Even though it sounds like it, Alberta’s Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, isn’t really about health care.
The real aim of the law that received Royal Assent on December 11 last year is to dismantle public health care as we know it, not only in Alberta but across Canada, by instituting a two-tier health care system. It could actually achieve this goal.
Fundamentally, it’s an insurance law because along with introducing American-style cash-based health care to Alberta – and potentially creating similar systems in other provinces and territories due to Canada’s trade agreements with the United States and others – it leverages private insurance to weaken public health services.
A straightforward report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) and the Parkland Institute based in Edmonton was released early this morning. It clearly explains how Bill 11 will meet these goals if the federal government doesn’t take action to uphold the Canada Health Act.
Authored by researchers Andrew Longhurst from CCPA and Rebecca Graff-Mc Rae from the Parkland Institute, The End of Canadian Medicare? outlines ten ways that without a strong national response, this misleadingly named act will damage and likely obliterate public health care in Canada. (The question mark in the title is unnecessary; this is precisely what the far-right ideologues who created and passed this act intend.)
The central feature of the bill permits doctors to work in both public health systems while also charging private patients for faster service. A wealth of international evidence indicates that this will lead to unequal access based on financial status while increasing wait times for most people.
By allowing all doctors to practice “dual medicine,” this legislation enables physicians to pressure patients into paying or risk facing longer waits. Additionally, it’ll drain the public system of doctors who may prefer focusing on more lucrative private pay opportunities. As mentioned in Point 10, this is part of their plan.
This law establishes Canada’s first private health insurance market which will drive up costs just like in the United States. “… The cost of the same basket of services is bid up by increasing profits, often disguised as ‘administrative costs,’” explain the authors. “The result is that health care costs rise rapidly for the government (the public insurance plan), placing a greater burden on the public plan.” Over time, governments tend to limit insured services as a result.
Private payments lead to longer wait times for everyone else. “Alberta’s two-tier system will not reduce public wait times.” Instead, it will “increase public wait times as physicians and surgeons focus their time in the lucrative and less-complex private-pay market.”
Bill 11 opens possibilities for hospital user fees by establishing “non-insured hospital services” and “enhanced goods and services,” which remain undefined by the United Conservative Party (UCP). Regardless, patients can expect to pay more yet receive less quality service.
This legislation blurs what constitutes a hospital allowing profit-driven operators entry into healthcare spaces. “Governments involved in privatization efforts typically distort definitions so that core characteristics of public entities lose clarity and confuse citizens. In Alberta, that’s exactly what’s happening.”
Bill 11 aims at promoting anti-social private-pay insurance plans linked with paid health services; that’s intentional since big profits are expected here.
The law promotes competition among hospitals for revenue streams: “The Alberta government is creating health-care insurance and provider markets where every patient is seen as a source of revenue.” This shift inevitably raises operational costs since hospitals must now invest more heavily into billing departments.
This move will attract U. S.-based healthcare companies-once they’re here; getting rid of them will be extremely difficult. This highlights a crucial point made by Longhurst’s and Dr. Graff-Mc Rae’s report: “Once these corporations enter the Canadian market, they will become entrenched and protected by trade and investment agreements.” We won’t just get U. S.-style healthcare; we’ll fully adopt U. S. healthcare practices.
The dual practice model along with private healthcare leads directly towards prolonged waiting periods for everyone else seeking treatment because higher wait times make business sense when competing against those able to pay upfront prices-count on increased delays if UCP stays in control.
Two additional points worth noting aren’t included within their report:
The introduction of Bill 11 means added tax revenues through its three percent tax on premiums related to “sickness insurance,” ultimately shifting those expenses onto citizens’ shoulders.
Unions might end up negotiating contracts compelling employers toward contributing towards workers’ insurance coverage-this increases overall costs while cutting into profits across various sectors including publicly funded areas too!
The UCP may respond defensively against criticisms outlined within reports claiming they aren’t bringing forth U. S.-style medical practices but rather aligning themselves closer with European ones! Yet it’s essential noting there exist over forty distinct models operating throughout Europe making comparisons complex at best!
No matter how they spin things though-all proposed reforms initiated under Smith Government seem unavoidably headed towards disaster mirroring troubles faced southwards beyond our border!
The report includes an eleventh point-as likely symbolic consistency reflecting its number corresponding closely alongside when originally introduced into legislature last year-providing practical solutions aimed squarely at resisting current attempts designed solely around undermining Canada’s single-payer framework! One suspects too perhaps coincidentally chosen strategically after Ralph Klein’s failed initiative back during year 2000 regarding similar topics surrounding privatization pushes being met head-on through widespread citizen opposition!
This eleventh conclusion emphasizes how Bill eleven disregards principles established via universality/accessibility outlined inside overarching frameworks governing all federally funded provincial systems putting future financing availability at risk within Albertan context!
If successful elsewhere among other conservative-led jurisdictions naturally many would follow suit using claims like “nothing we can do” leading ultimately toward widespread disassembling process impacting entirety associated with Canadian medicare landscape itself!
The authors contend: “This could end could end Canadian medicare as we know it.”
No longer just “could,” but rather-it would happen! If Ottawa chooses actively enforcing protections contained within existing acts safeguarding such vital resources now available nationwide isn’t taken lightly either way ahead lies uncertain turmoil!”
Longhurst alongside Dr. Graff-Mc Rae concluded decisively stating: “Will federal authorities remain silent despite numerous potential violations occurring?” Or instead might civil societies need seeking court interventions compelling governmental bodies obligated enforce compliance respective norms upheld thereby ensuring equitable access remains intact?”
A probable response leans heavily upon realization weighed against ongoing tactics exhibited throughout Smith Administration hinting behind scenes intent upon stirring separations taking place amidst interactions regionally pertaining larger frameworks governing interprovincial relations-although separation remains plausible ultimate aim pursued diligently over time span involved!
An emerging Conservative administration running Ottawa particularly one led by Pierre Poilievre stands high chance repealing significantly constraining provisions earlier laid down inside fundamental guidelines protecting Universal Coverage aspect altogether going forward thereafter!
Source link
Source link
