Judicial Activism
From the title I bet you are thinking of gay marriage or abortion in the US court, but I'm not. I'm talking about this article about the Supreme court of Canada's ruling about private medical coverage. A clip:
"He [Morris Barer of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research] compared claims about the wonders of private health insurance are like zombies - impossible to kill even though disproven by research. He called the four judges who wrote the majority decision "servants of the zombie masters."
I recall a Harvard study that found Canada's system compared to the US was more effective. I have to say that to me the public seems like the best way to go. Firstly in talking about this I will say neither way is perfect both are flawed. So 'better' to me means most people benefit. If you were in a completely private system everyone would have to pay (since everyone needs medical insurance) but could be in various amounts and so the rich will have the best coverage the poor won't. As it stands with a public system no one is stopping anyone from paying for the operation out of their pocket (as Martin does) or traveling to somewhere else and paying. The only one who loses out in the public one is the middle class who could afford the insurance but not entire cost of the care. But that middle class family doesn't have to worry about losing their jobs and winding up with no medical coverage as in the US. So the lose a bit of freedom for some security and don't decrease the coverage of the poor (no one cares about the impact on the rich).
I am for increasing personal freedom, but just not at the expense of the publics freedom. Granting someone the right to defecate anywhere increases his personal rights at the expense of the publics' freedom to have sanitary public space (note the analogy with corporate pollution).
This leads to (at least) two main debates: the problem with changing the nomination process to the supreme court in Canada (which could lend to abortion, gay issue that the religious want to fight) and the private vs public debate. For simplicity of the latter lets say take it for granted that neither system encourages or discourages personal health.
"He [Morris Barer of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research] compared claims about the wonders of private health insurance are like zombies - impossible to kill even though disproven by research. He called the four judges who wrote the majority decision "servants of the zombie masters."
I recall a Harvard study that found Canada's system compared to the US was more effective. I have to say that to me the public seems like the best way to go. Firstly in talking about this I will say neither way is perfect both are flawed. So 'better' to me means most people benefit. If you were in a completely private system everyone would have to pay (since everyone needs medical insurance) but could be in various amounts and so the rich will have the best coverage the poor won't. As it stands with a public system no one is stopping anyone from paying for the operation out of their pocket (as Martin does) or traveling to somewhere else and paying. The only one who loses out in the public one is the middle class who could afford the insurance but not entire cost of the care. But that middle class family doesn't have to worry about losing their jobs and winding up with no medical coverage as in the US. So the lose a bit of freedom for some security and don't decrease the coverage of the poor (no one cares about the impact on the rich).
I am for increasing personal freedom, but just not at the expense of the publics freedom. Granting someone the right to defecate anywhere increases his personal rights at the expense of the publics' freedom to have sanitary public space (note the analogy with corporate pollution).
This leads to (at least) two main debates: the problem with changing the nomination process to the supreme court in Canada (which could lend to abortion, gay issue that the religious want to fight) and the private vs public debate. For simplicity of the latter lets say take it for granted that neither system encourages or discourages personal health.
posted by Eddie | 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home