Seungi Park
Professor Shannon Robertson
English 111
17 November 2015
Individuals should not have right to pay for their own medical procedures in a privately funded system to prevent inequality
Since aging society and growth of immigrant’s population in Canada, citizens needs more medical care and developed systems and resources. Therefore, maybe those claim to the Canadian Supreme Court that “prohibiting private health insurance for “medically necessary” hospital and physician services. The applicant, Dr. Chaoulli, argued that the prohibition deprives patients of timely access to health care services in a way that violates a patient’s rights to life and security, under both section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section
…show more content…
The Australian Healthcare System would be good case studies to understand pros and cons of private funded systems if enacted. Also how does waiting times measured by. Johar and Savage studied waiting list and admission data from public hospitals in NSW (New South Wales Public Hospitals) for 2004-2005. They define clinical needs of a patient using two indicators: assigned urgency and planned procedures. And they categorized urgency levels as 30, 90, and 365 days. The 30-day urgency status is for ‘‘a condition that has the potential to deteriorate quickly to the point that it may become an emergency.’’ The 90-day urgency status is for conditions that are ‘‘not likely to deteriorate quickly or become an emergency.’’ Lastly, the 365-day urgency is for conditions that ‘‘do not have the potential to become an emergency.’’ This system appears to be the most endorsed rule by both patients and medical practitioners internationally. For planned procedures, they select four common treatment: cataract extraction, knee replacement, removal of skin lesion and colonoscopy. Also, to control for supply-side factors that may impact on waiting times they undertake their analyses separately for three types of hospital. (1) Hospital is located on big city, (2) is on middle size of city, and (3) hospital is located on reginal city. As a result, nevertheless, by any measure, except for the 7-day urgency case, public …show more content…
However, there is not only advantage but disadvantage of growing private funded system. As many of health providers will move to private funded facilities to get better payment, then public health facilities will have constrained budgets because lots of tax payers will turn their back on public insurance but more likely to have private insurances. Therefore, public hospitals have led to many problems as well. Short of supplement for hospitals, lack of doctors, lower to middle class citizens would get worse and worse services. In depth of inequality for those who have no chance to have high tier-insurances. It is not just happens in other countries that people buy oral product such as tooth brace at the domestic retail shop to replacement because it will be takes too much cost when they are go to hospitals. Maybe we are going to have tons of debt if we get surgery by accidently when there was no proper insurance: lower tiers of insurance. These can be too much dramatically describe that disadvantages of private funded system but these are necessarily concerned in advance to major reforms. We can also learn from Israel’s failure. Since 1996, Israel used the term “Private Health Services” (PHS). This term allowed patients to choose their doctor-specifically surgeons-within public hospitals, for
In line with the majority of other developed countries, the United Kingdom (UK) has offered its citizens a universal health care system that is free at the point of service. Funded primarily by taxation, the system is popular and efficient. However, along with most other health care systems around the world, it faces a series of challenges if it is to maintain viability, in the twenty-first century. These issues include; long waiting times, an aging population, funding challenges and the increasing cost of technology.
Neighboring countries, 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 as to which provides a superior healthcare system. In order to better understand the strengths and weakness of the two systems, this paper will review four important structural and functional elements of each system.
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.
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
Canada’s Health Care system is gradually growing to be a major concern in today’s society with providing Canadians with the standard of care they deserve. Health care has become an issue because of the shortage of doctors in Canada; many of them are either going to the U.S.A. or going to other countries to practice in hospitals and clinics. The earning cap imposed by the government has forced doctors to work fewer hours than are necessary to serve the public. Many Canadians are without a doctor to help them with their needs and emergency rooms are filled to capacity with no available beds for those who have to be admitted to the hospital. Waiting time for specialist and specialty tests have become so long that someone diagnosed with a major illness may die before they can be properly treated. Nurses and others in the medical field are overworked and understaffed because the government has made cut-backs to the Health Care System. We live in a country where our health care is a privilege to have, but getting ill is becoming a problem if there is not adequate facilities and professionals to care for the sick. Today’s society is aging longer than ever and will need health care longer than before; patients recovering from hospital stays are being sent home more quickly than ever before, and terminal patients are being sent home for their last days.
In recent years, the number of Americans who are uninsured has reached over 45 million citizens, with millions more who only have the very basic of insurance, effectively under insured. With the growing budget cuts to medicaid and the decreasing amount of employers cutting back on their health insurance options, more and more americans are put into positions with poor health care or no access to it at all. At the heart of the issue stems two roots, one concerning the morality of universal health care and the other concerning the economic effects. Many believe that health care reform at a national level is impossible or impractical, and so for too long now our citizens have stood by as our flawed health-care system has transformed into an unfixable mess. The good that universal healthcare would bring to our nation far outweighs the bad, however, so, sooner rather than later, it is important for us to strive towards a society where all people have access to healthcare.
A country’s health care system refers to all the institutions, programs, personnel, procedures, and the resources that are used to meet the health needs of its population. Health care systems vary from one country to another, depending on government policies and the health needs of the population. Besides, health care programs are flexible in the sense that they are tailored to meet health needs as they arise. Among the stakeholders in the formulation of a country’s health care system are governments, religious groups, non-governmental organizations, charity organizations, trade/labor unions, and interested individuals (Duckett, 2008). These entities formulate, implement, evaluate, and reform health services according to the needs of the sections of the population they target.
Timeliness in medical care can be of the utmost importance. Letting things progress can result in a slippery circle, where a minor infection, untreated end up being life threatening. With increased damage caused by neglecting health care, or waiting on a health care provider, the physical damage, and costs associated increase, often exponentially.
The U.S. expends far more on healthcare than any other country in the world, yet we get fewer benefits, less than ideal health outcomes, and a lot of dissatisfaction manifested by unequal access, the significant numbers of uninsured and underinsured Americans, uneven quality, and unconstrained wastes. The financing of healthcare is also complicated, as there is no single payer system and payment schemes vary across payors and providers.
Hospitals and insurance companies want to earn money. Hospital cost will expensive to citizens. According to Ed cooper and Liz Taylor (1994), Provide by the provincial governments through taxes to patients free to choose doctors and physicians on a fee for service basis. Compared to Unite State, the government does not have a purposeful health care system. Therefore, hospitals make marketing for their business profits and charge to citizens smaller pay because uninsured and reduced fees by large payers. Furthermore, Private Health Insurances cost will expensive to citizen. According to Odette, under the Canada Health Act, the provinces provide publicly insured, but except dental care, cosmetic surgery and additional hospital room amenities not covered by their provincial plan. Therefore, Canada private health insurance are not expensive compared to US. Consumer Reports said (2014), US private health insurances are getting expensive because insurances dose not fully protect to citizens and people want to get premiums health insurance for their coverage. The cost of health care in the US is the highest per person in the industrialized world and growing the fastest. Last, Cooper, Taylor (1994) said, “Financial incentives encourage expensive high-tech diagnosis, treatment, and specialization; there is not enough primary care” (paragraph 8). Hospitals and doctors want to easy to cure and does not want to see many
The Canada Health Act is Canada’s federal legislation for publicly funded health care insurance. The Act states ‘to protect, promote and restore physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.’ Canada's healthcare system is politically controversial. The proposed idea is to move to a private system similar to the one offered in the United States. The main reason people choose to purchase private insurance is to supplement primary health coverage.
A controversial issue in modern day America, is healthcare. Is it a privilege to those who are wealthy enough to afford it, or is it a basic human right that we all deserve? According to John Locke, the basic human rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The second someone is born, they receive natural rights. These rights cannot be taken away from anyone, therefore the three natural rights are protected by our constitution. Debate is on the rise whether or not health care falls under the category of a natural right. Many will agree that everyone deserves to pursue health; however, they will argue that it is not a given right. On the other hand, I disagree because without the resource of healthcare, one is being deprived of their
With the “free” access to healthcare service in British, patients can utilize the healthcare service repeatedly no matter how serious disease they are undergoing, hence, it precipitates longer waiting times for those who have actually needed. The statistical data, collected by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, illustrated that 88 percent of emergency patients were given treatment or admitted within four hours, which is outweigh the NHS target, at 95 percent (Triggle, 2015, no page given). Also, the official data published by the NHS England demonstrated that approximately 2.9 million of the UK residents are on the waiting list requesting for therapy at NHS hospitals, unfortunately, the average waiting time for therapy is currently 5.7 weeks in 2012 (Collins, 2013, no page given). Apart from the prolonged waiting list, free healthcare service in the UK is facing the insufficient hospital beds problem. A recent report from OECD figured out that 84 percent of hospital beds were unavailable at any time, which is much higher than Europe countries and the performance of British is substandard (Donnelly, 2014, no page given). Facing those dilemmas in the British, the patients in the UK cannot receive the
Immigration is a hot controversial topic these days, both inside of Australia and overseas. You all know Donald Trump's stand on this issue, but let's talk about Australian migration and its impacts on us young people. Not a single person in this room can deny having at least one ancestor, who wasn't originally from Australia. Unless you're Aboriginal, but even they were considered to have migrated here at some point in time. This is actually a fact supported by the ABS for the entire country. We are practically living in a nation of migrants. Living in a country known for being open and tolerant to everyone, regardless if you were born here or not.
Whereas private hospitals are made privately and are not run under the government’s budget. These can cost people a lot. Private hospitals cannot be afforded by everyone but can only be afforded by rich citizens. Most of the rich citizens claim to prefer private hospitals because they provide treatments of various diseases and illness that a government hospital cannot provide as government’s annual budget cannot afford to handle expenses for some serious diseases. Private hospital provides space to treat patients perfectly. A private hospital is equipped with new equipment which makes the treatment more costly. Private hospitals usually have fixed costs for every treatment. Students in economics study that every economic enterprise has a fixed, variable, and increment costs.