"Requiring patients to pay up front, and having them seek reimbursement from the covering province or territory, still satisfies the portability criterion of the act, as long as access to a medically necessary insured service is not denied due to the patient's inability to pay," said Tim Vail, speaking for Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq in a Globe and Mail article about the unequal application of the Canada Health Act between provinces, in this case Quebec and Ontario.
The story in the Globe begins by mentioning that the Act, as it is presently, is only 26 years old - and it is - but you can't help but wonder given the direction of the rest of the Globe's coverage this week of Canada's health system if the idea here is that 'it's not that old'. That it's not so intractable that it can't be changed, scrapped for something different. What private advocates don't bring up is what it was like for a majority of Canadians prior to the introduction of universal health care - the farmer on the prairies, the dockworker in Halifax, the trapper in Yellowknife, the schoolteacher in Toronto.
Now the focus seems to be of time pressed Canadian professionals who need orthoscopic surgeries and want to speed up delivery (an understandable and universal feeling) and have the money to pay for it. Not the situation that led to the introduction of universal health care for Canadians or the situation that persists still for the majority. Allowing two-tier healthcare for those who can afford to pay will enshrine a two-tier society where there will be those who can afford to be healthy and those who can't.
What doesn't get communicated is that two-tier users and practitioners continue to draw on public resources while benefitting from their ability to pay for upscale service. Though not at all apparent in the soft toned feature of B.C. private clinic operator Dr. Brian Day in the Globe this week, Dr. Day is clear in a recent story in the Tyee how he double-bills his patients for the surgeries he offers. First Day's Cambie Surgical Centre bills the patient and then the province for the same procedure. The private U.S. health providers - as well as those homegrown - lining up to offer services to Canadians do so expecting the public system to pay. Remove the public purse and their bottom line suffers.
Implicit in the Globe series - and in much of the arguments made by two-tier advocates - is the idea that somehow private care is different, as if a diagnosis from a doctor paid out of pocket has access to greater insight, better skills and unique medical knowledge not possible from a medically trained professional working within the public health system. It's a subtle argument employed by public relations specialists meant to shift public opinion imperceptibly to a certain point-of-view, in this case that private care is better and more efficient, and the Globe with this series has bought right into it.
The story in the Globe begins by mentioning that the Act, as it is presently, is only 26 years old - and it is - but you can't help but wonder given the direction of the rest of the Globe's coverage this week of Canada's health system if the idea here is that 'it's not that old'. That it's not so intractable that it can't be changed, scrapped for something different. What private advocates don't bring up is what it was like for a majority of Canadians prior to the introduction of universal health care - the farmer on the prairies, the dockworker in Halifax, the trapper in Yellowknife, the schoolteacher in Toronto.
Now the focus seems to be of time pressed Canadian professionals who need orthoscopic surgeries and want to speed up delivery (an understandable and universal feeling) and have the money to pay for it. Not the situation that led to the introduction of universal health care for Canadians or the situation that persists still for the majority. Allowing two-tier healthcare for those who can afford to pay will enshrine a two-tier society where there will be those who can afford to be healthy and those who can't.
What doesn't get communicated is that two-tier users and practitioners continue to draw on public resources while benefitting from their ability to pay for upscale service. Though not at all apparent in the soft toned feature of B.C. private clinic operator Dr. Brian Day in the Globe this week, Dr. Day is clear in a recent story in the Tyee how he double-bills his patients for the surgeries he offers. First Day's Cambie Surgical Centre bills the patient and then the province for the same procedure. The private U.S. health providers - as well as those homegrown - lining up to offer services to Canadians do so expecting the public system to pay. Remove the public purse and their bottom line suffers.
Implicit in the Globe series - and in much of the arguments made by two-tier advocates - is the idea that somehow private care is different, as if a diagnosis from a doctor paid out of pocket has access to greater insight, better skills and unique medical knowledge not possible from a medically trained professional working within the public health system. It's a subtle argument employed by public relations specialists meant to shift public opinion imperceptibly to a certain point-of-view, in this case that private care is better and more efficient, and the Globe with this series has bought right into it.
