Brevi note sul caso “Cambie” della Corte Suprema della Columbia Britannica a proposito del rapporto tra la sanita pubblica e la sanita privata in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il Canadian Healthcare Act del 1984 prevede un sistema sanitario pubblico basato sul bisogno di salute e non sulla capacità di pagare, secondo i principi di universalità e accessibilità ai servizi sani- tari in tutte le province canadesi. La costituzionalità del modello sanitario canadese è stata accertata per la prima volta nel 2005 nel caso Chaoulli, dove la Corte Suprema del Canada ha dichiarato l’incostituzionalità del divieto per le assicurazioni sanitarie private di rimborsare i servizi sanitari medically necessary in Quebec assumendo come parametro la Carta dei diritti e delle libertà del Quebec. Quindici anni dopo, nel caso Cambie, è in discussione la costituzionalità del Medicare Protection Act della Columbia Britannica non solo per i limiti che esso pone alle assicurazioni sanitarie private, ma anche per le norme che vietano l’extra-billing e la dual practice all’interno della Provincia. La Corte Suprema della Columbia Britannica nel 2020 ha respinto ogni motivo di incostituzionalità. In questo momento (a partire da giugno 2021) è in corso il secondo grado di giudizio davanti alla Corte d’appello della Columbia Britannica. Il caso Cambie, che probabilmente arriverà davanti alla Corte Suprema del Canada, rischia di produrre conseguenze ben maggiori a livello provinciale e federale rispetto a Chaoulli e richiede pertanto di essere attentamente moni- torato nei prossimi anni. \n \nThe Canadian Healthcare Act 1984 provides for a public single-payer healthcare system based on need and not on ability to pay, according to principles of universality and accessibility to healthca- re services in all Canadian Provinces. The constitutionality of the Canadian healthcare model has been questioned in the Chaoulli case in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada declared the unconsti- tutionality of the ban on private health insurances for the purchasing of medically necessary health services in Quebec under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fifteen years later, in the ongoing Cambie case, a private healthcare provider is alleging the unconstitutionality of the British Columbia Medicare Protection Act (MPA) not only for the ban on private health insurances, but also for the prohibition of extra-billing and dual practice within the Province. In September 2020 the Su- preme Court of British Columbia ruled in favor of the validity of British Columbia MPA. Now (star- ting June 2021) the Cambie case is being discussed before the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. In the next years it is likely that the Cambie case will be upheld before the Supreme Court of Canada and it risks to produce far more reaching consequences at both provincial and federal level than Chaoulli did in 2005. Therefore, the Cambie case needs to be carefully monitored in the next future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".