US "investor" seeks NAFTA challenge against Canadian Health Care
Thu, 2008-09-18 07:07
#1
Frustrated Mess
US "investor" seeks NAFTA challenge against Canadian Health Care
Thu, 2008-09-18 07:07
#2
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Conservative—have long insisted that Canadian trade negotiators succeeded in "grandfathering" medicare under the North American Free Trade Agreement. In other words, our health care system—at least as it stood in 1994 when the NAFTA came into force—is beyond the reach of foreign insurance companies and HMOs seeking to re-model it after the U.S. system.What's less clear, however, is whether the ongoing flirtation by various provinces with greater private financing and delivery of certain forms of health care is slowly eroding Canada's legal defences.
At least one American citizen is keen to find out.
In mid-July, Melvin J. Howard, an Arizona businessman, filed legal papers that have set in motion a process that could lead to formal arbitration against Canada under provisions of the NAFTA that permit foreign investors to sue governments for certain investment losses.
[url=http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/se... the news far and wide[/url]
Thu, 2008-09-18 07:17
#3
quote:
Concerns have long been raised that the NAFTA's "expropriation" provisions might prevent governments from bringing private sectors of the economy into the public fold. For example, Liberal proposals for a national Pharmacare plan raised questions as to whether such a public scheme might encroach upon—or, in NAFTA terms, expropriate—the turf of private insurers. If that were the case, Ottawa might need to compensate any U.S. investors who lost their business-line at the hands of the government.
A few years ago, lawyers working for the Romanow Commission warned that if Canada had been bound by NAFTA-type obligations in the 1960s, we might never have seen our single-payer government health insurance scheme brought into being. Quite simply, the price of paying off all of the private insurance operators might have been too high and the government would not have introduced a single-payer system.
Thu, 2008-09-18 09:55
#4
I wish medicare would work for me. I have serious health problems and I am continually sloughed off, delayed, and subjected to triage medicine. Perhaps if I die, it will cost the medicare less money.
Thu, 2008-09-18 10:02
#5
So, do all the "Investor-state Chapter 11 is really innocuous and non-scary!" folks still believe SHAFTA is in the best interest of Canadians? If Obama-Biden are serious about killing NAFTA when they get in, and Jack Layton holds the balance of power, we may just see some srs bsns going on. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-09-18 14:31
#6
Well, it's hardly a surprise that the "Free Trade" deal reached by Mulroney runs contrary to the interests of this Nation, for the purpose of promoting the interests of a foreign nation.
Simply put, Free Trade is treason.
Thu, 2008-09-18 14:50
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle John:
[b]I wish medicare would work for me. I have serious health problems and I am continually sloughed off, delayed, and subjected to triage medicine. Perhaps if I die, it will cost the medicare less money.[/b]
Then you need to vote against the parties that slashed transfer payments to the provinces and MADE medicare treat you like that.
None of the problems you complain about would go away if you had to pay out of pocket for healthcare, like in the States.
Thu, 2008-09-18 14:59
#8
I think the events of the last couple of days ought to make us think twice about anything an investor has to say.
Thu, 2008-09-18 15:13
#9
See, that's the problem with tapeworms. They just have to rebrand themselves with another name. Like speculators in human misery have rebranded themselves as "investors".
Thu, 2008-09-18 16:42
#10
Yeah, "investors;" the people responsible for "development," otherwise known as the destruction of the countryside and the waste of arable land.
Fri, 2008-09-19 07:14
#11
I challenge anyone to deny this is yet another shakedown operation like the one UPS tried on Canada earlier and which Metalclad successfully did to the citizens of a Mexican city.
Fri, 2008-09-19 08:24
#12
Standard political answer to my problem.
FUCKING BULLSHIT!
So voting for some party that has this or that policy for or against medicare is going to do exactly WHAT for the healthcare needs that I have NOW? Seems like we like to brag about our 'nation-defining' medicare that makes us 'different from the States' but we vote for parties that refuse to fund it. I think Canadians are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and then go around in extreme smugness about how much 'better' and 'more compassionate' they are than everyone else.
Seeing as the rest of Canada does not seem to give a flying fuck about my health care needs, why the fuck should I give a fuck about Canadian concepts of 'compassion' or 'moral superiority'? Assholes won't even let me BUY healthcare if I could AFFORD it.
So under a private system I wouldn't get healthcare because I have NO MONEY and under the public system I get NO HEALTH CARE.
WHAT'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE?
Fri, 2008-09-19 09:31
#13
quote:
I think Canadians are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and then go around in extreme smugness about how much 'better' and 'more compassionate' they are than everyone else.
Sadly, Uncle John, you are not far wrong in your observation. Further evidence: we only see what you see when we're in crisis.
When we saw the fishery colapse, we in manufacturing were sympathetic, but mostly had a "what can you do" attitude. Now the fishing boot is on the other foot, and it's rather tight fitting and smelly even for us factory workers.
Of course, those out in Oilberta might wonder what all the fuss is about, but their epiphany is coming sooner rather than late, me thinks.
So too are the epiphanies of those who have willfully blinded themselves to the fact that the collapse of the manufacturing sector will mean less money available for, oh, lets say, research grants.
Trickle up economics.
Where you might find a "we're all in this together, brother," attitude today though is on Bay Street, where the cry for human kindness and generosity will surely not go unanswered when the payments on the second Lexus make it impossible for some to pay the green fees.
Fri, 2008-09-19 10:04
#14
We are all still breathing MMT gasoline additive thanks to this kind of lawsuit.
Fri, 2008-09-19 10:08
#15
Frustrated Mess
I agree with Tommy. Canadians only care about health care when they're sick. The result is that while Canadians rate health care as an important concern, they routinely elect governments, provincial and federal, that undercut and underfund the public model. More than that the dollars tend to flow into bricks and mortar rather than care and people.
Fri, 2008-09-19 10:34
#16
I've recently had experience with both the Canadian and American systems. Don't get me wrong, I support our system and abhor the American model.
BUT
Americans get treated better by the health care providers in the hospitals. Even the ones on medicare.
I think it has to do with the idea that health care providers and patients here think of it as "free" and as such, beggars can't be choosers.
Thing is, our health care isn't "free". We do pay for it. And health care providers should see patients as customers, and patients should also act like customers.
We'd get treated better.
Fri, 2008-09-19 20:49
#17
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]I've recently had experience with both the Canadian and American systems. Don't get me wrong, I support our system and abhor the American model.BUT
Americans get treated better by the health care providers in the hospitals. Even the ones on medicare.
I think it has to do with the idea that health care providers and patients here think of it as "free" and as such, beggars can't be choosers.
Thing is, our health care isn't "free". We do pay for it. And health care providers should see patients as customers, and patients should also act like customers.
We'd get treated better.[/b]
Since when did people paid and controlled by the government treated people as customers? Nuisances? Yes. Customers? No.
Fri, 2008-09-19 21:46
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b] More than that the dollars tend to flow into bricks and mortar rather than care and people.[/b]
And not even. Mike Harris' P3's were intended to introduce privatization in hospitals. The idea was rejected by a number of municipal plebiscites from Germany to Netherlands and across Canada. McGuinty then tries "AFP"s, an alternative backdoor privatization scheme. It's really crappy so far with cost overruns rampant and Ontarians shorted on estimated additional bed spaces. We'll be sorry. We'll pay a lot more and receive a lot less. Fiscal Frankenstein old line parties are bad for health care and just about everything else.
Short of family physicians in your region? Foreign trained doctors new to Canada need hospital practicums and actual hospitals to do them in. It's another roadblock to better care. They shouldn't be trusted to run a lemonade stand.
[ 19 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Fri, 2008-09-19 21:47
#19
I get paid by the government, Sven.
Why don't you kiss my [passage deleted by moderators]?
[19 September 2008: Message edited by: the all- seeing, all-knowing babble moderating team]
Fri, 2008-09-19 21:54
#20
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[b]I get paid by the government, Sven.[/b]
Are you saying you're an exception to the rule? Then good for you. Congratulations.
The problem with being required to deal with the government (as opposed to dealing with one of many, many private alternatives) is that you have no choice. If you get shitty government service, lump it.
If I get shitty service from a business, I simply go to another business that treats me well.
Fri, 2008-09-19 22:18
#21
Frustrated Mess
quote:
If I get shitty service from a business, I simply go to another business that treats me well.
Oh, bullshit, Sven.
First, we go to doctors and hospitals and deal with them - not the government. Second, when you have no health insurance, like 20 per cent of the US population, there is no "another business" to serve you. Third, health care like most other industries in the US is now controlled by conglomerates with the same standards, practices, and costs. So, for all intents and purposes, one company is the same as the next and you can't vote out a company's executive.
I mean, gee, Sven, watching the US news, the foreclosures, the tent cities, the bank failures, the trillion it has just cost US taxpayers to buy bad mortgage debts (suckers!), yeah, you're right -- business management is [i]waaaaay[/i] better than government.
And you trust them with your health, eh?
quote:
Total health spending accounted for 15% of GDP in the United States in 2003, the highest share in the OECD and more than six percentage points higher than the average of 8.6% in OECD countries. By comparison, Switzerland and Germany allocated 11 and 11.5% of their GDP to health, respectively, and Canada and France about 10%.
The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 5,635 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD average of 2,307 USD in 2003....
Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countries. In 2002, the United States had 2.3 practising physicians per 1 000 population, below the OECD average of 2.9. There were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2002, which is slightly lower than the
average of 8.2 across OECD countries....
Most OECD countries have enjoyed large gains in life expectancy over the past 40 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth increased by 7.3 years between 1960 and 2002, which is less than the increase of 14 years in life expectancy in Japan, or of 8.4 years in Canada. In 2002/3, life expectancy in the United States stood at 77.2 years, below the OECD average of 77.8 years. Japan, Iceland, Spain, Switzerland and Australia were among the top 5 countries registering the highest life expectancy among OECD countries
[url=http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:IUoxYIrcW5AJ:www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1... woudn't.[/url]
You know what's weird about the US, Sven? Outside of theocracies, it stands alone as a nation afraid of knowledge as so many myths are protected by a shroud of ignorance.
[ 19 September 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Fri, 2008-09-19 22:34
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]If I get shitty service from a business, I simply go to another business that treats me well.[/b]
Jeez, Sven, that's not always the case in America according to [url=http://www.pituitary.org/news/hmo_horror_stories.aspx]this[/url]:
quote:
An 88-year-old Sacramento, California,woman developed kidney failure. The drugs and dietary therapy recommended by her HMO doctor proved ineffective. She needed dialysis.Her doctor believed that dialysis might extend her life. He also knew that dialysis would cost the HMO $40,000 a year.
Since his annual bonus was contingent on the cost of care he provided to his patients, the doctor knew that prescribing dialysis would reduce his income.
The doctor failed to recommend dialysis.The woman rapidly deteriorated and died.
And a sue job does her no good at that point.
[ 19 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2008-09-20 07:42
#23
quote:
Are you saying you're an exception to the rule? Then good for you. Congratulations.
No, I'm saying that where I work I'm about average. And we don't quite treat people as "customers," but as fellow human beings. The rare exceptions (they're mostly in management) are those who don't.
Mon, 2008-09-22 12:08
#24
There are more than 8.3 million (2004) children in the USSA who have no health insurance coverage.
Mon, 2008-09-22 12:14
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Fleabitn:
[b]There are more than 8.3 million (2004) children in the USSA who have no health insurance coverage.[/b]
One of my American relatives had to fork over more than $900 to have an ingrown toenail sorted out.
Mon, 2008-09-22 15:21
#26
quote:
If I get shitty service from a business, I simply go to another business that treats me well.
Yeah, like, if Bell pisses you off, you can go to Rogers, and when they piss you off, you can go to Tellus.....
The problem with your free market solutions Sven, are that they depend on there being a free market, which there isn't.