... that with all those loonies, she could hire someone to tell her what to say??
I've probably mentioned the case coming before the Supreme Court of Canada in which a Quebec doctor is challenging the provincial healthcare system, specifically the prohibition on purchasing private insurance to cover the "medically necessary services" covered by the universal plan. The decision will of course affect other provincial plans with the same provisions.
The argument is that the prohibition is a violation of the Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (s. 7). If the appellants succeed in establishing that their rights have been violated, the Quebec govt. would have to show that the violation was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (s. 1, the provision that allows rights violations, e.g. the prohibition on shouting "fire" in crowded theatres, where there is a public interest that supercedes the individual's interest and cannot be protected otherwise, etc.).
The appellants lost in the Quebec Superior Court and Quebec Court of Appeal. The factums, some of which I've had an opportunity to read, are being filed in the Supreme Court. One never knows why the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal (the equivalent of "certiorari" in the US SC, for the neighbours' info) -- whether they think that a case raises important issues that they want to hear argued before deciding, or whether they think that the lower courts were right but the case raises important issues that they want to settle once and for all. ;) (I'm guessing, but if I were on the court I might sometimes want to do the latter!)
The case is
Chaoulli (who seems to be a strange kinda guy), and unfortunately it doesn't seem to have attracted much media attention in English-speaking Canada. On the SCC's site, the brief info in news releases is in French, the language in which the case was brought to the court (the decision will of course be issued in both languages). Much stuff on the net about the case is from the right-wing perspective. Ah, here's one:
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n14ja04a.htm Ottawa - The National Union of Public and General Employees has joined with the Canadian Labour Congress and six other unions in seeking to intervene in one of the most important cases on public health care ever to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
... If granted intervener status, the unions will tell the Supreme Court that Canadians should not be allowed to pay privately for publicly insured health care services.
Dr. Jacques Chaoulli and his patient, Mr.George Zeliotis, are asking Canada's highest court to overturn a Quebec Court decision that prohibited Zeliotis from paying privately for a hip replacement, arguing that the decision contravenes the right to life, liberty and security under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In essence, the Supreme Court of Canada will be ruling on whether provinces have the right to prevent doctors from selling private medical services to those who can pay for them when the publicly funded system fails to provide timely service.
This is perhaps the most significant challenge yet to the basic framework of the public medicare model. If the top court overturns the Quebec decision, the purchasing of health care services outside the public system could be established as a constitutional right, at least where access to publicly funded services is deemed not "quick enough."
(with some links)
Anyhow -- yes, bring on Belinda!
.