Talk:Two-tier health care

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Two-tier health care article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 I 2 Supreme Court of Canada decision on Quebec 3 Need help removing POV statement 4 Updating Ideas 5 Canada ban on private practise for care covered by medicare

[edit] I

I am removing the Left Wing bias on this article and will attempt to make a fair article. It's embarrassing.

[edit] Supreme Court of Canada decision on Quebec

Now that the Supreme Court has found that Quebec's ban on two-tier health care goes against the Quebec Bill of Rights, and thus invalidated Quebec's ban on private health insurance covering primary care, I have added it to the article. I certainly hope no one edits it out of the article even though it is a stated and documented fact, especially for political reasons. Socialism and Marxism has its own articles if you care to further your beliefs using Wikipedia.

Well, anonymous poster, I'm a socialist but I wish you'd put in more about it. One of the problems with the current debate about health care in Canada is that reality is ignored in favour of reiteration of questionable doctrinal beliefs. After which more money is thrown at the health care system without getting any assurance it will be spent sensibly.

The real problem in Canada is that the citizenry, left or right or centre, doesn't want to think about facts but prefers to lecture other people about how immoral they are. That seems to be the NDP position, for example, and Roy Romanow's (you may be interested in this socialist commentary about the Romanow report which elaborates on this idea). John FitzGerald 13:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help removing POV statement

This sentence is found near the end of the article: In any case, because of these issues, the Canadian people are overwhelmingly opposed to the notion of two-tier health care because this would promote social inequality. "Overwhelmingly" reads as POV. How do we know it is "overwhelmingly" and not "most" or "many"? Also, how do we know those who opposed to "the notion" do so for the reason stated above? If there are so many opposed to it, isn't it possible that some of them do so for other reasons? AED 3 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

Agreed, I have rewritten that section to state that Canadians are "largely opposed" to it, and gave the Canadian Alliance's forceful denials of supporting the idea as evidence. - SimonP July 3, 2005 11:34 (UTC)

Good work. It does read much better now. AED 3 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

I do recall having once read a poll suggesting that, in fact, (slightly) more than 50% of Canadians were in favour of some variety of private health care, with the surprising fact that the lowest proportion of support occured in Alberta (at something like 52%?). However I have no citation nor recollection of who did it or when it was done and as such will be making absolutely no changes until I can prove anything. David Corbett 15:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating Ideas

It would be really useful if the page could have more about Europe, ie, France, Germane, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Because I remember seeing a report on Global BC a couple or so, years back about how "incredible" their public-privet health systems are, or something like that. If somebody could do some fact finding, maybe the article could be even better. Windscar77 06:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada ban on private practise for care covered by medicare

The section seems POV because is gives the arguments for a change in the rules but does not give the arguments against a change. I remember in the UK many years ago, when there were NHS waiting lists, NHS patients would sometimes be told that their surgery was non-urgent and that their turn an the NHS list would not come around until, say, 8 months time. But then be told in the same breath that they could be treated (often by the same surgeon and even in the same hospital) the following week if he or she opted to pay for private care. This form of queue jumping based on wealth seemed inequitable to many people and against the principle of equal access embodied by the NHS. The waiting lists have largely gone away but the NHS still allows private care in its hospitals and the practice was never abolished. I guess the Canadian rule prevents inequity of this kind. But its just my guess. Can someone with greater knowledge of the Canadian Medicare history balance this section up with an explanation of why the present rule is in place and what arguments are put up against a change in the status quo?--Tom 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)