Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on canada health act 1984
Universal health care access
Effects of the privatization of healthcare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on canada health act 1984
The Undermining of the Canada Health Act
Abstract
In the past, Canada’s government-funded, universally accessible, health care system has been praised and admired both at home and abroad as one of the finest in the world. A great source of pride and comfort for many Canadians is that it is based on five fundamental principles. Principles that are a reflection of the values held by Canadian citizens since the formation of Medicare in 1966. These principles were reinforced in the Canada Health Act, (CHA), of 1984 and state that the Canadian system is universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and non-profit.
With increasing concerns of debts and deficits, Canada’s publicly funded health care system has recently become the target of fiscal attack. Efforts to reform and restructure the system have produced few results. Currently, some governments throughout the country are looking towards a more radical approach. An approach that would see not only the reform and restructuring of the method of operation of the current system, but that would change the system entirely. The proposed idea? In Alberta, it is to increase the role of the private sector in the current system.
On December 29th, 1999, Nancy MacBeth leader of the Alberta liberal party was cited in the Edmonton Journal as saying: “ There’s ‘ample evidence’ that the Alberta government’s plan to expand the role of private health-care will contravene the Canada Health Act.” This is the strongest argument against privatization. It reflects the fears of many Albertans and Canadians; the fear that a two-tier system similar to that of the United States will develop. The fear that the system which was built upon values reflected in five principles will be eroded and replaced and that they will be the ones left to suffer the consequences. Privatization of health care would undermine the principles of the Canada Health Act and as such would undermine the integrity of the health care system.
The evolution of Health Care
In 1966 one of Canada’s most prided achievements to date was introduced to the Canadian Health Care system. Medicare was a daring and innovative concept pioneered by Canadians for Canadians. It revolutionized health care. Canadians overwhelmingly supported the new system as it reflected their values and the import they placed on universality and equal access to health. ...
... middle of paper ...
... accommodating the needs of a changing population, while maintaining the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act.
References
Alberta Association of Registered Nurses. (1995). Position Statement on Privatization. Edmonton: Author.
Armstrong, P., & Armstrong, H. (1996). Wasting Away: The Undermining of Canadian Health Care. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong & Fegan. (1998). Universal Health Care. New York: New York Press.
Canadian Nurses Association. (1997). Code of ethics for registered nurses. Ottawa: Author.
Dirnfeld, V. (1996). The benefits of privatization. Canadian Medical Association,155 (4), 407-410.
Gordon, M., Mintz, J., & Chen, D. (1998). Funding Canada’s health care system: A tax based alternative to privatization. Canadian Medical Association, 159 (5), 493-496.
National Advisory Council on Aging. (1997). The NACA position on the privatization of health care. Ottawa: Author.
Taft, K. (1997). Shredding the Public Interest: Ralph Klein and 25 Years of One-Party Government. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press and Parkland Institute.
Wilson, D. (1995). Myths and facts about paying privately for health care. AARN,51(10), 9-10.
LaPierre, T. A. (2012). Comparing the Canadian and US Systems of Health Care in an Era of Health Care Reform. Journal of Health Care Finance, 38(4), 1-18.
A Canadian Dermatologist who once worked in the United States breaks down the pros and cons of Canada’s health care system and explains why he thinks the Canadian system is superior to America’s. Canada runs a single payer health care system, which means that health care is controlled by the government rather than private insurance companies. One of the main pros of the Canadian health care system is that everyone is insured. He says that in the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Health insures all of its citizens, all important health needs such as physician visits, home nursing and physical therapy are covered. Since every resident is covered under the government plan the problem of patients being turned away due to lacking medical coverage
According to Statistics Canada Report 2013, “life expectancy in Canada is one of the highest in the world” and it is expected to grow, making the aging population a key driver to our health-systems reform. By 2036, seniors in Canada will comprise of twenty five per cent of the population (CIHI, 2011). Seniors, those aged 65 years and older are the fastest growing population in Canada. Currently there are approximately 4.8 million Canadians aged 65 or greater. It is projected that this number will increase to 9 to 10 million by 2036 (Priest, 2011). As the population get aged the demand for health care and related services are expected to increase. Currently, the hospitals in Ontario are frequent faced with overcrowding emergency departments, full of admitted patients and beds for those patients to be transferred to. It has been reported that 20% of the acute care beds in the hospital setting are occupied by patients that do not require acute hospital care. These patients are termed Alternate Level of Care (ALC). ALC is “When a patient is occupying a bed in a hospital and does not require the intensity of resources/services provided in this care setting (Acute, Complex, Continuing Care, Mental Health or Rehabilitation), the patient must be designated Alternate level of Care at that time by the physician or her/his delegate.” (Ontario Home Care Association, 2009, p.1).
Tommy Douglas was a Canadian social- democratic politician, who became the premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. Tommy Douglas believed that it was his responsibility as premier to improve the lives of ordinary people. In fact, he had experienced firsthand people dying, because they did not have enough money for the treatment they needed. It was from that day he said “If I ever had the power I would, if it were humanly possible, see that the financial barrier between those who need health services and those who have health services was forever removed.” So, when he became premier he enacted the first Medicare plan in Saskatchewan, which in 1972 was adopted in all provinces in Canada. The universal health care system has many advantages and should be adopted by other countries as well. This system would decrease the world’s death rate, there are also many people out there who cannot afford health care and it would be easier with universal health care to have everyone under one system.
Though, Professor Armstrong makes very good connections between health care policy reforms and its impact on women, all of these connections are eclipsed by the values encompassed within the Canada Health Act of 1984. Health care to this day is provided on the basis of need rather than financial means, and is accessible to all that require it. Professor Armstrong’s argument is hinged upon the scope of services provided under the public health insurance system, and the subsequent affect of these reforms on women as the main beneficiaries of these services and as workers in these industries. However, these reforms were made to balance the economy, and the downsizing and cutbacks were necessary steps to be taken with respect to this agenda. Moreover, as aforementioned the access to medical services ultimately comes down to need, and the reforms to date are not conducive to an intentional subordination of female interests in the realm of health care. Therefore, I find Professor Armstrong’s critique on Canada’s public health insurance system to be relatively redundant because the universal access to care encompassed within the Canada Health Act transcends the conditional proponents of her arguments of inequality. In other words, I believe she is
Saskatchewan’s governmental agencies approach to the shortage of doctors in the province favors too much the structuralist approach and would be more effective in the long term if switched to a humanistic approach. Throwing money at a problem may work for a little bit but what happens when the money runs out? So are current programs a true fix or a short-term solution doomed to fail. We look at the possible causes for the shortage of doctors and then examine the governmental responses put in place to deal with the problem, both past and present. We look at which perspectives are more successful between the structuralist approach and the humanist approach when it comes to the Canadian health care system.
The Canadian health care system promises universality, portability, and accessibility; unfortunately, it faces political challenges of meeting pub...
At the beginning of the 20th century healthcare was a necessity in Canada, but it was not easy to afford. When Medicare was introduced, Canadians were thrilled to know that their tax dollars were going to benefit them in the future. The introduction of Medicare made it easier for Canadians to afford healthcare. Medicare helped define Canada as an equal country, with equal rights, services and respect for every Canadian citizen. Medicare helped less wealthy Canadians afford proper healthcare. Canadian citizens who had suffered from illness because they could not afford healthcare, were able to get proper treatment. The hospitals of Canada were no longer compared by their patients’ wealth, but by their amount of service and commitment. Many doctors tried to stop the Medicare act, but the government and citizens outvoted them and the act was passed. The doctors were then forced to treat patients in order of illness and not by the amount of money they had. Medicare’s powerful impact on Canadian society was recognized globally and put into effect in other nations all around the world. Equality then became a definition which every Canadian citizen understood.
During the study of various reforms that were proposed and denied, both the GOP and Democrats attempted to find a balance that would guarantee the success of their proposals. Years of research, growing ideologies, political views and disregard for the country's constitution sparked an array of alternatives to solve the country's healthcare spending. The expenditure of US healthcare dollars was mostly due to hospital reimbursements, which constitute to 30% (Longest & Darr, 2008). During the research for alternatives, the gr...
Newman, Garfield, Bob Aitken, Diana Eaton, Dick Holland, John Montgomery, and Sonia Riddoch. Canada: A Nation Unfolding. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 2000. 252-53. Print.
Brian Lindenberg, “Canadian Healthcare: What Works and What Doesn’t | Benefits Canada,” accessed February 14, 2014, http://www.benefitscanada.com/benefits/health-wellness/canadian-healthcare-what-works-and-what-doesn%E2%80%99t-27647.
The Canadian Alliance Party’s plan is to make several policy developments to benefit Canada’s health care. They believe it will serve the security and well-being of all Canadians. The last party involved in this issue is the NDP Party who indicate that they are fighting hard for a better health care system in our economy. The NDP Party states that the income of a family should not dictate the quality of health care. Canada’s health care system is gradually growing to be a major concern in today’s society, providing Canadians with the standard of care they deserve.
The health care system in the United States is one of the most complex forms of healthcare system. What makes the system complex is that there are multiple factors involved. For example, there are multiple players and payers involved in the system. This includes physicians, administrator of health services institutions, insurance companies, large employers and lastly the Government Shi & Singh, 2012). Each of these players and payers are involved to protect their own economic interest. Hospitals for instances, wants to maximize reimbursement from both private and public insurers. Insurance companies and managed care organizations are concerned with how they can maintain their share of the health care insurance market, while physicians seek to maximize their income and have minimal interference with the way they practice medicine (Shi & Singh, 2012). It is obvious that there is no centrality of the health care system. In other words, there is no one department or in particular government body that is unilaterally in charge of the administration of the health care system as it is in the other developed nations where they have a single payer system, which is the government. Instead, the U. S. has health system that is financed by private sectors. According to Shi and Singh,(2012), 54% of total health care expenditures is privately financed through employers , while the remaining 46% is financed by the government. Lack of centrality in monitoring the total expenditures through global budgets or control over the availability and utilization of services coupled with most hospitals and clinics now been privately owned may potential...
Newman, Alex. “Examining Healthcare: A Look Around the Globe at Nationalized Systems.” The New American. 15 Sep. 2008: 10. eLibrary. Web. 04 Nov. 2013.
Bradley, E., Taylor, L. (2013, November 29). The Pain Is Not the Problem: How to Fix America’s Health-Care