Posted on 06/09/2005 7:18:46 AM PDT by youngtory
Supreme Court strikes down Que. medicare laws CTV.ca News Staff
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to strike down Quebec's prohibition of using private insurance for services covered under medicare
Four of the court's seven judges decided that denying patients the right to seek private health care insurance violates the Quebec Charter of Rights.
But the court was divided on whether the Canadian Charter of Rights has been violated, so it's unclear how the ruling will affect the rest of provinces.
The case stemmed from a Quebec patients who argued that his rights were violated by long waiting lists under the current medicare system.
George Zeliotis brought his fight to the Supreme Court along with Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, a Quebec physician who says he's fed up with the current system.
They asked the court to overturn portions of the Quebec Health Insurance Act and Quebec Hospital Insurance Act that prohibit payments for medically necessary services.
Zeliotis spent more than a year in pain, waiting for a hip replacement in 1997. He finally got a new hip but says he should have had the right to pay earlier for the surgery himself, even though it's illegal to pay for health services covered by medicare.
He and Chaoulli argued that spending months waiting for surgery amounts to a violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person.
With Thursday's ruling, it appears the Supreme Court agreed with their argument.
The court could have ruled in one of three ways: allow the existing law to stand, strike it down, or require governments to provide a so-called "care guarantee" to patients on how long they have to wait for treatment in the public system.
Phillippe Trudel, who's representing Zeliotis, told Canada AM ahead of the ruling that he didn't believe that a decision in his client's favour would lead to the destruction of the public health system.
"It's important to point out that my client is in favour of a very strong public system. But what he wants is the option to go outside the public system if the waiting times are too long."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html
"In its ruling Thursday, the court said the provincial policy violates the Quebec charter. But they split 3 to 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."
What kind of ruling could say some Canadians are more equal than others>
Yes, the Canadian Supreme Court is the final appeal court for all courts in Canada, federal or provincial.
And the Quebec Charter of Rights is actually a regular statute passed by the legislature; it can be repealed or amended like any other.
Then how can a law be struck down for conflicting with it? Didn't the legislature just amend the Charter by passing this law?
I hope this helps change the course to socialist ruin but I am not so confident.
Apart from simply tossing their hands up and letting a private care system develop, there are several courses of action it would seem for the governing powers. They can throw more money at it to claim they are fixing the waiting list issue, thus eliminating the need for private care raised in this suit. This would kick the issue down the road until all the 'studies are done'. They could simply delay doing anything by calling new first minister's meetings to discuss the issue and come up with 'creative solutions'. They could accept the ruling but introduce legislation making it possible for private care but put in additional taxes and regulations to leave it all but unprofitable to actually practice privately. They could also invoke the "notwithstanding clause", although that seems unlikely.
With liberals, socialists and unions basically calling the shots in most areas of our governance, the one thing I don't expect is for them to accept this ruling quietly and allow two tier to grow in any sort of a capitalistic sense.
Can you place me on the Canada ping list. This ruling is great -I look forward to hear the discussion at my family reunion in Quebec in July. I only have one brother who practices in Quebec -the others practice in Ontario where it is illegal to do private work.
Anyhow the health care system at work: a 50 year old woman in Canada (won't say which Province) will be dead in three months because her doctor did not do an x-ray when she had pneumonia last fall (she is a smoker). Her lung cancer progressed too much since then. She is a very wealthy woman who goes to one of these clinic for the poor (what is that in Canada since there is socialized medicine) -not sure what her reason was. They have waiting lists for x-rays I gather and are so overwhelmed that they did'nt bother. Really sad.
Sure, if they can afford it, like he can. He's a hypocrite. Read the quote again - - he is "in favour of a very strong public system". That means he likes socialism as long as he (and other elitists with money) can opt out.
I am not arguing that the ruling is a bad thing - - I believe quite the opposite. I just find it ironic that this clown thinks that socialism, ie., socialized medicine, is good - - for other people. If he had any guts he would say that socialized medicine is an expensive, unworkable nightmare which should be discarded.
Gee, what a great guy. No doubt he also votes for more big-government confiscation of his neighbors' money in order to "help everyone else".
Ping to Gmmac who keeps a duplicate list.
As opposed to his own?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Excellent post. A major victory for freedom in Canada, a nation with weak civil liberties in many ways.
That's a good thing, right? Doesn't civilized Canada want to unload Quebec anyway?
Then how can a law be struck down for conflicting with it? Didn't the legislature just amend the Charter by passing this law?
The law has a clause that says the Quebec Charter has precedence over another act (even those passed after it), unless that act "expressly states that it applies despite the Charter." See section 52 of the act.
In other words, you these have rights unless we say you don't.
And a similar clause exists in the Canadian Charter of Rights (which is part of the constitution), known as the notwithstanding clause (ie, section 33). The Quebec charter came first, so I guess it was an inspiration for it
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.