[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CANADA SUPREME COURT STRIKES BAN ON PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Supreme Court 
overturned a law that prevented people from buying health insurance, 
that is, private health insurance, to pay for medical services 
available from and through Medicare, the publicly funded system. The 
ruling means that citizen residents can pay privately for medical 
service, even if the services are already covered under the state-
provided health care system.
  Now, what does that mean? Perhaps you did not see this ruling, but 
that is because it was not the United States Supreme Court and Medicare 
and ``private contract'' we are talking about. It was the Canadian 
Supreme Court and Canada's socialized health care program under 
Medicare and Quebec's ban.
  Now, how did this come about? Well, a courageous Canadian doctor, 
Jacques Chaoulli, and his patient, 70-year-old Montreal businessman, 
George Zeliotis, waited for a hip surgery replacement, decided enough 
is enough, and challenged the constitionality of the Canadian ban on 
private payment. He argued that long waiting lines and times for 
surgery contradicted the country's constitutional guarantee of ``life, 
liberty and the security of the person.'' He argued that the wait was 
unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on his constitutional 
rights.
  The Court split 3-3 over whether the ban on private insurance 
violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something like 
our Bill of Rights, but agreed in striking the ban, saying that, 
``Access to a waiting list is not access to health care'', in its 
ruling. They went on further to say, ``The evidence in this case shows 
that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, 
in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for 
public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition 
against private health insurance and its consequences of denying people 
vital health care results in physical and psychological suffering that 
meets a threshold test of seriousness.''
  Now, my colleagues, while the ruling applies only to the province of 
Quebec, one wonders if this could fundamentally change the way health 
care is delivered across that country. Canada is currently the only 
major industrialized country in the world that does not allow any 
private administration of health care services that are provided by the 
public system.
  Now, John Williamson, President of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation 
said with hope, ``This is a breach in government monopoly health care 
in this country''. That is in Canada. ``It is going to open up 
litigation across the country and the other nine provinces as taxpayers 
there press for their same right, which is the right to seek and buy 
insurance to cover private health care.''
  And some Canadians worry that this is the beginning of the end of 
what they considered a national treasure. Well, this is not cause for 
alarm, or by those who have for years argued for our Medicare private 
contract ban here in the United States, it simply is not a threat, said 
the Court. ``It cannot be concluded from the evidence concerning the 
Quebec plan or the plans of the other provinces of Canada, or from the 
evolution of the systems of various OECD countries, that an absolute 
prohibition on private insurance is necessary to protect the integrity 
of the public plan.''
  And I would argue, my colleagues, in fact, it is the Canadian middle 
class who have probably been most injured, not the very, very wealthy, 
because they just pay out of pocket. They can afford it. Remember that 
the ban is on private insurance, not private health care, so the very 
rich could still go on and get out of this waiting line that the rest 
of the middle class have to continue to participate in.
  And furthermore, a whole industry of medical tourism was spawned. For 
decades Canadians of means have been traveling to the premiere medical 
facilities here in the United States, especially in my sunny locales in 
the State of Florida to enjoy lovely weather, while they are also 
getting the benefits of health care facilities in Florida.
  This means that the Court, the Canadian Court, sees that a national 
comprehensive coverage program can peacefully coexist with private 
health insurance. My colleagues, we have been saying that in the United 
States for years.

                          ____________________