Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court's decision in Chaoulli reflects the growing concern, particularly amongst the middle-class and wealthy, that the public system will not be there when they require it nor will it deliver care in a timely way. It is at the heart of a resulting maelstrom that is causing turbulence in health policy through the adoption of politically-easy solutions with little rationale in evidence, and the ensuing litigation has the potential to further jeopardize the system. In this paper, I discuss the deficiencies of the Supreme Courts decision and how notwithstanding, the decision has legitimatized privatization as a policy option. More frequently the legal actors are advancing privatization or two-tier as a solution, laying the groundwork for future policy change (in Quebec itself - sophisticated policy response may be in jeopardy, for example through the Castonquay Commission). I then turn to explore how, across Canada, Chaoulli has inspired two different types of claims to health care based on Charter rights. First, Charter cases that have sprung up post Chaoulli arguing for greater access to publicly-funded care, and second, Charter cases that (similar to Chaoulli) seek to liberalize present regulations and open up the system to further private financing. I then discuss two other kinds of litigation - administrative law challenges that seek to improve the process by which decisions are made within publicly-funded Medicare; and, challenges based in private law, for example tort law, to limitations in publicly-funded care. I argue that it is the last two avenues of litigation that have the greatest hope for improving the performance of the health care system for all Canadians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".