They should make the unvaccinated pay toward the hospital costs. (Not the full cost, that could be financially crippling!) But why should the 85% vaxxed, be footing the bill for those who won’t get it? They should be informed, no vax + end up being hospitalized? $100 per day for your hospital stay. It’s only a tiny drop of what your fellow citizens are paying for your foolish refusal, after all. As a reminder that, while you’re not obligated to act to protect your fellow citizens, why should they feel obligated to pay for your full medical expenses?
In our society, we have ways of dealing with people who don’t comply with society’s rules. At the moment, if you’re not vaccinated in BC, you don’t work in healthcare. Period. It does not matter if you whine or complain, or say you won’t comply. You’re fired. Period.
Fake their vaccination status? I expect them to be charged criminally.
Federal gov’t’s Vax requirement for public servants kicks in.
Definitely not!
That goes contrary to the basic principle that everyone in Canada gets universal coverage. We don’t make smokers pay. We don’t make people injured in mountain climbing accidents pay. We don’t make at-fault drivers pay.
The moment health care is based on moral judgments about the patient’s conduct, it ceases to be a universal service.
Death panels, anyone? Because this proposal will just provide ammunition for those opposed to universal coverage: “gov’t gets to run your life and decide your lifestyle choices!!!”
Nope, screw that, make them pay the full freight. If they’re not willing to take a free, safe and effective vaccine to help out their community, why should the community help them? Publicly Bankrupt a few of these idiots, and make it clear the rest are in danger of being bankrupted, and we’ll see some real action.
So you don’t agree with the Canada Health Act and the principle of universal coverage?
No, what I see is a reasonable financial penalty for truly ignorant disregard for public health measures during a two year long, (so far), international pandemic. At fault drivers pay a financial penalty in the form of added insurance costs. If you need to be plucked off a mountain with a helicopter you’re paying part of that cost. We aren’t making them pay the full very expensive cost of their care. But how long can an already strained system survive? It’s always a finite budget. People needing heart surgery are being put off AGAIN, because hospitals are overwhelmed.
I say incentivize the vaccine in every possible way. We’re running out of carrots. Money talks.
So you do support a legislative change to the Canada Health Act to allow provinces to require co-pays. That is a fundamental change to the principles of Medicare.
Car insurance and rescue costs are not part of the Medicare system.
Two years of pandemic, and many public health protocols, call for an emergency measure.
Shrug. None of these measures and protocols had been instituted before. We managed! People want businesses and schools to stay open!
Where I am it’s 78% unvaxxed in hospital. People will grow tired of that fast, in the months ahead, I predict. A financial incentive in the form of a ‘unvax tax’ will start looking pretty attractive I think.
I’m slightly confused by this. I do know emergency doctors who think a small co-pay would reduce frivolous use. I do not agree with this - wait times already disincentivize this and patients do not necessarily know the best place to go, nor should patients be medical experts.
The confusing part is if I want a PSA prostate test ordered by a family doctor, then I pay for it out of pocket in Ontario. Some tests are covered, some are not. This is true of many out-of-hospital tests; a PSA ordered in the ER would not cost a Canadian citizen anything. Health care in Ontario pays for a doctor visit but not dental work. Drugs are covered for the young and old and challenged but not all. Some stuff is covered and some is not. How is a Covid test different from a PSA (if done out of hospital)? Is universal coverage just semantics? Is the concept so inflexible one cannot charge, unless one does?
It’s not testing that’s the issue, at least as far as I understood from @elbows and @Horatius. Elbows was suggesting that non-vaxxed patients should pay $100 / day for their hospital treatment, and Horatius was suggesting that they should pay full freight, “no medicare for you!”
The problem is that those approaches would completely undercut the basic principle of Medicare: any Canadian citizen or permanent resident has a right to go to any hospital and get medical treatment, without paying. It’s a basic right, without any moral judgment about how you got there:
-
long-term smoker and need cancer treatment? Medicare covers you.
-
engaged in risky or even illegal physical activity, like rock-climbing or elevator riding, and got hurt? Medicare covers you.
-
drove drunk, got in an accident, killed someone, and got hurt yourself? Medicare covers you.
-
tried to rob a bank, got shot and rushed to the hospital? Medicare covers you.
That’s one of the rock-solid foundations for the Canadian medicare system: if you arrive at a hospital and need medical treatment, Medicare covers you.
The proposals here would drastically change that basic principle: Government gets to decide if you’re morally worthy to get hospital care, in a system where Government has an effective monopoly on medical care.
That’s different from testing. If a test is ordered in a hospital setting, it’s covered by Medicare, as a result of the Canada Health Act’s funding conditions.
If a test is ordered by a physician outside a hospital setting, the provinces have discretion whether to cover those tests, because they’re not part of the core of Medicare: medical treatment in a hospital.
But as I understand it, Elbows and Horatius are not talking about covid tests; they’re talking about charging patients in a hospital for medical treatment. That goes contrary to the fundamental principle of the Canada Health Act. It imports a moral judgment into access to health care.
A query, if I may: what are the medical ethics for treating someone ? If it’s within the medico’s skill area, can the medico turn them away and not treat them, because of moral disapproval of why the individual needs medical help?
My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that would be contrary to medical ethics?
If so, then Medicare carries out that same ethical principle: provide medical care to those who need it, regardless how they came to need it.
But these are exceptional times, clearly. There are existing exceptions for coverage for specific things. Its not as sacrosanct as you’re implying. It’s not like a precedent isn’t there.
Call it a tax if you don’t like co pay. I’d call it an incentive. These people clearly won’t be reasoned with, so find what WILL motivate them.
0.5% of the federal government employees on unpaid leave. Not many.
Such as?
Whether it’s a tax, or a co-pay, or extra-billing, it’s barred by the Canada Health Act.
See the Wikipedia summary on Accessibility:
A bit too much of a slippery slope for me, if we start charging people extra for health care if they do stupid behaviours that damage their own health. We all do stupid things on occasion.
We do need to use other “sticks” though, because this is the only thing that works for some. The threat of unemployment seems to be a strong motivator.
Because many of them smoke, eat meat, don’t exercise enough, engage in dangerous sports… I mean, come on, where does it end? What’s your less-that-perfect health behaviour? Pay up.
Universal health insurance means universal.
Good to hear! I wish more gubmints had that kind of courage.
I just happened to be cruising this old thread, and thought I should resurrect this post for some giggles. You must be pleasantly surprised Rickjay
Here in Alberta, we had 15,000 surgeries cancelled to make room in hospitals for CoVid patients, most of which were unvaxxed. Our numbers are going down, but we also have a huge backlog of concealed surgeries needing to be rescheduled. Thanks, anti-vaxxers. Your body; your choice; everyone else’s sacrifice.