Green Party Calls For End To Private Health Care
Posted on Thursday, December 08 at 09:34 by Anonymous
"The Green Party is opposed to two-tier care. We're not partially opposed. We're not opposed on alternate days only or only for certain illnesses. We're opposed, point finale."
The number of private general practice clinics in Quebec has increased threefold since 2000. This proliferation has been left unabated thanks largely to a federal government that doesn't want to be seen as picking a fight with the province.
As well, the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the law banning medical insurance in the province, which was a divisive 4-3 ruling, has emboldened those who would like to see private health care in Canada. This includes American insurance companies, who see the health and well being of Canadians as an excellent business opportunity.
As the Quebec case demonstrates, the private care problem is self-perpetuating. As more physicians and nursing staff go to the private sector, the weaker the public system becomes. As private care spreads, hospital waiting times increase.
"Health care is a provincial matter, and the problem has to be dealt with at a provincial level," Mr. Harris said. As such, it would be up to the individual provinces to deal with existing private clinics. The Green Party of Canada would ensure, however, that the Canada Health Act applies to all provinces equally and is enforced. The Canadian public health care system deserves nothing less.
The Green Party of Canada is the only national party that has a plan to deal with the problem of private health care, which included urging Quebec to invoke the notwithstanding clause in the Supreme Court decision last winter. The party will issue a detailed health care plan later in the campaign.
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
When people are talking about "two-tier healthcare", what they're referring to (if they're being intellectually honest) is the *insurance* aspect. If someone can purchase healthcare services on their own through a provider (whether public or private), or purchase private insurance coverage for services covered under the public system, then you have two-tier healthcare.
But if the only authorized purchaser of basic health services is a provincial health plan, then you do not have two-tier healthcare. Every single provider of service could be run by a for-profit corporation, but as long as the only authorized purchaser is the public insurance plan, then it's single tier care, period.
You can have two-tier care with all public providers, and you can have single-tier care with all private providers. Stop mixing these two questions up.
Simply invoking the magic word "privatization" in the context of healthcare still appears to frighten Canadians. But that's only because they've been propagandized on this for years. "Americanization" is the other magic word that's used constantly in this debate to shut down reason and appeal to irrational fear.
The problem with the American system is not private providers, but private, non single-payer insurance!
Just because a hospital or clinic has shareholders doesn't mean you get inferior care. It's simply an alternative delivery model, one which should be evaluated on its merits, not on fears provoked by desperate propagandists.
---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".
-Robert Frost
You've properly described your stance as a "fear". Folks on the left in Canada are prejudiced against private enterprise in general. Some of them grudgingly accept the for-profit sector, as long as they confine themselves to serving "trivial" wants and needs (toasters, snack foods, etc.) They want to reserve "important" or "essential" goods and services for the public sector, based on the faulty belief that organizations without a profit motive are more altruistic and oriented towards serving the common good than private companies.
I used to work in the public sector. Most politicians and bureaucrats are out to serve *themselves*, and any actual help provided to members of the public is a purely accidental by-product of the self-promoting activities of these so-called "public servants".