Health care not a right: Supreme Court

[Cowperson]

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.

Agree? Disagree?

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...d1-53c587e810b9

Cowperson

[Fire]

I agree it's not a right. I hope this helps Canada turn into a more efficient public & private health care system.

[Mike F]

I haven't read the decision yet, but, given that a right to health care isn't in the Constitution, I would find it ironic if there was a big backlash over this when so many people have criticized the Court for being too activist.

[Claeren]

Did they not affirm that while there is a right to direct care there is just no right to support services?

Big difference... no?

Claeren.

[moon]

Of there is no right to health care.

It is a privelege that you get when you live in a society such as Canada, no way is it a right.

[BlackArcher101]

Health Care IS a right, but being reimbursed for it is not. That's what the article is about. I saw this on the news last night, and the parents wanted the province to fully pay for their childrens therapy, of which they don't need to survive. Of course the province won't agree to that.
If they manage to get them to pay, then perhaps there's hope for a hair restoration treatment.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by BlackArcher101@Nov 20 2004, 03:55 PM
Health Care IS a right, but being reimbursed for it is not. That's what the article is about. I saw this on the news last night, and the parents wanted the province to fully pay for their childrens therapy, of which they don't need to survive. Of course the province won't agree to that.
I want the province of Alberta to pay for a hair restoration treatment, so I don't live a marginal life.

If you're going to compare your hair restoration treatment to a young child's treatment for autism I'd suggest putting on some flame-######ent undergarments, because that's just ridiculous.

[Cheese]

Personally I think it "should" be the right of every person in the world to have free access to all medical help needed to live as full a life as possible.
No our Government has not passed any law decreeing this. shame shame! :crap:

[peter12]

Originally posted by GerryCheevers@Nov 20 2004, 08:14 PM
Personally I think it "should" be the right of every person in the world to have free access to all medical help needed to live as full a life as possible.
No our Government has not passed any law decreeing this. shame shame! :crap:

Totally agreed, it should be the one facet of the welfare state that should be fully taken care of for people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by BlackArcher101@Nov 20 2004, 04:55 PM
Health Care IS a right, but being reimbursed for it is not. That's what the article is about. I saw this on the news last night, and the parents wanted the province to fully pay for their childrens therapy, of which they don't need to survive. Of course the province won't agree to that.
I want the province of Alberta to pay for a hair restoration treatment, so I don't live a marginal life.

Larf. Good one.

[Cain]

Have to agree that comparing hair restoration to treating autism is ...unbelievable...

My sister works with autistic kids as a full time job, and its heartbreaking the amount of money some families have to put into trying to give their kids what is best.

What a joke to compare that to a vain medical operation.

[BlackArcher101]

Woah, guess I should have included the winking smilie. I was giving the governments viewpoint of it. If it isn't needed to survive, they won't fully reimburse.

I do realize hair restoration does not even come close to autism. That's like saying me having the flu is worse than someone with aids. I'll try to reword it a bit better.