I Want To Donate.
Bill Murray, the Calgary chartered accountant who presently is launching a constitutional challenge to Alberta’s healthcare laws, is my hero. Is there a web site that one can donate money to his cause? Kudos also to the Calgary herald and John Carpay for the article in the Calgary Herald, March 22.
To know where justice lies on this issue, one only needs to know a few facts:
1) His orthopedic surgeon recommended this was the best procedure for him.
2) He was turned down by the Alberta Healthcare Plan based on his age.
3) The surgeon was certainly aware of his age, and, in part, recommended the procedure because of his relatively young age.
4) To carry private health insurance in Alberta is illegal.
5) The patient had to pay for and got the procedure in Montreal.
6) The Government bases their medical coverage on the availability of “relatively” scarce resources (money, so they claim).
7) All medical decisions on the government’s part are therefore suspect, not just on the basis of the lack of personal and medical knowledge of the patient, but also the fact that the government is in a conflict of interest. (Saving money in healthcare to put into education, infrastructure, etc).
8) The above scenario forces patients into the position of not being able to insure against quality of life hazardous events and life threatening events, but refuses to provid treatments recommended by a specialist physician.
9) The above scenario flies in the face of the intent of the Canada Health Act (The rich buy beneficial and necessary procedures unavailable to the majority of Canadians.
10) Constitutionally, discrimination on the bases of age is wrong. Therefore the decision as to what procedure is best is a medical one.
11) Do we want the government to dictate our medical care or do we wish this to be done by our personal physician/physicians?
What really burns my butt is that the Alberta government has the audacity to use my tax money to hire six lawyers to fight this one Albertan. Mr. Carpay states: The Alberta Government should end its legislative ban on private health insurance, rather than spending tens of thousands of our tax dollars defending against Murray’s assertion of his constitutional rights”. Amen to that; except it won’t be thousands of dollars in legal fees for six government lawyers------try MILLIONS.
To know where justice lies on this issue, one only needs to know a few facts:
1) His orthopedic surgeon recommended this was the best procedure for him.
2) He was turned down by the Alberta Healthcare Plan based on his age.
3) The surgeon was certainly aware of his age, and, in part, recommended the procedure because of his relatively young age.
4) To carry private health insurance in Alberta is illegal.
5) The patient had to pay for and got the procedure in Montreal.
6) The Government bases their medical coverage on the availability of “relatively” scarce resources (money, so they claim).
7) All medical decisions on the government’s part are therefore suspect, not just on the basis of the lack of personal and medical knowledge of the patient, but also the fact that the government is in a conflict of interest. (Saving money in healthcare to put into education, infrastructure, etc).
8) The above scenario forces patients into the position of not being able to insure against quality of life hazardous events and life threatening events, but refuses to provid treatments recommended by a specialist physician.
9) The above scenario flies in the face of the intent of the Canada Health Act (The rich buy beneficial and necessary procedures unavailable to the majority of Canadians.
10) Constitutionally, discrimination on the bases of age is wrong. Therefore the decision as to what procedure is best is a medical one.
11) Do we want the government to dictate our medical care or do we wish this to be done by our personal physician/physicians?
What really burns my butt is that the Alberta government has the audacity to use my tax money to hire six lawyers to fight this one Albertan. Mr. Carpay states: The Alberta Government should end its legislative ban on private health insurance, rather than spending tens of thousands of our tax dollars defending against Murray’s assertion of his constitutional rights”. Amen to that; except it won’t be thousands of dollars in legal fees for six government lawyers------try MILLIONS.
posted by Al | 4:00 PM
7 Comments:
Well, Al, I am going to meet the Minister the week of March 27/2007 in regard to MI issues and treatment in the community. What you have written certainly gives me something to set expectations with. Glad I have run across this blog via a search. I live a few minutes away from you.
Glad you found the blog site useful, canflightism, and good luck. Over the years I have met with three different health ministers, and two other docs and myself had a private dinner with Mr Klein when he was Premier some four years ago, all to no avail. I have always been impressed with two things when it came to my meetings with politicians:
1) As a rule they always have very good knowledge of the suject to be discussed
2) They are hugely afraid of the pro-medicare lobby groups and the MSNM.
Thanks for the comment, and good luck!
Excellent post!
Now, you'd better go have a PA examine your butt, make sure it doesn't get infected. Sounds like a pretty severe burn.
In 2003 I was near paralysis when I took the flight to freedom to have a successful surgery for a debilating spinal condition. Medical Toursim was officially declared after the reimbursement of my bill by AHC.
I completely understand what Bill would have suffered in the hands of asrrogant and foolish physicians who follow selfish law-makers.
I wish to support bill's cause.
Please contact: 403-283-4947
amelly423@gmail.com
Mrs. Aruna Thurairajan
In 2003 I was near-paralysis when I took the flight to freedom to have a successful surgery for a debilating spinal condition. Medical Tourism was officially declared after the reimbursement of my bill by AHC.
I completely understand what Bill would have suffered in the hands of arrogant and foolish physicians who follow selfish law-makers.
I wish to support Bill's cause in anyway I could to open the flood gates for others in his condition.
Pls contact me: 403-283-4947
amelly423@gmail.com
Mrs. Aruna Thurairajan
From all I've read, the Canadian national health care system does not meet citizens' needs.
I am a U.S. citizen and this country is now focusing on it's next president, 2008.
Hillary Clinton and others running for this office will push for nationol health care.
Any thoughts on why they promote this?
Thanks.
Quite simple, anon. The politicians in Canada have for many years found the CONCEPT of FREE health care an incredible vote windfall. The average Canadian (and this is probably true in the U.S. as well), finds the concept of free health care irresistable. The practicalities and the attitudes of entitlement that occur with the application of a "free" system simply seems to not register with the average voter. This is particularly true when, as is the case in Canada, the public system is a monopoly. We in Canada have thought that it would simply take time to "work out" the kinks in the system (thus the over-use of the word "innovation"). Instead, as time has gone on, we have dug ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole as our young people opt for other proffessions because the monopoly in health care won't allow them options. Last night at a staff meeting, our CEO of the Calgary Health Region stated that in other countries with parallel health care systems, physicians bolster their incomes by working in the private system. He then went on and said that we are presently in such a low manpower situation (compared to them) that he would fear any decrease in manpower to our public system that might occur with the introduction of private healthcare in Canada (from my perspective it might improve things because it would offer a presently nonexistent recruitment tool).
Hillary Clinton wishes to stick companies with 80% of the cost of health insurance. This is a blatent bribe for the average workers vote (a politician in the Turks and Caicos Islands once used the slogan "a chicken for every pot").
From my perspective, a just and compassionate society must look after the health needs of the poor (whatever definition they wish to use), the frail elderly, and the chronically ill. Covering everyone as in Canada causes an unbearable burden to the taxpayer, (or, for that matter, anyone else other than the "consumer of health care" that the government wishes to download the costs), a shortfall in providers (if a monopoly as in Canada), and is a negative incentive to people taking ownership and responsibility for their own health.
Americans had best keep in mind the saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is"!
Post a Comment
<< Home