The first source is a statement quoted by Dr. Delvaine of the Association of Physicians for Private Healthcare (APPH). In this statement, “ If you remove the shackles of government regulation and control you will immediately see improvement to the problems...”, Delvaine is stating his opinion of dismissing government control towards the Canadian healthcare systems in order to be regulated by competitive principles that grants the system innovation and development. He also stated that government regulated health care systems leads to inadequacy and stagnation. In his perspective, self-interest and competition are the principles that contribute to the growth and improvement of the socialized healthcare system. Delvaine shows a pursuit of conservative …show more content…
The cartoon presents an American man disproving the Canadian-based healthcare system despite not having to see the doctor because his health coverage from an insurance company withdrew just at the time when he was sick. As represented in the cartoon, capitalism or free marketing is the main economic system in the United States. Americans usually are in the right wing in the economic spectrum because of their individualistic ideology. On the other hand, Canada, found somewhat in the middle of the spectrum, values a more democratic socialism -- which concerns the government for the common good of its citizens. This capitalistic point of view of Americans greatly disputes the idea that the Canadian healthcare system has the government heavily involved. More Americans that support free market economy and laissez faire would believe that the government intervention infringes their personal freedom which includes their own healthcare system. Therefore, the cartoon also describes the irony that the Americans have a quite poor healthcare system because of the belief that the government should have a “hands-off” approach to any business, including health care. This perspective of the Americans on how to deal with health care is very unstable and inconsistent since they spend the most money with their insurance, nevertheless they get less in return. In contrast, the socialistic approach in Canada towards health care works well for both common and personal
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
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.
An analysis of the US and Canada’s systems reveals advantages and drawbacks within each structure. While it is apparent that both countries could benefit from the adoption of portions of the others system, Canada’s healthcare system offers several benefits over the US system.
In “Sicko,” Michael Moore presents the flaws of America’s health care system that has been in continuous debate for many years. Despite the government’s obligation to help people, there are nearly 46 million Americans without any health care coverage, because they either are not able to support such costs or have been rejected by the health insurance companies. Thus, Moore claims that because America’s current health care system is incompetent and morally corrupt, the federal government should provide universal health care for all citizens, since America’s health care companies do not consider the rights of American citizens and make fraudulent decisions to make profit. Throughout his film, he also uses ethos, logos, and pathos to highlight the necessity of America’s private health care system to be replaced with universal health care.
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.
According to editorial one, universal health care is a right that every American should be able to obtain. The author provides the scenario that insurance companies reject people with preexisting conditions and that people typically wait to receive health care until it's too much of a problem due to the extreme costs. Both of these scenarios are common among Americans so the author uses those situations to appeal to the readers' emotions. Editorial one also includes logical evidence that America could follow Canada's and Europe's universal health care systems because both of those nations are excelling in it.
Health care in America tends to be a gray area for citizens without prior experience with medical issues. Michael Moore an American filmmaker discusses in his documentary “Sicko” the unpleasant experience some Americans had to go through because of our health care system. Moore implements humor to his documentary by inserting comical music, images, and narration in spots that help his argument gain attention. He also travels abroad to places like Canada, France, and Cuba, where universal health care is supported. He does this in order to provide reason why universal health care is a good ideas by capturing the different emotions and opinions of individuals in those countries versus what people think in America. In addition, Moore provides evidence on why the United States should adopt a different health care system by providing facts like the life expectancy and cost of health care in America compared to other countries. Michael Moore’s main goal is to inform the audience as well as introduce his argument that our health care system is inadequate and that better solutions are out there like universal health care.
Have you ever gotten sick or know of anyone who has but cannot afford the medicine? If so then you must ask yourself, “how am I going to get your hands on the medicine that I need?” With the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), you would not have to worry about that. ObamaCare is an affordable health care plan to which all American citizens can get medically taken care of without spending a fortune, regardless of what is wrong with them. Obama-care is necessary to the American public. Reasons being for ObamaCare being necessary are that middle and lower class citizens cannot afford health insurance, certain plans do not offer certain medical procedures, and it ensures citizens to have no medical worries. One of many political cartoons that talk about ObamaCare is called “’Obamacare’ or ‘Republicare’” and that is the cartoon I will be writing aout. Political cartoons are an illustration or comic strip containing a political or social message that can relate to current events or traits. A political cartoon is made up of two elements: caricature and allusion. Political cartoons are main resources that offer interesting and amusing insights into the public mood, the underlying cultural expectations of age, and attitude towards current events or key events.
Jeffrey Simpson, “The Real Problem with Canadian Health Care,” National Post, accessed February 14, 2014, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/jeffrey-simpson-the-real-problem-with-canadian-health-care/.
Even during the worst economic downturn, the advantages of a universal health care system remain hidden from society. Instead, the adverse impacts continue to occupy the minds of many Americans. Misguidedly, citizens are repeatedly ensnared into ideological disputes inc...
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.
Being a Canadian citizen, it is hard for me to think of life without any health insurance. I have had public health insurance all my life growing up and have been free to go to any hospital at any time and get some form of health care. Residing in the United States off and for the last 7 years I have experienced health care from both sides. I feel that private health care has huge advantages over public health care. In the following essay I will explain in three points why I feel strongly about private health care as opposed to public. What is better is always subjective, and I will not try to argue the point of health for all, but instead for the individual who is seeking the best health care possible, and is willing to put the resources into obtaining that. I will be addressing efficiency and quality, not inclusion of everyone (free health care), I will be addressing the root of this and not just that one argument, which would detract from my focus. I will not be getting into the political debate of socialism vs. capitalism, as that is a separate argument in itself, and this country is currently running under capitalism. Again coming from living in both a socialist and then a capitalist society, I feel I can do so in an unbiased manner.