The editorial in the June 18, 2005 issue of The Globe and Mail was headed "The Court's arrogant judgment on medicare." The opening paragraph read "The Supreme Court of Canada's medicare ruling last week is a landmark in this country's legal history. It may be the most blatantly political ruling in the post-1982 constitutional era. The court has said, in effect, that it reserves the right to reject the nation's social policies if they are taken on the basis of emotion or 'sociopolitical philosophy'."

What the Supreme Court did was to strike down sections of the Quebec Hospital Insurance Act that prevented people from buying health insurance for procedures covered by medicare. It ruled that Quebec's ban on private insurance for insured health services violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Council of Canadians in their Autumn 2005 publication Canadian Perspectives lists ten things that readers should know about the Supreme Court decision:

1. The ruling has served as a rallying cry for pro- privatization forces.
2. A two-tier health care system would not reduce waiting times.
3. A private system would not cover most procedures.
4. A for-profit system does not save money or improve the quality of health care.
5. There are better ways to reduce waiting lists and improve the Canadian health care system.
6. The Supreme Court did not challenge the validity of the Canada Health Act.
7. Provinces can maintain a single-tier health care system.
8. Canadians do not have the right to purchase health care services outside the public system. next column >>>

ARTA © 2005

 

9. The decision might lead to court challenges in other provinces
10. It is time to stand up for Canada's public health care system.

Seniors' Care in Alberta

The report of the MLA task force on long-term care facilities does not, according to Graham Thomson of the Edmonton Journal, "reflect the high level of passion felt around the province on the plight of our elderly." You may remember that when the task force was formed, Ray Prins, the MLA for Ponoka-Lacombe and chair of the Seniors' Advisory Council, said that he would give the seniors' care system an "A-plus rating." Obviously he changed his mind somewhat during the consultations across the province. The recommendations suggest a further $250 million a year be spent on more staff and more training. The current situation is a problem, Thomson suggests "that the government created . . . in the first place by cutting funding a decade ago. We're now having to play catch-up." Perhaps it is another example of not maintaining the property because we are too busy paying off the mortgage!!

Senior-bashing

On June 21, 2005, the Fraser Institute released a publication by Brett J. Skinner entitled Drug Benefits for Seniors: Unnecessary, Unsustainable, and Unfair. On the release of the 'study,' Skinner stated that "it might only be a matter of time before a US-style scheme is promoted for the federal level in Canada. Therefore, it is worth warning now that special universal public drug benefits for seniors are unnecessary, unfair to the rest of the population, and are not financially sustainable in the long run."
Throughout his 'study,' Skinner "repeatedly identifies the seniors as being recipients of "unnecessary, inefficient and unfair" benefits that are not available to other groups. He claims that the seniors' drug benefit "represents a government-imposed intergenerational transfer of wealth that will make the younger population worse off."