I recently read an article under the banner “Fighting Words” entitled “Defending healthcare“. The authors in that article threw down an interesting jingoistic saying.
Right now, there’s a legal attack before the courts that could turn Canada’s medicare system into the type of system found in the United States.
I understand the authors’ desire to inflame passions and press forward with their point, but of course I thought of the benefits that the US system has over the Canadian system when it comes to those that Canada deems to be “medically inadmissible”. The Canadian Healthcare system covers most people in Canada but in exchange for this universal coverage the Canadian system systematically refuses anyone with certain medical conditions entry into the Canada. Indeed, the very disease of most interest to the authors and readers of this magazine (HIV positive people) is the one disease that Citizenship and Immigration Canada refuses as a matter of policy. I’m sure there are folks who understand that the written policy is to perform an individualized assessment of people. But pragmatic experience in helping people with medical issues has taught me that in fact HIV is one of those conditions that are refused as a matter of course. Thus, while the authors view their healthcare system as being a wonderous thing, my perspective is that is is the fundamental justification of a morally bankrupt system intent on classifying anyone with HIV (or Down’s Syndrome, etc.) as being an unmitigated drain on society. The US system does not discriminate in this fashion. The US immigration system is not tied into the costs of the US healthcare system. The Canadian immigration system is. And it continues to get worse. Essentially, anyone immigrating to BC would automatically be excessive demand because the province pays for all drugs (albeit in exchange for your agreement to enter the UBC research study.) Once Canada permits pre-exposure prophylaxis (PReP) not only can a disease condition be used to refuse someone entry into Canada, but even being at high risk could theoretically be used to justify the same thing. While I don’t post too much here anymore, I continue to communicate with people trying to find their way through the medical inadmissibility system. Recently I communicated with someone who was given a fairness letter without any cost estimates at all. Just the blanket assertion that their treatment was expensive and paid for by the public healthcare system. I must admit, I was incensed at it. Why? Because the persons treatment was the only treatment that doesn’t exceed the threshold. It’s all generics (Neverapine, Lamivudine and Zidovudine). Using the Quebec published numbers, the cost was something like CAD$2,500 per year. So much for “individualized assessment”. Hence my claim that, like it or not, it leads to systematic refusal of people with specific health conditions. Like HIV. If you want a better health care system, stop using it to discriminate against people that want to come here but cannot because they might use it. At least come up with some mechanism that balances inputs from outputs. In the meantime, pardon me for disagreeing with this blanket rosy self-congratulatory claim of superiority. It rings hollow.