We won't know the results of the vote until tomorrow, but the UCP is finished debating the policy to allow a two-tier health care system. Some thoughts... 1/8
We heard the usual rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom", which is all fine and good if you can afford those choices and those freedoms. Given the link between health and wealth, those who cannot afford those choices would often be those who most need health care services. 2/8
Brian Peterson says that other countries have both systems and perform well. Classic correlation/causation problem. Systems that outperform Canada do not outperform because of privatization. Evidence doesn't support that argument. Also, most of those countries spend more. 3/8
Peterson claims privatization doesn't erode public system. I don't know where he's getting his evidence from. He's wrong. A sensible opponent is skeptical and says that she would need to see evidence that privatization works and she thinks it would be more costly. Correct. 4/8
Another opponent is against it, but for completely selfish reasons. Nate Glubish says that a two-tier system would create a "ton of grief" for MLAs, given that it goes against what the party ran on. Boo hoo. 5/6
One proponent claims that Canada's system is inequitable. How on earth would allowing people to pay to jump the queue improve equity? Systems will two-tier care struggle with equity and have to regulate to protect public system (and this gov says they don't want more regs). 6/8
Dr Wong says this resolution is against Canada Health Act. Correct. He points to Cambie case but seems to misunderstand. Cambie means that laws limiting private care are legal. It doesn't mean that a government has to have those limits if they don't want. 7/8
Wong does correctly state that this would distract from gov's efforts to get more bang from buck. Someone from constituency that proposed this says that the policy was misunderstood. No clue how you can misunderstand "support the option of a privately-funded" health system. 8/8
Have to add in one more. We'll call it 8.1. MLA Garth Rowswell doesn't want to get rid of surgical caps because it would increase health spending. He slams "anti-two tier moralists" who are against privately delivered service.
I've now seen it spelled John Wong a few times, but just saw it as Huang. I found Alberta doctors with both names, so I'm not sure who it is. My apologies if I've accidentally associated you with the UCP!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Lorian Hardcastle

Lorian Hardcastle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Lorian_H

30 Sep
Contact your MLAs and people you know who are UCP members and encourage them to vote against this nonsense at the annual general meeting. The following (flawed) rationale is offered for the resolution to embrace private finance...
First, a reminder to the government that healthcare isn't merely an "expense". It is an investment in a healthy and productive workforce.
Read 12 tweets
13 Sep
Some thoughts on this article, which suggests that the ruling in the BC private health care case is inconsistent with SCC jurisprudence and thus vulnerable to appeal: nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-…
While one of the parts of BC's law was similar to that challenged in Chaoulli (ban on private insurance), the BC case addressed other rules like limits on extra billing.
There are significant differences in Quebec's 2005 health system and BC's 2020 system. For example, while judges in Chaoulli disagreed on how to assess unreasonable waits, the judge in BC relied on benchmarks that didn't exist in Quebec in 2005.
Read 7 tweets
10 Sep
A summary of and some thoughts on today's decision upholding BC's limits on private health care...
The plaintiff argued that the combination of long waits and limits on private care violated Charter. The Court found that "there is in fact expert evidence that wait times would actually increase" with privatization.
As expected, the court agreed that waits could engage the Charter-protected right to security of the person. Specifically, court noted that some patients wait longer than provincial benchmark to receive care.
Read 34 tweets
9 Sep
The decision in a BC case seeking to strike down laws limiting private health care (including private insurance and extra billing) comes out tomorrow (apparently at 1pm). The decision is a rumoured 800 pages, but I will summarize and dissect it on twitter starting at 1.
For those not familiar with the case, Brian Day, a doctor who founded a private surgical facility in BC, is arguing that the combination of 1) wait times, and 2) limits on private care (similar to those in Alberta) violate the Charter rights to life and security of the person.
The court is likely to agree that waiting for care can, in some cases, threaten a patient's life and, due to the physical/psychological effects of waiting, violate security of the person. The SCC agreed with these arguments in a 2005 Quebec case (Chaoulli).
Read 10 tweets
25 Aug
Now that we have a new Conservative Party leader, let's have a closer look at his health policy platform...
"[R]especting the fact that healthcare is a provincial responsibility" and the feds "should not be telling the provinces how to run their systems." Concern that this is code for allowing provinces to explore privatization and feds may not enforce the Canada Health Act.
"Augmenting international recruitment of healthcare workers." While Canada does need to work on recruitment, this doesn't even acknowledge the concerns with recruiting workers away from countries with fewer resources than Canada. See WHO Code of Practice: who.int/hrh/migration/…
Read 11 tweets
22 Aug
Given that several recent opinions have come under fire for the authors' affiliations and conflicts of interest, I would like to disclose my own and encourage others to do the same... calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…
My only sources of income this year have been 1) my salary at the UofC, and 2) book royalties likely totaling less than $1000. The only contact that I have ever had with any politicians of any party has been after the publication of my opinions on bill 30 and privatization....
In fact, I only moved to Alberta three years ago and published pieces that were critical of privatization well before ever coming to Alberta.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!