Canada’s health care system was formed in the 1950s and 60s, and is known as Medicare. It is a system that Canadians support and it is predominantly public. It has basic health care that is available to all citizens, incorporating aspects of the private system as well. After an in-depth analysis of private health care associated with neo-conservatism, and public health care associated with welfare state liberalism, I have come to the conclusion that the more effective option for Canada would be public health care. After the explanation of the relationship between welfare state liberalism and public health care, I first argue that public health care is very accessible, and universal, therefore allowing the individual to have access to health …show more content…
The Canada Health Act of 1984 ensures universal access comprehensive coverage, and public funding for hospital and physician services . Liberals may advocate for public health care because it is found in liberal political theory and acts as the basis to the ideology of a welfare state. Liberalism was founded on the ideas of liberty and equality; This may be why Liberals prefer universal healthcare compared to private healthcare as the former provides equal opportunities compared to the latter. One’s health can impact their access/variety to opportunities . When looking at the Canada Health Act from the liberal perspective, you can see that the goal of Medicare is to establish that sick individuals should be able to become/stay healthy and enjoy equal opportunity as a healthy individual. In the end, the welfare state believes that being both portable as well as universal are crucial characteristics for provincial …show more content…
For one, private healthcare has more accurate information available. This is due to the fact that the current health-care system in Canada is too big for the federal government to be able to accurately and effectively handle all of the patient’s information. This being the responsibility of smaller medical companies would be more efficient. Compared to public health, which has different wait times in each province, the way private healthcare is structured may help wait times be more consistent and lowered due to multiple companies handling health care. This is crucial in helping Canadians who are in dire medical situations. While many Canadians think that public health care is better for Canada, other Canadians think that the option to have private health insurance should be allowed if it provides better options and opportunities for the patient . In this case, private healthcare could be a very viable option for Canadian citizens. Overall, private healthcare may outdo public healthcare due to private healthcare being the more efficient
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
Conservatives, ideology places the values on status quo. They have difficulties accepting changes, and believe that change should be taking at a slow pace. They believe that human institutions are the product of a gradual process of experience. Conservatives believe slow changes would be more effective over a long period of time. time. They believe changing institutions and practices would affect the would affect the underlying structure. Conservatives be that it is not realistic to expect that that changes in institutions and practices would replace the existing without causing chaos.
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.
Neighboring countries, the United States and Canada, have close ties to one another, share the same language and have many of the same fundamental and religious beliefs. It is an interesting debt that provides a superior healthcare system. In order to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the two systems, this paper will review four important structural and functional elements of each system. 1. Who receives healthcare coverage?
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.
In Canada, access to health care is ‘universal’ to its citizens under the Canadian Health Care Act and this system is considered to the one of the best in the world (Laurel & Richard, 2002). Access to health care is assumed on the strong social value of equality and is defined as the distribution of services to all those in need and for the common good and health of all residents (Fierlbeck, 2011). Equitable access to health care does not mean that all citizens are subjected to receive the same number of services but rather that wherever the service is provided it is based on need. Therefore, not all Canadians have equal access to health services. The Aboriginal peoples in Canada in particular are a population that is overlooked and underserved
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/.
Liberalism is the best ideology for Canada’s government and is a good combination of both Socialism and Conservatism. Liberalism takes the finer parts from both ideologies to create a better form of government. Canadians now have a choice in which ideology they like better by this compromised form of government. The centre of the spectrum and the equilibrium of government and individual ownership is the definition of Liberalism.
The introductory of Canada’s health care system in the mid-20th century, known as Medicare, led the country into the proud tradition of a public health care system, opposite to America’s privatized health care system in the south. Though Canada’s health care system still holds some aspects of a privatized system, it is still readily available for all citizens throughout the nation. After continuous research, it is clear to state that public health care and the association it has with welfare state liberalism is by far a more favourable option for Canada, than that of private health care and the association it has with neo-conservatism. To help understand why public health care is a better and more favourable option for Canada, it is fundamental
Today, Canadians are concerned with many issues involving health care. It is the responsibility of the provincial party to come up with a fair, yet reasonable solution to this issue. This solution must support Canadians for the best; it involves people and how they are treated when in need for health care. The Liberal party feels that they have the best solution that will provide Canadians with the best results. It states that people will have the protection of medicare and will help with concerns like: injury prevention, nutrition, physical activity, mental health, etc. 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 best for 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.
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.