Excepts from Chaoulli v. Quebec -- Supreme Court decision


mattyaloo
#1
As you can see from the short excerpt below, the Supreme Court of Canada more or less says the following in its opinion: "Those who claim that private health care threatens the public system are doomsayers with no logical evidence to back up the claim." In other words, the Libs are using scare tactics to win elections...

62 As can be seen from the evidence, the arguments made in support of the position that the integrity of the public system could be jeopardized by abolishing the prohibition can be divided into two groups. The first group of arguments relates to human reactions of the various people affected by the public plan, while the second group relates to the consequences for the plan itself.



63 (i) Human reactions



1. Some witnesses asserted that the emergence of the private sector would lead to a reduction in popular support in the long term because the people who had private insurance would no longer see any utility for the public plan. Dr. Howard Bergman cited an article in his expert report. Dr. Theodore Marmor supported this argument but conceded that he had no way to verify it.





2. Some witnesses were of the opinion that the quality of care in the public plan would decline because the most influential people would no longer have any incentive to bring pressure for improvements to the plan. Dr. Bergman cited a study by the World Bank in support of his expert report. Dr. Marmor relied on this argument but confirmed that there is no direct evidence to support this view.



3. There would be a reduction in human resources in the public plan because many physicians and other health care professionals would leave the plan out of a motive for profit: Dr. Charles D. Wright cited a study done in the United Kingdom, but admitted that he had read only a summary and not the study itself. Although Dr. Marmor supported the assertion, he testified that there is really no way to confirm it empirically. In his opinion, it is simply a matter of common sense.



4. An increase in the use of private health care would contribute to an increase in the supply of care for profit and lead to a decline in the professionalism and ethics of physicians working in hospitals. No study was cited in support of this opinion that seems to be based only on the witnesses’ common sense.





64 It is apparent from this summary that for each threat mentioned, no study was produced or discussed in the Superior Court. While it is true that scientific or empirical evidence is not always necessary, witnesses in a case in which the arguments are supposedly based on logic or common sense should be able to cite specific facts in support of their conclusions. The human reactions described by the experts, many of whom came from outside Quebec, do not appear to me to be very convincing, particularly in the context of Quebec legislation. Participation in the public plan is mandatory and there is no risk that the Quebec public will abandon the public plan. The state’s role is not being called into question. As well, the HEIA contains a clear provision authorizing the Minister of Health to ensure that the public plan is not jeopardized by having too many physicians opt for the private system (s. 30 HEIA). The evidence that the existence of the health care system would be jeopardized by human reactions to the emergence of a private system carries little weight.
 
mattyaloo
#2
No takers eh? It must be a conceded point by the Medicare people...
 
Reverend Blair
#3
Actually it isn't a conceded point at...it just isn't worth fighting about. Your heroes are invoking the name of Tommy Douglas to prove they won't destroy medicare and you are claiming that it is already dead and rejoicing.

Thanks for revealing the hidden agenda of the radical right.
 
mattyaloo
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Actually it isn't a conceded point at...it just isn't worth fighting about. Your heroes are invoking the name of Tommy Douglas to prove they won't destroy medicare and you are claiming that it is already dead and rejoicing.

Thanks for revealing the hidden agenda of the radical right.

Why do Canadians insist on defining things in terms of "Political Party Lines". The Conservative party doesn't represent my views en masse. I believe they'd probably pander to the unenlightened masses and go with the status quo on health care.

As for a hidden agenda I guess you got me on that one> I admit it I want to make health care in this country better.

And I am simply putting forth an opinion expressed by the highest court in the land: private health care isn't going to destroy medicare. If that's a radical hidden agenda, blame the supreme court, not the Conservatives.
 
no1important
#5
Well priviate health care ala American style will never happen here.
 
mattyaloo
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Well priviate health care ala American style will never happen here.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you -- in Quebec for now and perhaps later all of Canada. It's a human rights issue. Someone cannot be denied the right to the timely delivery of health care regardless of who pays for it.
 
no1important
#7
Well I think the notwithstanding clause would be invoked before it got out of hand. Dosanjh even said no two tier and single tier care is safe.

Most polls indicate that Canadians support the system despite the high taxes needed to finance health care, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where 45 million people lack health insurance.


While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.

Quote:

The Supreme Court disagrees with you -- in Quebec for now and perhaps later all of Canada. It's a human rights issue. Someone cannot be denied the right to the timely delivery of health care regardless of who pays for it.

Four of the seven justices ruled Thursday that the provincial policy violates the Quebec charter. But they split 3-3 on whether it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meaning there is no immediate impact on the Canadian health-care system as a whole.

One justice gave no opinion on whether the laws violate the charter. here

So basically two tier medical in Canada aint gonna happen any time soon ala American style.
 
Jo Canadian
#8
 
bluealberta
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Well I think the notwithstanding clause would be invoked before it got out of hand. Dosanjh even said no two tier and single tier care is safe.

Most polls indicate that Canadians support the system despite the high taxes needed to finance health care, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where 45 million people lack health insurance.


While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.

Quote:

The Supreme Court disagrees with you -- in Quebec for now and perhaps later all of Canada. It's a human rights issue. Someone cannot be denied the right to the timely delivery of health care regardless of who pays for it.

Four of the seven justices ruled Thursday that the provincial policy violates the Quebec charter. But they split 3-3 on whether it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meaning there is no immediate impact on the Canadian health-care system as a whole.

One justice gave no opinion on whether the laws violate the charter. here

So basically two tier medical in Canada aint gonna happen any time soon ala American style.

So now you advocate the use of the notwithstanding clause to deny human rights? I thought that was an absolute no-no, given the bleating that comes when anyone discusses the use of the notwithstanding clause in the SSM debate.

The parallels are obvious. SSM supporters constantly refer to the Supreme Court to uphold the right of SSM, and now the supporters of changing the health care system refer to the recent Supreme Court to uphold the right of being able to purchase private health insurance.

Face it, just as those of us who do not support SSM will probably lose our arguments, those arguing against private health care, and here I mean the expansion of existing private health care, will also lose their arguments. What is ironic is that it is Liberal appointed, Liberal friendly SC judges basically telling the liberals they are wrong, and have been wrong.

Now at least we know the hidden health care agenda of the liberals and the lies of their fearmongering statements.
 
no1important
#10
Quote:

So now you advocate the use of the notwithstanding clause to deny human rights? I thought that was an absolute no-no, given the bleating that comes when anyone discusses the use of the notwithstanding clause in the SSM debate.

Two totally diferent things. Nice spin though.

Plus it was the Quebec government that said they may invoke notwithstanding clause. I also said if you read my post "I think it will be invoked before it got out of hand" I never said I wanted it invoked, but now that you mention it, personally I think it should be. It has nothing to do with equality or human rights.
 
bluealberta
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Quote:

So now you advocate the use of the notwithstanding clause to deny human rights? I thought that was an absolute no-no, given the bleating that comes when anyone discusses the use of the notwithstanding clause in the SSM debate.

Two totally diferent things. Nice spin though.

Plus it was the Quebec government that said they may invoke notwithstanding clause. I also said if you read my post "I think it will be invoked before it got out of hand" I never said I wanted it invoked, but now that you mention it, personally I think it should be. It has nothing to do with equality or human rights.

Two different things, yes. Same principle, though.

Are you really telling me that dying in a waiting list is not a human rights issue? What could be more of a fundamental right that not having to die in a waiting list because of a government policy? If dying is not part of a human rights issue, then nothing, and I mean NOTHING is. The freedom of choice and the right not to die are fundamental human rights and this decision will open the doors across Canada to a mix of public and private health care. And if Quebec does invoke the clause, I would think that would be grounds for an appeal to the UN human rights board. And Quebec would lose, but in the meantime, more people would die waiting for medical services. I am appalled that you would not consider this to be a human rights issue, it is the issue above all else that is a human rights issue. Without the right to live, there are no other rights, period.
 
Toro
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Well priviate health care ala American style will never happen here.

The problem is this is how the argument is defined. Why must it be medicare or the American system? Why can't there be any other solutions? What do other countries do? Why must we think so much within a box? Clearly there's a problem. Being ideologically rigid and framing this argument on stereotypes serves no one.
 
mrmom2
#13
You hit the nail smack on the head Toro Our politico's are to stupid to think outside the box
 
Reverend Blair
#14
Quote:

Why must it be medicare or the American system?

Chapter 11 of NAFTA.
 
bluealberta
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Well priviate health care ala American style will never happen here.

The problem is this is how the argument is defined. Why must it be medicare or the American system? Why can't there be any other solutions? What do other countries do? Why must we think so much within a box? Clearly there's a problem. Being ideologically rigid and framing this argument on stereotypes serves no one.

Exactly right. This is a point I have been making over and over again. Now that the Supreme Court has given us an opening,we must explore all options, including a mix of public and private delivery. We must get over the Public or Nothing mentality. A question I always ask is, why does anyone care who performs the procedures if the payment is still coming from the public system? There has got to be a frank and open discussion, with both sides of the issue willing to compromise if we are truly to solve our problems. And there are problems, so continuing to ignore them, or throw money at them, will not make them go away. There is only one way to reduce wait times: More outlets and more doctors and nurses. I would like to hear of any other ways to reduce wait times? The debate is how to get more outlets and doctors and nurses, so lets get on with it before any more people die needlessly waiting for life giving medical procedures.
 
Toro
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Quote:

Why must it be medicare or the American system?

Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Chapter 11 applies to discriminatory investment policies. In Chapter 11, it says that both countries must treat their national firms equally and sets the rules for equity expropriation. Canada can set the rules for how the services are disbursed. Once the product or the delivery system of the service is determined, then the government must treat firms equally. It cannot discriminate between American and Canadian firms. But the government still sets the policy.

NAFTA Chapter 11

Edit - in article 1110, it says

Quote:

Article 1110: Expropriation and Compensation

1. No Party shall directly or indirectly nationalize or
expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its
territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or
expropriation of such an investment ("expropriation"), except:

(a) for a public purpose;

(b) on a non-discriminatory basis;

...and that if equity is expropriated, there is a mechanism for determing compensation.
 
Reverend Blair
#17
We are currently seeing suits demanding the bulk export of water because we sell bottled water. We've seen Fed-Ex (or was it UPS? no matter) sue Canada Post over their rates being too low. We've seen Ethyl Corp sue the government over trying to ban MMT. They've gone after the CWB how many times now?

Do you think that they won't be suing to Americanize our health care system if we open the door a crack? Of course they will.
 
Toro
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

We are currently seeing suits demanding the bulk export of water because we sell bottled water. We've seen Fed-Ex (or was it UPS? no matter) sue Canada Post over their rates being too low. We've seen Ethyl Corp sue the government over trying to ban MMT. They've gone after the CWB how many times now?

Do you think that they won't be suing to Americanize our health care system if we open the door a crack? Of course they will.

Who won what cases? Do you have any links? I'd be interested in reading about the suits. Anyone can sue for anything.
 
Reverend Blair
#19
Ethyl Corp won, I'm not sure what happened with the Canada Post thing, and the water suits are ongoing. In the case of the water suits our argument is that it is not bulk water, therefore we have not opened bulk water up as a commodity. It's dicey at best

I have no links handy, but I'm sure you have Google.
 
Toro
#20
The Canadian government did not lose but rather withdrew its complaint

Quote:

In the Ethyl case, Canada was concerned about the health effects of MMT, a manganese-based gasoline additive also banned in California, and banned its import and transport. Ethyl produces the additive in the U.S. and processes it in Canada.
But after Ethyl Corp. filed its NAFTA complaint, the Canadian government conducted a study that determined it lacked sufficient scientific data to support its MMT ban. Rather than risk losing the case before a NAFTA tribunal, the government revoked the ban and settled with Ethyl.

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/3040_695.htm

They had to pay $13 million and reverse the ban.
 
Reverend Blair
#21
They withdrew because they were going to lose. That would have cost even more. US states have banned MMT, but Canada cannot because of NAFTA. Nice agreement.
 
mrmom2
#22
Why the hell don't the weasels in Ottawa launch a lawsuit against them You would think the case would be a slam dunk now
 
Toro
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

Why the hell don't the weasels in Ottawa launch a lawsuit against them You would think the case would be a slam dunk now

All the best lawyers are in America.
 
Reverend Blair
#24
Yup, a country full money-grubbing soul-suckers. Not something I'd be bragging about if I was you, Toro.
 
Toro
#25
Better than a country of dirt-munching granolas.
 
bluealberta
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Better than a country of dirt-munching granolas.

Or left wing manitobans............
 
Reverend Blair
#27
You should get outside of Alberta, Blue. There's a whole wide world out there. Either that or move down to Jesusland with Toro...you guys could be roomies.
 
Jay
#28
"I'm not sure what happened with the Canada Post thing"


I think you may have this one off a bit. I think it was UPS suing Feds because of their stake in Purolator.

For what ever reason the government is involved in them, and UPS thinks that’s a no-no.

I could be wrong.....
 
Toro
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

You should get outside of Alberta, Blue. There's a whole wide world out there. Either that or move down to Jesusland with Toro...you guys could be roomies.

there's lots of babes here in Florida.
 
Reverend Blair
#30
They all have guns though. Careful who you pinch.
 

Similar Threads

16
US Supreme Court moves even further right.
by Hard-Luck Henry | 3 weeks ago
103
Role of the Supreme Court of Canada
by FiveParadox | Apr 19th, 2018
2
7
U.S. Supreme Court depicts Muhammad
by I think not | Feb 8th, 2006