Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Canada health care policy
Canada health care system strengths and weaknesses
The pros and cons of Canadian health care
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Canada health care policy
CANADA HAS TWO-TIER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
The issue of a universal approach to Canadian Health Care has been contended for several years. Canada's national health insurance program, or Medicare, was designed to ensure that all people can have medical, hospital and physician services. The cost is to be paid for by Ontario medical insurance program (OHIP). The Canada Health Act was intended to represent certain principles of our health care system. It was intended to be a symbol of the Canadian values. Those values are fairness equity and togetherness. This oneness of a universal approach is what we call the one tier system. Many Canadians still believe the official government stand on this: Canada’s medical insurance covers all needs and services for every insured citizen. Officially then, there is a one level health care system. This paper shall argument that Canada has a two tier health care system.
Those who would claim that Canada’s health care is a universal one tier system could refer to the legal terms of the Canada Health Care Act. In particular, the point that states, “Universality: All insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care.” (“Canada Health Care Act”, 2007). In fact, many Canadians feel they have a right to be covered financially for any and all medical costs. According to the Globe & Mail, “Canadians have developed an incredible sense of Medicare entitlement: They want all care for all people, instantly and free of charge.” (Andre, 2009). It is true that the original intention was to make health care services available for Canadians, but the guidelines offer the same service to Canadians covered by the health plan. However, certain problems arose and modifications were needed because not al...
... middle of paper ...
...
Works Cited
Andre, P. (2009, October 16). Our two-tiered health system: a rural-urban split. The
Globe & Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com
Canada Health Care Act. (2007). Canada Health Care. Retrieved from
http://www.canadianhealthcare.org
National Bureau of Economic Research. (2007). Health status, health care and
inequality: Canada versus U.S. June, E.O. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/authors_papers/david_oneill
Ottawa, provinces to begin talks for health deal. (2011, November 22). The Canadian
press. Retrieved from http://www.ctv.ca
Prime minister finally admits two-tier health care exists: McDonough. (2000, November
13). The Canadian Press. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca
Shouldice Clinic. Retrieved from http://www.shouldice.com/what_to_expect.htm
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
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.
The Canadian health care system promises universality, portability, and accessibility; unfortunately, it faces political challenges of meeting pub...
It is an assumption by many that Canada has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. But do they really? There are numerous health services in Canada which should be part of the universal care nonetheless are not. These include but are not limited to: dental care, vision care, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and prescription drug coverage. This report will solely focus on why basic dental care should be a part of the Canadian universal healthcare. Dental care is predominantly delivered in the private sector on a fee-for-service basis, with approximately 62.6% of Canadians paying for care through employment-based insurance and 31.9% through out-of-pocket expenditures and only a small amount of the Canadians, 5.5%, are qualified for public funding through government assistance programmes (Ramraj and Quinonez, 2012). It was seen that by 2009, dental coverage affordability became a problem not just for the low income families but also impacted middle-income earners as a result of their lack of, or decreased access to comprehensive dental insurance (Ramraj, 2013). It is stated by the World Health Organization that universal health care coverage should reassure access to necessary care and protect patients from financial hardship, and that the governments are obligated to
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 this paper, there will be a comparative analysis to the United States (U.S.) healthcare system and Canadians healthcare system highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of both.
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
The health care system in Canada today is a combination of sources which depends on the services and the person being treated. 97% of Canadians are covered by Medicare which covers hospital and physician services. Medicare is funded at a governmental and provincial level. People of First Nation and Inuit descent are covered by the federal government. Members of the armed forces, veterans, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are also covered by the federal government. Several services such as dental care, residential care, and pharmaceutical are not covered. The 13 provinces have different approaches to health care; therefore, it is often said that Canada has 13 healthcare systems (Johnson & Stoskopf, 2010). The access to advanced medical technology and treatment, the cost of healthcare, and the overall health of Canadians fares well in comparison with other countries such as the United States.
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.
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
Canada’s health care system is one of the top in the world; due to the federal legislation for publicly funded health care insurance. Requiring provinces and territories to follow certain conditions and guidelines to maintain universal health care, which is known as the Canada Health Act passed in 1984. There are five main principles within the Canada Health Act; public administrations, comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, and portability. Moreover there are three aspects within the principles, equity, access and undeserved. Several marginalized populations do not receive the adequate health care even though the Canada Health Act is in place to help “protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of
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.
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
Primary health care is the essential step to the Canadian health system. It is often associated with other specialized health care sectors, and community services. Many patients visit various services under primary health care such as family doctors' offices, mental health facilities, nurse practitioners' offices; they make phone calls to health information lines, for example, Tele-health; and receive suggestions from physicians and pharmacists (First Ministers; meeting on healthcare, n.d.). This service can prevent patients from visiting the emergency department, when all that is required is some guidance and advice. Having primary care services can reduce the consumption of acute beds, where only seriously ill patients can use the acute beds when it is available. Primary care not only deals with sickness care, but it helps patients receive preventable measures; it promotes healthy choices (Primary health care, n.d.). The focus on appropriate health care services, when and where they are needed, enhanced the ability of individuals to access primary care in various settings: at home, in a hospital or any number of family health care venues, such as Family Health Teams (FHTs), Community Health Centres (CHCs), or Nurse Practitioner- led clinics. This paper will look at the litigious heated argument in the Romanow Report concerning primary care. It will begin with a discussion of the outcome of the Accord on Health Care Renewal (2003) and The First Ministers' Meeting on the Future of Health in Canada (2004), both referring to primary care, which will then be followed with an assessment and analysis of the different ways in which the accords have been addressed in support of primary care. Followed by a discussion about the changes on ...