to pay for all of those things when I can and will die if I don't have them?

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ...

Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied.

[Argus]

Why doesn't society provide the necessities of life, why do I have to pay for all of those things when I can and will die if I don't have them?

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ...

Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But nowhere does it provide the same standard for those basics as the rich, or even the middle class enjoy.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why doesn't society provide the necessities of life, why do I have to pay for all of those things when I can and will die if I don't have them?

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ...

Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But nowhere does it provide the same standard for those basics as the rich, or even the middle class enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The question is what necessities are basic.

The poor man eats baloney and rice. The rich man eats steak and pilaff. Both live.

The rich man gets and MRI and the poor man doesn't. One lives and one dies.

[Argus]

Why doesn't society provide the necessities of life, why do I have to pay for all of those things when I can and will die if I don't have them?

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ...

Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But nowhere does it provide the same standard for those basics as the rich, or even the middle class enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The question is what necessities are basic.

The poor man eats baloney and rice. The rich man eats steak and pilaff. Both live.

The rich man gets and MRI and the poor man doesn't. One lives and one dies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The rich man gets to eat good food, sleep on a fine bed in a well-heated house, wear comfortable, warm clothing, drive a fine, air-conditioned car, spend time in the country, at his cottage, relax poolside. The poor man shivers in the dark eating unhealthy food, coughing in pollution of the street as he waits for his bus to take him to his physically demanding job. All of this takes years and years off his life.

Anyone in urgent need of an MRI gets one. The people who have to wait many months are those who need to have their wrists looked at, or their hips, or their knees. You don't die from lack of a knee operation. You just lead a miserable life until it's done.

Kinda like the poor already do.

[cybercoma]

besides what Argus said, it's a little tough to collect a welfare cheque when you have no address to mail it to.

[The Terrible Sweal]

So are you guys arguing in favor of poverty or against it?

[August1991]

Milan Kundera explained all of this much better than I can. You can also try Franz Kafka.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most Czechs can explain things better than you can, most of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On what basis do you make that claim?

[August1991]

Okay, let me be serious here for a moment and ask the same of you. If the money exists to pay for more health care, and the desire exists for more health care, why not tax it and provide that healthcare universally?

While the money appears to exist now, it won't exist if you try to tax it.

I disagree, but what is your rationale for that position?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People avoid paying taxes. (To be nuanced, they also evade taxes.) If the government announces that it will tax blonde-haired women starting next week, don't be surprised if the sales of hair dye increase tomorrow. I have $60,000 cash now to buy a Mercedes-Benz and Revenue Canada might be able to get the cash instead - this year. Next year, it'll be a different story. Sweal, if you don't understand this, you don't understand human nature, politics or economics.

I have time to wash dishes, and the desire exists to have cleaner dishes, so why are you surprised when I don't come to your house to wash dishes?

This analogy (or whateverit is) seems to me to lack ay coherent connection to the question: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Connection? Don't get the washing dishes analogy?

Here's a different, Hollywood-movie idea to consider: Go to the parking lot of a large shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon. Look at all the cars. Now, imagine that terrorists destroyed the mall and after the attack, the government had to coordinate getting all those cars back to the proper owners - or their families. Now then, how long does it take a shopping mall parking lot to empty after the mall closes on a normal Saturday?

Sweal, why is the second method so much easier than the first method? (BTW, the Russian government faced this exact problem with about 400 cars after the theatre hostage crisis a few years ago.)

So are you guys arguing in favor of poverty or against it?

Huh? Sweal, is that a serious question or are you merely being solipsistic? (Sorry to get on your case Sweal but you invite such comments - heck, you probably like the attention.)

Why doesn't society provide the necessities of life, why do I have to pay for all of those things when I can and will die if I don't have them?

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ...

Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied.

Our society provides money to poor people who then go and buy the specific types of food they prefer.

According to your reasoning, why not do the same with health care? IOW, why must the State organize the production and distribution of health care services?

[The Terrible Sweal]

While the money appears to exist now, it won't exist if you try to tax it. 

I disagree, but what is your rationale for that position?

People avoid paying taxes.

Yet, taxes are paid and government services are provided. The money exists, so you are mistaken.

I have time to wash dishes, and the desire exists to have cleaner dishes, so why are you surprised when I don't come to your house to wash dishes?

This analogy (or whateverit is) seems to me to lack ay coherent connection to the question: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?

Connection? Don't get the washing dishes analogy?

Here's a different, Hollywood-movie idea to consider: Go to the parking lot of a large shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon. Look at all the cars. Now, imagine that terrorists destroyed the mall and after the attack, the government had to coordinate getting all those cars back to the proper owners - or their families. Now then, how long does it take a shopping mall parking lot to empty after the mall closes on a normal Saturday?

Sweal, why is the second method so much easier than the first method? (BTW, the Russian government faced this exact problem with about 400 cars after the theatre hostage crisis a few years ago.)

???????????

You've now sent me from confused to totally lost. Instead of these increasingly arcane scenarios, I will again ask you to simply tell me: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?

So are you guys arguing in favor of poverty or against it?

Huh? Sweal, is that a serious question or are you merely being solipsistic?

Solipsistic?? Whatever.

My question was a serious one because I found certain comments suggested an inconsistency that is irreconcilable unless poverty is seen as appropriate or desireble.

Our society provides money to poor people who then go and buy the specific types of food they prefer.

According to your reasoning, why not do the same with health care?

I've already explained that. Different qualities of food are not generally a matter of life and death.

But look, if the argument from the private health care lobby is that it is right and proper that possession of wealth be the criteria that decides who lives and dies, at least that would be consistent. Depraved perhaps, inefficient and short-sighted certainly, but consistent.

IOW, why must the State organize the production and distribution of health care services?

I don't think it should micromanage, and I advocate private competitve supply solutions, but the reason for the state to provide equal health care for all is the same reason we provide (theoretically) equal police protection for all.

[cybercoma]

So are you guys arguing in favor of poverty or against it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm arguing in favour of personal responsibility as opposed to government control.