MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W789773479

Merchants in the temple?, the implications of the GATS and NAFTA for Canada's health care system

2001· article· en· W789773479 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tracey Epps

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral Agreement on Trade in ServicesFree tradeInternational tradeHealth careLiberalizationBusinessPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My temple should be a house of prayer, But you have made it a den of thieves. Get Get out! (Lyrics from Jesus Christ Superstar) Introduction Canada's publicly funded health care Medicare, is the country's most cherished social program. It is a near-sacred institution, comparable to the temple in the New Testament story from which Jesus drove the merchants who had set up shop. Many believe that international trade agreements threaten to flood Canada's sacred institution with unwanted merchants of its own in the form of foreign for-profit investors. (1) They fear that these agreements will force Canada to open its health care system to entry by foreign service providers and insurers, causing a slide into a US-style system of health care driven by for-profit providers and insurers. (2) A contrasting view has been presented by the federal government, which has assured the public that international trade agreements pose no threat to the integrity and sustainability of Medicare. (3) The two trade agreements that have received the most critical attention are the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The NAFTA is an agreement implemented in 1994 between the federal governments of Canada, the US and Mexico that aims to create a free trade area between the territories of the three countries. The GATS is an agreement for liberalization of trade in services implemented in 1994 that imposes rules on all member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In this article, I provide a brief overview of the implications of the NAFTA and GATS for Medicare with the objective of determining the reality behind the contrasting views discussed above. (4) I will do so by examining: * The values underpinning international trade agreements; * Key characteristics of Canada's health care system; and * The key provisions and potential implications of the NAFTA and GATS for Canada's health care system. International Trade Agreements and Health Care--Conflicting Values? The key objective of most international trade agreements, including the NAFTA and GATS, is trade liberalization through the reduction of barriers to trade. The rationale is that trade unhindered by government interference will result in the best allocation of scarce resources, and improved economic growth and welfare. The success of trade liberalization is largely dependent on the presence of an open market within each of the trading partners. In an open market, goods and services are allocated on the basis of purchasing power and there is no concern with equity of distribution. On its face therefore, trade liberalization is incompatible with the goals of the Canadian health care system where the free market gives way to high levels of government intervention in order to achieve goals of distributive justice. Canada's Health Care System Before looking at the provisions of the NAFTA and GATS, it is essential to understand the fundamental nature of Canada's health care system. Medicare is sacred to Canadians because it seeks to achieve goals of distributive justice, that is, the provision of health care services to all based on need regardless of the ability to pay. Yet, while popularly described as a single-payer public system, Canada's health care system is in fact characterized by a wide range of public/private relationships. At the core of the medically necessary hospital and medically required physician services are fully publicly funded. Outside of this core, a number of increasingly important services are not fully publicly funded, including prescription drugs used outside of hospitals, home care, alternative care (e.g., services provided by chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths), dental care and some vision care. While provincial governments provide some of these service (e.g., through publicly funded home care programs), people often have to buy private insurance or pay out of their own pocket for these services. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0300.013
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→