Montreal resident George Zeliotis was so angry at waiting almost a year for a hip replacement in 1997 that he and his physician took the medicare system to court.
Zeliotis wanted the right to buy private insurance for medically necessary services so he could zip to the front of the line. The long wait for treatment violated his charter rights, he argued.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, striking down the Quebec law that bans private insurance for services covered under medicare.
But if private insurance had been available for hip replacements when Zeliotis wanted one, no one would have insured him. Insurance companies are in the business of insuring against risk, not certainty.
If you've had five car accidents, who's going to insure you? Likewise, if you're already sick, good luck trying to get private insurance.
Wendy Hope, vice-president of external relations of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, says her organization is still reviewing the high-court decision.
But she's clear on one thing: If private insurance for medically necessary services does come to pass, people on waiting lists for surgery won't be eligible.
Unfortunately, people with pre-existing illnesses wouldn't qualify for insurance, she says.
"Insurance is a product that protects against the eventuality of something happening," Hope explains. "You can't buy insurance if you're already ill."
Generally, only healthy people qualify for private insurance, she says. And if you're sick? "That's why there's public insurance," she adds.
Full article: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Jacobs_Mindelle/2005/06/14/1087235.html
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 14, 2005]
Note: http://www.edmontonsun....
Zeliotis Wouldn't Have Qualified For Private Insurance
Posted on Tuesday, June 14 at 13:43 by sthompsonContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
<br />
Now for some reading:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-24.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-24.htm</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.weighingtheevidence.ca/presentations.html">http://www.weighingtheevidence.ca/presentations.html</a> <br />
<br />
If you don't have PowerPoint, they can be viewed in the equivalent program in OpenOffice ( <a href="http://www.openoffice.org">http://www.openoffice.org</a> ).<br />
<br />
The reccommendations from Australia are particularly important.<br />
I much prefer the use of ‘subterfuge’ by way of explanation the writers spin on the medical care topic.
. W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, had this to say of irony:
Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that "more" and of the outsider's incomprehension.
In my view Zeliotis was used as a pawn. There is no irony in this situation. There is however, and backed by the article from Common Dreams indication of a corporate plot at play.
No! Strike that! Remove ‘indication of a corporate plot’ to ‘conspiracy’
It would not surprise me to discover the deciding judges are shareholders of the industry pushing to get into another lucrative market.
(It is my understanding the root word for lucrative derives from ‘Lucifer’ if so, how very fitting)
---
"I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying." O.Wilde
"But that's OK, Nor do you"-Dio
I wonder if this might be a front story though. It seems weird, but it might be true.
---
If you don't like these ideas, I've got others. --Marshall McLuhan
This Court ruling is a great day for Canadians - we finally have the chance to develop a progressive health system that actually takes care of people. Hopefully this will stop us from sliding even further down from 30th 'best' health-care system in the world.
I have relatives in the US - their healthcare is anything but "great" (and they work for a major corp)... also the canadian conservative wet dream that taxes in the states are somehow lower because of the user-pay and pay healthcare system simply are not true. In many states taxes are easily as much, if not more than here in Canada.
Finally, the notion that waiting lists are so long that people are taking up residence in waiting rooms etc. is absurd. Granted for some procedures you will have to wait a considerable time for, but so to you will in the USA - it isn't all that the cons and sellouts of this country would have you believe. For instance I saw my highly specialized dermatologist last week - i made the appointment 3 days prior...and arranged for an outpatient procedure done at a hospital the following Monday. If my US HMO was covering this, i would likely not recieve a local anaesthetic without extra charge, as well I would not only have to cover the Doctor's time but the hospital's facility charges extra where the procedure was performed....likely in excess of $2,000. My cost in canada - 0$. Now, if you can clearly point out where an average person can save say, $10,000 per year in taxes versus an average Canadian to offset the cost of basic medical procedures or the astronomically rising cost of healthcare coverage (with exclusions galore) in the USA, then please, I encourage you to post your findings. Lets not even get into catastrophic illness such as cancer or heart disease where US HMO's leave patients twisting in the wind.
The big difference is, that catastrophic or even a moderate illness or injury can bankrupt an individual for life in the United States...is that somehow superior?
---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
<br />
From the article:<br />
<br />
"Mr. Zeliotis launched the challenge after being forced to spend a year on a waiting list for a hip replacement in 1997 because he was prevented from paying to get faster service. Dr. Chaoulli has also long argued for the right to set up his own private medical business.<br />
<br />
The case has also raised concerns about the possibility that — if the Supreme Court allowed the challenge — it could open the door for a two-tiered health-care system.<br />
<br />
"Pro-medicare groups such as the Canadian Health Coalition say pressure to strike down the rules of medicare came from health-care companies that want new market opportunities.<br />
<br />
"But political figures such as Senator Michael Kirby have argued in favour of permitting a greater role for private care. Dr. Chaoulli and Mr. Zeliotis received support from for-profit clinics in the Vancouver area."<br />
<br />
<br />
In particular: <a href="http://www.healthcoalition.ca/chawal.pdf">http://www.healthcoalition.ca/chawal.pdf</a> (originally in the Toronto Star)<br />
<br />
Quotes:<br />
<br />
"Roy Romanow's 2002 royal commission into health care recommended sticking with a single tier public<br />
system. That's well-known.<br />
<br />
"But Romanow was not unique. A 2002 panel handpicked by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and headed by<br />
former Conservative finance minister Don Mazankowski also rejected the idea of a parallel, private health-care system."<br />
<br />
"The complainants, George Zeliotis and Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, were not facing medical emergencies.<br />
Chaoulli is a long-time opponent of medicare whose motives the original trial judge called questionable.<br />
Zeliotis underwent the hip surgery he required, and for which he said he waited too long, well before he<br />
filed his original lower court case eight years ago.<br />
Moreover, the judge who heard that first case ruled that the delays Zeliotis experienced in getting this<br />
surgery resulted not from any deficiencies in the Quebec medicare system but from "depression, his<br />
indecision and his complaints, which in many respects were unwarranted.""<br />
<br />
Given the legal criticisms of the Supreme Court ruling, I wonder if a full corruption investigation is not in order?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/0/62169642a714e7868525700b0057efd9?OpenDocument">http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/0/62169642a714e7868525700b0057efd9?OpenDocument</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/05/chaoulli_update.html">http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/05/chaoulli_update.html</a><br />
<br />
"I asked Chaoulli to comment on the Times' story, and he writes the following: <br />
<br />
The story is very good.<br />
<br />
What I would like people reading it to get out of it :<br />
<br />
1. It has been unfortunate that Canadian law schools have been teaching for so long, wrongly in my view, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't protect the freedom to contract, because a society without such a freedom is a Marxist society.<br />
<br />
2. It has been unfortunate that Canadian lawyers didn't challenge that teaching mentioned above, since they were scared to touch the taboo being the strong influence of the Marxist-driven labour unions in Canadian social policies, wrongly put into equation with the so-called "Canadian national identity."<br />
<br />
3. We need in Canada a parallel university system with private law schools whose teaching would not be driven by socialist professors of law.<br />
"<br />
<br />
All Canadian law schools are socialist? Our unions are Marxist? News to me.<br />
<br />
"Thanks to his victory, Chaoulli says he is ready to collaborate with Canadians and foreign investors in order to establish a truly parallel private healthcare system in Canada."<br />