Top court: health care not a right (Canada)

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=c1553449-c345-4f0c-94d1-53c587e810b9 ^

[politicalvanguard.com]

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to elevate health funding to a constitutional right in a ruling that was a stunning setback for families of autistic children asking the state to pay for expensive treatment.

The unanimous and unequivocal decision overturned two British Columbia court rulings that found the provincial government violated the Charter of Rights equality guarantees for the disabled.

Yesterday's decision will have an impact across Canada, hindering lawsuits in which parents in several provinces are seeking court orders forcing governments to pay for early intervention therapy that costs up to $60,000 per year per child.

The case was considered one of the most significant social policy issues to reach the high court in years. All 10 provinces and Ottawa intervened to warn the judges that governments would need unlimited budgets if health care were to become all things to all people.

Constitutional expert Jamie Cameron said that it would have been difficult for the court to carve out an exception for autistic children without exposing the stretched health system to a flood of lawsuits on behalf of people seeking coverage for other disabilities.

"The court has shown appropriate institutional caution here in resisting the invitation to constitutionalize the health-care system," said Mr. Cameron, a law professor at York University in Toronto. "Once the precedent is created, it would encourage other claims."

[politicalvanguard.com]

Appears to be a logical restraint that must be applied in America.

[1stFreedom]

Health care funding is not a right.

Health care, however, is. It may not be an enumerated right, but it's a right inherint in the natural law.

[BigRedState]

LOL thats great.... This can open up major doors so that Canada gets away from Socialized Meds.

[proxy_user]

The major door it opens is this: if the government does not pay for certain medical care, how can they justify not allowing individuals to pay for it?

[paudio]

Health care funding is not a right. Health care, however, is. It may not be an enumerated right, but it's a right inherint in the natural law.

If health care is a right, then somebody has to pay for it. Who? If the family and relatives are poor, then, it must be the government. Is that right?

[1stFreedom]

>>If health care is a right, then somebody has to pay for it. Who?

First of all, the person is responsible. Costs should be scaled down to what they can afford.

If they can't pay, then yes, the hospital, govt, us, must pick up the tab.

And since the govt has the power to tax, it is right to tax all of us to do so.

[trebb]

While the restraint has to be there, you have to realize that the Kerry folks (like Hillary) were touting health care as a right, which is how something like that is always presented to the public when Uncle Sugar wants to take us to the cleaners and put us further under his thumb. Then, when Uncle Sugar finds it inconvenient or discovers that the program is just plain too expensive to operate as touted, the "right" becomes a "privilege" once again and the people are doubly screwed. Look at how the military got treated. We were promised "free health-care" for ourselves and our spouses for as long as we lived if we would only give our country 20 years of our lives. I now pay for my health insurance because the Congress decided that promises don't equate to rights. All the socialized-medicine countries have taken their citizens to the cleaners and now let a sh*tload of them die each year for no other reason that they can't keep the original promises.

[Uncledave]

Blue state emigrees better get their check-ups before heading north.

BTTT.

[Bob Mc]

Isn't communism wonderful?

Everyone has a right to free health care, up until the point the government decides you aren't worth the expense any more.

In other words, you are not a free person, you exist only as long as it benefits the state, you are a slave.

Poor Canadians.

[VeritatisSplendor]

You can't detect autistic children in the womb, but it sends a pretty strong message to any parents expecting a child with disabilities.

Mrs VS

[Doe Eyes]

Suppose a drunk, homeless man, illegally crossing a highway is struck by a car. His life can be saved by minor surgery, basically just stitching him up.

Should our "socialist" medical system fix him, or let him die?

[Max Combined]

Balderdash

[litany_of_lies]

Indeed.

It is such a mistake to do as Canada has done, namely to give government the control over this all-important aspect of people's lives.

Like many other liberal failures "universal access" to "free health care" eventually results in neither. It is not free, as the pressure to raise taxes and cut spending is unceasing. And as those with autistic children have learned, it's not universal either.

It inexorably leads to first the government deciding who does and doesn't get treated, and ultimately to deciding who shall live and die. Say goodbye to heroic treatment of premature babies and seniors with plenty of life left in them (too expensive), say hello to quiet infanticide and euthanasia.

[OregonRancher]

"First of all, the person is responsible. Costs should be scaled down to what they can afford."

WHY? If they can't pay, the don't get help

"If they can't pay, then yes, the hospital, govt, us, must pick up the tab."

AGAIN, WHY? I'll take care of mine, not yours

"And since the govt has the power to tax, it is right to tax all of us to do so. "

Power does not make it a right....

This is where it's going...you either take care of yourself or you won't get the meds. Period.

[Yardstick]

It may not be an enumerated right, but it's a right inherint in the natural law.

My impression is that the Founders conceived of rights in a negative sense rather than a positive sense, as you seem to. In other words, if a right for one individual places a positive obligation upon a second individual in order for that right to be fulfilled (there's probably a better word than fulfilled), then it's not really a right. For instance, Thomas Jefferson recognized a right to pursue happiness, but not a right to happiness outright. Jefferson was very careful to state it this way in order to be consistent with the Founders' understanding of natural law.

Are you reasoning from an understanding of natural law that's different from the Founders, or have I misunderstood their understanding of natural law?

To me, there is definitely a *moral* obligation to provide healthcare to the desperate, but not a legal one.

[-=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-]

so what should we do if the poor can't pay? This is a tough one for me b/c i believe in limited government.

[FITZ]

First of all, the person is responsible. Costs should be scaled down to what they can afford. If they can't pay, then yes, the hospital, govt, us, must pick up the tab.

But that's exactly what's got us to where we are today --- right on the verge of the complete takeover of the health care industry by government. Rationing is coming.

[FITZ]

Suppose a drunk, homeless man, illegally crossing a highway is struck by a car. His life can be saved by minor surgery, basically just stitching him up. Should our "socialist" medical system fix him, or let him die?

If he's got money to drink then he has money that could go to pay for his own minor surgery instead. However --- he would then have to choose whether he wants that next bottle of whisky or the minor surgery more --- and likely he will choose the whiskey.

[stopem]

Hopefully they wont cross the borders and our government get stuck with the bill.

The states are paying, its called medicaid.
There are people coming in from other countries to get Medicaid. AND they get it. There is a certain group who gets medicaid and than ride around in their new pickups and SUV's.

One time my husband and I volunteered at a Christian charity and to see what this specific group received that was placed in their shiny new SUV's while my husband and I arrived in our 3 year old car,was unbelivable, they know how to play the system, they go on welfare, get food stamps, get their electric bills paid for and than they are allowed to go to charities and get even more because they are already in the system.

They are healthy young people yet they are totally cared for by the system that is so screwed, their healthcare their bills their food all supplied by you and me so they can afford their brand new pickups with the loudest CD system blaring away.

So who really has healthcare as a right? Not me.

[FITZ]

If someone wants health care then they should contribute to a health insurance plan. Many health care needs can be paid with cash saved up or a small loan.