Posted on 06/13/2005 1:27:39 PM PDT by GMMAC
CALGARY SUN
Mon, June 13, 2005
Martin in the muddle
PM at a loss after court's health-care decision
By Ezra Levant
Of all the responses to the Supreme Court's decision on Medicare, the most puzzling came from Prime Minister Paul Martin.
"We're not going to have a two-tier health-care system in this country," he said.
The court ruled medicare, by banning private health insurance for essential medical procedures, violates Canadians' rights because it forces patients to wait in dangerously long lines in a broken-down government-run system.
One could cheer that decision as a victory for personal and economic freedom -- granting people the same rights to get medical insurance that our pets have long had.
Or one could jeer that decision, as many health-care unions did, because their monopoly has been smashed, and now they'll have to compete with the entrepreneurial sector.
But what on Earth did the PM's statement mean? Did it possibly mean he thought that, before this court decision, Canada did not have a two-tier system? But Canada has had a multi-tiered system and Martin and other top Liberals have long been part of it.
The most obvious proof is different provinces in Canada cover different procedures under medicare. From that point of view, there are 10 tiers.
And, even if a province's medicare plan covers a procedure, the waiting time varies from province to province -- indeed from city to city. The Fraser Institute has tracked those waiting lists, including the amount of time it takes to go from a general practitioner to a specialist, to actually getting a particular surgery. Some wait lists vary by more than a year from province to province, depending on the procedure.
Then there are grey areas, usually involving government patients. For example, in certain provinces, Workers' Compensation Boards pay doctors more for procedures the sooner they provide them. This preferential treatment is also afforded to prisoners, too.
There are corporate health plans that cover key officers -- including some that promise to whisk patients across the border for quick treatment.
Then there are Canadians who on their own choose to pay for U.S. treatment -- like former prime minister Jean Chretien, who sent his own family to the Mayo Clinic for treatment (on a government jet). So that's another tier.
And Martin's own doctor, Sheldon Elman, is the president of Medisys, one of the largest private clinics in the country.
So what did Martin mean when he said "we're not going to have a two-tier health-care system in this country?"
It would have been an absurd statement the day before the Supreme Court decision. But after the decision -- when the court gave its blessing to existing tiers, and also permitted them in core, publicly insured procedures -- the statement was utterly incomprehensible.
But that is the point. And that's enough for Martin. He didn't have anything to say, so he simply grabbed his old Liberal medicare mantra, used to attack conservatives and premiers for years.
He can't appeal the decision -- the Supreme Court is the highest court. He doesn't dare use the notwithstanding clause he has vilified to ignore the court. He doesn't dare punish provinces that allow private health care. He has no better ideas.
Medicare has been crumbling for decades and everyone knows it. Different tiers have been sprouting up all over the place, and everyone knows it.
Finally the court said what everyone knew all along, and what millions of Canadians have not only accepted but used themselves -- including Chretien and Martin.
So why should the Liberals have a more coherent statement this week?
Email: ezra@ezralevant.com
Letters to the editor should be sent to: callet@calgarysun.com
Home Page
Pop quiz: name the only 3 countries in the world who criminalize people who seek private health care...
They are Cuba, North Korea, and my blessed homeland, Canada.
"This preferential treatment is also afforded to prisoners, too."
Is this true? Are there any Canadian friends out there who can confirm that prisoners receive preference over law-abiding citizens?
It seems to defy all common-sense.
There is SOME private health care in Canada...supplemental insurance does exist, but not nearly enough.
LOL!!! Oh so true. I guess the politicians are just taking care of their own, so to speak.
Wow, I can't believe nore Canadians aren't up in arms about this (First time I've heard of it). I guess it shows where the taxpayers stand in the eyes of the socialists.
IIRC, Hillary's healthcare plan would have closed a number of medical schools to prevent too many doctors and would also assign quotas to how many of each discipline were allowed, i.e., so many GPs, so many OB?GYN, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.