Centurion has selected it's party-appointed arbitrator for NAFTA proceedings against the Government of Canada

By Melvin J. Howard

Centurion has completed its selection process for Arbitrators and we have selected our party-appointed arbitrator for our NAFTA proceedings against the Government of Canada. In summary after interning at the American Civil Liberties Union and clerking for a US Federal Judge where they drafted judicial decisions on a range of diverse issues of law, including contract disputes, federal habeas corpus review of death penalty cases and employment discrimination claims. After leaving a large law firm where the selected party practiced International Trade law. The party entered the world of academia as a Law Professor and has worked in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as Assistant General Counsel and the Department of Commerce. In addition the selected party litigated disputes before the World Trade Organization and negotiated bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Authored a series of WTO articles for U.S.-based Initiative for Policy Dialogue, a U.S. think tank. In addition to authoring and CO-authoring numerous reviews, articles and essays.

Honors include:

Fulbright Scholar to France

International Law Fellow, merit tuition scholarship for academic achievement in international law

Staff Editor, Journal of International Law and Politics

Marden Moot Court, second in division for best brief and oral

Centurion will expand its claim to include all Provinces except Quebec. I want to personally thank the various lawyers and institutions that helped with this process. For further information http://www.state.gov/s/l/c29884.htm#

Excuse me Canada did I hear you crying protectionism against the US what a load of #@&*^#@

Surely you jest how can that be by

Melvin J. Howard

As the US tackles its health care issues Canada has yet to admit that they have one. Deniability seems to be the word of the day for Canada’s health care system I hear the word sacred a lot being referred by Canadians to their health care system. As though their health care system they have was somehow ordained by God. It is this illusion that will be the eventual downfall of the system. Canada often attacks the US on a number of issues but health care should not be one of them. Canadians often say we don’t want a two-tier health care system wake up and smell the rubbing alcohol. For those who think that Canada doesn’t have a two-tier healthcare system let me open your eyes. Their second tier is called “The GOOD OL USA”, which is where all the Canadians go when they need urgent healthcare.

You see while America’s politicians have seen the light of health reform. They have now come to understand the health care system, as it is now is unsustainable and dangerous to the economic viability of the country and that change needs to happen now or else. I have yet to stumble upon a Canadian politician that has the guts to say to the Canadian people we have a problem and if we don’t fix it now we are jeopardizing our economic viability. Sure they will say it in private as they have done to me many times but never in public. The only Province that had the nerve to change the status quo was Quebec now you might asks yourself out of all the other Provinces what makes Quebec so unique? It’s simple really separation Quebec can and does use the separation card with Ottawa, and it has been very effective in getting the needs of Quebec met. I just want to point out how different Quebec is from the rest of Canada I am not sure if Quebec is still even apart of Canada I think if it is its only on paper, I jest of course. But in reality as Quebec gets more and more sovereignty just like the one the Supreme Court handed down that Quebec can have private healthcare their independence will grow its inevitable. It seems the Judges in Canada have more of a political will to change the health care system in Canada then the politicians do now fancy that. Where is the backbone are the politicians only concern is to maintain power without rocking the boat. Well congrats job well done nothing accomplished on the health care front as usual. It is shame that the Supreme Court of Canada had to step in for all of the major political parties in Canada and rule in favour for the rights of patient’s and their freedoms in Quebec.

The other provinces have yet to make the same challenge for their patient’s rights and freedoms and I doubt they will. I don’t see any dynamic political leader that has the chutzpah to do it. There was the province of Alberta that was contemplating such a move and was going to violate the Health Act until it got its way. Well that went nowhere I was not surprised if you been doing this as long as I have you tend dismiss political posturing in Canadian politics.

Now lets get to the protectionism issue, for number of months Canada has been crying constantly that the US is using protectionism in its buy America clauses in its stimulus bill that was passed by congress. As a free-trade advocate, I just want to say straight up have you checked your own back yard lately Canada? It is because of your policies that healthcare was outsourced to the US in the first place because political interference destroyed all Canadian competition in the health care field. Let me remind you singling out America is way off base at this time in regards to domestic policy when it comes to trade. I think if you really check you will see from all countries some form of domestic policies that can be misconstrued as protectionist. You have no further to look then to Britain and the Netherlands. For instance, they are forcing banks receiving taxpayer bailouts to start lending at home at the expense of overseas clients. The French are insisting that his nation's automakers move manufacturing jobs home in exchange for a government bailout I am not sure where that went but regardless. The point is this there has never been a time that such financial upheaval has occurred globally all at the same time as this. I think any head of state is going to take care of home base first. To think otherwise is foolish and naïve. The thing is to get all of the trading partners healthy financially and economically at home so they can continue to trade freely abroad, the faster the better.

Then I hear the Provinces are cheering the lets retaliate US procurement for municipal and city contracts song. If that don’t beat all and that’s my polite way of putting it. Let’s take a trip down memory lane Provinces come on don’t be afraid I just want to show you the err of your ways. Few Canadians realize, that provincial governments have for many years opposed any reciprocal trade deal with Washington DC that would prevent them from excluding not only U.S. firms, but also companies from elsewhere in Canada, from bidding on provincial or municipal contracts. In the original free trade negotiations with the US the provinces were adamant that they were not willing to have their procurement, or that of their municipalities, governed by the agreement. So an unusual procurement chapter was put together that applied only to the federal level and even then with some limitation. Then in the WTO negotiations because of the protectionist views of the provinces, Canada was not willing to put sub-national procurement into the agreement. I have to say that move caused a great pain in the ass, especially among some state governments. So the US said screw it lets move on to other free trade agreements, with countries in which sub-national procurement was included.

So what was the end result well companies from those countries can now bid on U.S. procurement projects from which Canada is now excluded that right excluded. You can’t have you cake and eat it to so stop crying. You even had numerous chances to re-negotiate but you passed. I have now come to understand the problem when dealing with Canada. From an international point of view it is really not a country per-say. They do have a central government but it doesn’t have authority over the provinces over matters that are considered part of international trade. Hence my NAFTA proceeding with the Federal Government of Canada and not the Provinces of which the breaches occurred. Under GATS, the federal government is obligated to take reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure that regional and local governments and authorities observe Canada’s GATS commitments. Under NAFTA, Canada must ensure that all necessary measures are taken to give effect to the provisions of NAFTA, including their observance by provincial and local governments. As I discussed in earlier posts, in the event of any alleged breach of Canada’s obligations under GATS or NAFTA, the federal government is responsible for responding to the allegations and when necessary, for providing compensation in the manner required under Canada’s treaty obligations. So Canada who’s fault is it that you find yourselves in this position? Look in the mirror it is something you brought upon yourselves. Provinces are not even guaranteed access to procurement markets in their own country. It’s all fragmented just like the health care sector there its crazy. Canada’s Medicare system is completely in left field when it comes to the principles of free trade. By establishing a public sector health insurance monopoly, and by regulating who can provide health care services and on what terms, the Canada Health Act and the Medicare system go against the intentions of free trade. So when I hear Canada calling unfair trade practises against the US I just have to chuckle and say really that’s interesting. That is very smug when foreign banks are not allowed to set up shop in Canada or you have a crown corporation that is the only choice for any number of services. Most Americans could not comprehend one telephone company, one gas company, one insurance company, only 5 banks to chose from, depending what part of Canada your in one cable company. I am not even finished but lets just say if you had a problem with either one of those services I just mentioned. Well I am afraid you don’t have much choice that’s it your up the creek and you can only get your paddles from one place.

Americans are brought up on free markets from the moment you’re born on US soil. You get choices that is why the US is called the land of opportunity. The reason for that is if you don’t like a particular service you can go down the street and get a better deal from someone else. Competition breeds the best in the market place monopolies whether they are government or private breeds contempt. All throughout history monopolies were bad for society bottom-line no choices is bad for all societies period. So Canada I am glad to be your escape goat in helping change your protectionism ways in your health care system. It seems you need a bogeyman to do it since your politicians want stand up and state the obvious, which they have stated to me over and over. Of course I will be charging a hefty fee for my services on top of the money you already owe me! So what have we learned boys and girls that people who live in a glass house shouldn’t be throwing stones!

President Obama Don't Let Up On Health Reform

                       

Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy 

By Laura Litvan and Ryan Donmoyer

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

The Obama administration stepped up efforts to influence health-care legislation today as advisers David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee appeared on television talk shows to discuss the issue.

The president is trying to avoid broad-based levies such as a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits Axelrod said. Instead he is urging lawmakers to reconsider limiting all tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets.

“He made a very strong case for the proposal that he put on the table, which was to cap deductions for high-income Americans, and he urged them to go back and look at that,” Axelrod said on the CNN’s “State of the Union.” Goolsbee, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said Obama is “mindful” about how “ordinary Americans are able to foot the bills” and never proposed taxing employee benefits.

House Democrats are weighing a new proposal in response to Obama’s call for legislation to be enacted by August. An outline of the plan obtained by Bloomberg News would require Americans to have insurance with some exceptions.

It would probably exempt those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy. There could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline.

Group Rates

The outline suggests consumers who have individual health insurance policies that they like could keep them. Still, it says that “by and large” the nation’s market for individually purchased health insurance policies would move to a new federally operated exchange. It would permit both individuals and employees of small firms to buy policies at less expensive group rates.

“States will have the option to run a state exchange but the default will be a national exchange,” according to the outline.

Karen Lightfoot, a spokeswoman for House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat whose panel is working on a proposal, said the document that is circulating is not the official work of the committee.

All House Democrats will be briefed June 9 on the details of a single piece of legislation that three House committees will work on, with the House slated to act by the end of July. The proposal is part of a broader push by Democrats in Congress to complete a revamp of the U.S. health-care system by an early fall timetable set by Obama.

Kennedy’s Approach

In the Senate, health committee chairman Edward Kennedy has an early draft of legislation that also includes a so-called “individual mandate,” and would require all employers to supply health insurance for workers or contribute to the cost of a plan.

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, would also create a public health plan to compete with private insurers, a priority of Obama’s that is opposed by Republicans, and would bar insurers from limiting coverage.

The effort to overhaul health-care would affect a sector that makes up 17 percent of the U.S. economy. The goal of Democratic supporters is to provide insurance to most of the nation’s 46 million uninsured, and lower the soaring cost of care. A key challenge is the potential impact of legislation on an already rising U.S. budget deficit that may reach $1.8 trillion this year.

Axelrod, speaking on CNN today, said the ultimate goal of legislation is to reduce costs.

“We have to bring down the cost of health care,” he said. “If we do that and make it affordable, people are going to buy it, mandate or no mandate.”

Burdens on Business

Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, speaking on Fox, said reducing costs would also ease burdens on business.

“The only way to really address this is to address the combination of coverage and cost,” Schmidt said. “So anything that the Congress and the president does has to do that. And from my perspective, the sooner the better.”

“You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” he added.

Lawmakers have a plethora of proposals to raise the hundreds of billions estimated to be needed for an overhaul, including new taxes on soda, beer, and wine, and a partial tax on employer-provided health insurance for the first time. The tax-free nature of employer-provided insurance is the biggest tax expenditure in the federal budget.

Taxing Cap Deductions

Obama’s own proposal would set a 28 percent cap on tax deductions for items such as mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable gifts for Americans in the two highest tax brackets, which would be 36 percent and 39.6 percent under his proposals. Without the cap, they would be able to deduct 36 cents and 39.6 cents on the dollar for those expenses, respectively.

Obama also proposes new taxes on securities dealers and life insurers, and to raise revenue by prohibiting certain estate-planning techniques.

House Democrats intend, like Kennedy, to include a new government program to provide health-care to a portion of the uninsured who don’t already qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, according to the outline.

While the lawmakers continue working out the details, they intend the new program to operate through the exchange and for both the public program and private insurance policies to have the same basic benefits.

Helping the Poor

House Democrats want to improve the Medicaid health-care system for the poor, including a uniform benefits package and “improved” provider payments. They are weighing whether to add people who are near the poverty level to Medicaid or to provide subsidies to allow them to purchase their own policies.

The plan would place new restrictions on private insurers, including a bar on excluding coverage for those with “pre- existing conditions.”

The legislation would seek to get some cost savings from Medicare and Medicaid, including incentives for doctors to coordinate their care and get bonuses for improving quality, according to the outline.

Check back here for my commentary on trade wars and protectionist attitude in Canadian health care. 

Health Care Reform Is Coming The Storm Is Here Last Chance To Get On Board

There is shelter in health care reform come and I'll show you

By Melvin J. Howard

The moral majority, traditional values, conservatives for a better health care system. We want to educate the public on the importance of traditional values and ideas. Bullshit these are all code name groups and we all know what the code is. I bet if you look at their membership it will be same demographics. What these groups want to do is sabotage health care reform in the United States. I am so sick of these groups using politics and racial divide to pull apart America get a clue this is not the 1960’s.

In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton wrote an article about how the world works he called it “Principia Mathematica”. According to Newton, given any starting point we can correctly predict the outcome of any given event. Other words whatever goes up must come down this theory was called determinism. In Newton’s view the universe functions as a machine, set in motion by God. Free will was meaningless like cogs in a wheel we are merely cogs in a machine. What he was saying that since God’s great apparatus has already started that all motion and everything else in the universe is predetermined. Now who could argue with scientific facts proven with mathematical calculations? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Determinism takes away all free will forget about your dreams of the future they were already determined everything was already decided by God. Don’t laugh at the time some thought this was law and some today still think so no matter what scientific data proves otherwise. Wouldn’t life be pretty boring and depressing if this was really how life was suppose to be?

But then came alone quantum physics it blew out all previous scientific theories out of the water it rules out determinism, and instead provides us a world full of possibilities and probabilities. Whatever your beliefs are about God the idea that there is this great machine running in the sky somewhere became invalid when quantum physics was discovered. The Great Machine does not determine the outcomes of our lives we are free to choose how our lives should be. Everything in our physical world is what you make of it. Each of us is free to make our lives better; the subatomic world is filled with so many possible outcomes. Even Albert Einstein one of the fathers of quantum physics could not believe what he discovered in quantum physics. He just could not get around the fact that God could play dice with the universe. But that is exactly what is going on nothing in this world is carved in stone. Life is not static it is in continuous motion now we can choose to except this phenomenon or be like a dear caught in the head lights and get run over by change.      

This health care crisis demands fundamental change now! You have got a President with a mandate to change it and a Congress ready to act let’s do this thing! The gale winds of change are here it’s a comin. The opposing lobby has one weapon employed one basic theme in trying to stop health care reform. To scare the hell out of Americans by decrying a "government takeover" of health care! Now let me tell you if I thought the administration were talking about a mandatory single payor government run health care system. Like Canada’s or the UK believe me I’d be marching in the streets protesting with an army of supporters. I am sure by now everybody knows how I feel about a mandatory single payor government run health care system #*@^! (Translation it would suck) but its time to be a solution to the problem not become the problem.

Last week, the leading health care trade associations the insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and the union stood with the president to pledge dramatically to "do their part" to reduce the rate of soaring health care costs by 1.5 percent a year over the next decade, a promise that would save some $2 trillion from the cost of care. Now I know what you are saying a promise that and a dime can by me a cup of coffee. What’s preventing these guys from going back on their word? Well frankly nothing except this fear of a government run plan like Medicare. They say give us time to fulfill our promises, they argue. If we fail, then consider a public plan. I certainly hope this is not a stall tactic to buy time and see if people will remember this next year approach. Fact is health care costs are out of this world. Even some of my rich friends are saying dam it’s costing me too much to supply health care coverage for all of my employees.

But this is why this time around health care reform will pass because two key factions, the business lobby and the health insurance industry, are talking seriously about substantial changes that would ideally help cover the nation's 47 million uninsured, improve the quality of care, and tame the growth of healthcare spending. The nation's largest health insurance lobbying group will present its own proposal for a version of universal health insurance. The group, America's Health Insurance Plans, has put up a website featuring man-on-the-street video interviews of people complaining about the lack of affordable healthcare: "I'm disgusted, I'm frustrated, I don't know what to do about it," a blonde woman with glasses says in one of the interviews. "It's time for the government to step in."

Leading business lobbyists have also joined in regular negotiations with insurers, healthcare providers, unions and other advocacy groups on what reforms they would support - not just what they would oppose - and they are trying to reach consensus on difficult issues. They have also underwritten television ad campaigns pressing for reform, in cooperation with such unlikely partners as AARP, which represents people over 50, and the Service Employees International Union. Wow what a difference its like the McCoy’s and the Hatfield’s decided to stop shooting at each other to have tea and talk things over.

PS: Canada the day of how you breached trade rules and took our money will be coming to light shortly.

 

Celebrity US Health Care Apprentice Staring Canada And The UK

 

Government Run Mandatory Health Care I’m Sorry Your Fired

 

By Melvin J. Howard

 

Well its seems health care in the US, UK and Canada is in the news. Imagine to my surprise when watching CNN when a commercial talking about the perils of a mandatory Government run health care system in the United States. Featuring Canadians, Brits and physicians as well as administrators. Talking about their health care system i.e. not getting the care they need http://www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com/ . It bought tears to my eyes a subject I have been talking about for the last 10 years is finally the bell of the ball. A non-profit organization called Conservatives for Patient’s Rights are running the ads I don’t know if this is political affiliation or not? In America people tend to  divide certain members of the population to gain support for an issue. It is a strategy that has been carried out since World War I. But the fact is it works because the majority of folks want do their homework on any given issue. To me this is not a black or white issue, poor or rich issue its not even a Republican or Democrat issue this is a people issue. Not one to sit on the sidelines on an issue that is so near and dear to my heart. I speak from a non-objective view or with out any hidden agenda. Bottom line mandatory government run health care systems do not work. I speak from personal and upfront experience not from second hand information or propaganda. Eventually with every government that has mandated a government run health care system they run out of money. Which in turn leads to rationing from there patient line ups bed shortages etc.  President Obama said he is not talking about implementing a system like Canada or the UK’s but something uniquely American. My hope is the administration reaches out to all stakeholders on this issue to come up with a viable plan that will include the 50 million or so that is uninsured. Contain costs, free choice, make sure competition stays in place and overall do not stifle innovation the hallmark of the US health system. According to CPR they are thinking alone these lines as stated on their web site below.              

Who is CPR?

Conservatives for Patients' Rights is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating and informing the public about the principles of patients rights and, in doing so, advancing the debate over health care reform. Those principles include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility. We believe the path to effective health care reform must be based on the patient-doctor relationship and not from a top-down, big government perspective. Anything that interferes with an individual’s freedom to consult their doctor of choice to make health care decisions defeats the purpose of meaningful health care reform.

The Pillars and Plans of Health Care Reform

Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility — the four "pillars" of patients' rights — will result in our government truly becoming a "nanny-state," making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us. 

 

I hear tale Michael McBane of The National Health Coalition criticized Dr. Brian Day of the Cambie Surgical Center. For going on American television and talking about the shortcomings of Canada’s government run health system. Well I say shame on him. Dr. Day has a right to speak up or is that outlawed in Canada? It seems Mr, McBane likes to make his comments known to everybody as stated below in a Canadian news article:   

 

Howard and his partners want to open a private surgical centre in B.C. similar to the Cambie Clinic owned by Dr. Brian Day, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association, but are facing what they call anti-American roadblocks in several municipalities.

 

They are demanding Ottawa reimburse them $4 million in actual costs and another $150 million in foregone profits.

 

Mike McBane, co-ordinator of the pro-medicare National Health Coalition, says the Howard lawsuit is "an extremely serious warning to provinces not to privatize the delivery of the health care system. We've always known there were serious risks to (medicare) to the extent that we privatize it because it was only protected if it was delivered on a non-commercial basis."

McBane says privatizers and foreign investors are emboldened by what he calls a "perfect storm": a federal government that believes in provincial autonomy, not national standards; the 2005 Supreme Court Chaoulli decision that private medical services do not abridge medicare and are a fundamental human right; and the CMA's new support for two-tier medicine.

 

He cites a speech Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave in 2001 when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition in which he stated: "(W)hat we clearly need is experimentation -- with market reforms and private delivery options within the public system. And it is only logical that, in a federal state where the provinces operate the public health care systems and regulate private services, that experimentation should occur at the provincial level."

It seems Dr. Day is not the only one that has something to say about the Canadian health system as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL

By NADEEM ESMAIL

President Obama and Congressional Democrats are inching the U.S. toward government-run health insurance. Last week's expansion of Schip -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- is a first step. Before proceeding further, here's a suggestion: Look at Canada's experience.

 Health-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.

These constitutional challenges, along with one launched in British Columbia last month, share a common goal: to win Canadians the freedom to spend their own money to protect themselves from the inadequacies of the government health-insurance system.

The cases find their footing in a landmark ruling on Quebec health insurance in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance violates citizen rights as guaranteed by that province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The experiences of these Canadians -- along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 -- show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance.

In the wake of the 2005 ruling, Canada's federal and provincial governments have tried unsuccessfully to fix the long wait times by introducing selective benchmarks and guarantees along with large increases in funding. The benchmarks and the guarantees aren't ambitious: four to eight weeks for radiation therapy; 16 to 26 weeks for cataract surgery; 26 weeks for hip and knee replacements and lower-urgency cardiac bypass surgery.

Canada's system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

Mr. Esmail, based in Calgary, is the director of Health System Performance Studies at The Fraser Institute.

 

 

 

 

Canada And Centurion Agree On Selection Process For Arbitrators

Selection of Arbitrators

 

The ICSID and UNCITRAL rules encourage the parties to agree on the selection of arbitrators, and provide a method for the selection of arbitrators if the parties cannot agree. This list of arbitrators are composed of persons appointed by the various countries who are members of the Convention. If the parties to the arbitration do not want the President of the Arbitration Tribunal to be from this list, they must come up with a way to agree on the President. Typically the parties agree that each side chooses their arbitrator, and those two arbitrators then choose a President. It is accepted in international arbitration for me to talk to an arbitrator before we choose him or her. The amount of information gathering we have to do then analyze that information to determine a proper fit is very important. We could talk to 20 arbitrators before we choose one. Therefore we have selected a firm to help sift through the mounds of information on arbitrators for appointment. Below is the agreement between the Government Of Canada and The Howard Group for the selection process of the Arbitral Tribunal.  

Canada also notes that you have agreed to the procedure for the selection of the Arbitral Tribunal outlined in Article 1123 of NAFTA. In order to ensure the efficiency of the selection process, Canada suggests that the parties jointly agree to the following:

•         Claimants will appoint their arbitrator;

•         Canada will appoint its arbitrator no later than four weeks after the
Claimants appoint their arbitrator, or if that day falls on a weekend or a
holiday, the next business day thereafter;

•         The parties will each submit, simultaneously, three candidates for the
presiding arbitrator at 5pm on the day four weeks after the appointment
by Canada of its arbitrator, or if that day falls on a weekend or a
holiday, the next business day thereafter;

•         Within two weeks after the exchange of the lists of candidates for the
presiding arbitrator, the parties will hold a conference call to discuss the
matter and seek to reach an agreement. If an agreement cannot be
reached, the parties will discuss the advisability of an additional
exchange of candidates for presiding arbitrator;

•         If the parties are unable to agree on a presiding arbitrator in accordance
with the above process, either party may, at the appropriate time,
request that the Secretary General of ICSID appoint the presiding arbitrator pursuant to NAFTA Article 1124.