Among the great countries in the world, Canada has a reputable universal health care system. Canada is located north of the United States and it is the second largest nation in the world. According to world population review, it has a population size of 35,524,732. Ontario has the most people living there and its population is 12,851,821 and Nunavut has the least amount of people living there with a population size is 31,906. However Nunavut is the largest land size it has the smallest population size. Canada consists of 10 provinces and 3 territories. The size of Canada is about 9,984,670 square kilometers and 3,855,103 square miles (Canada facts). Despite its dispersed populations and enormous land mass, Canada is still able to provide healthcare …show more content…
They have it this way so that everyone in Canada can have access to health care regardless of their income or how much of the services you actually use. The citizens of Canada all pay premiums. They also have private insurances. The private insurances are here to provide any missing coverage in Canada’s universal health care system. Some provinces such as Alberta will charge a premium every month.
Although Canada provides universal health care, this does not necessarily mean that the quality is any better. According to a Gallup Poll, 57 percent of Canadians felt as they were “satisfied” with their access to healthcare. One thing that Canada has taken a lot of heat for is the ridiculous wait times for an appointment with a specialist (Kliff). It was report by a Commonwealth Fund survey (2010) that the average wait time was up to four weeks, more than double of that in the United States
…show more content…
Canada can learn from other countries by observing that makes them much more efficient than comparing similarities and differences. Among the information and data, they can find out what changes can be implemented in order to maximize their goals of delivering the best possible care for the Canadian people. Some of these changes include reducing the cost they have to pay through the taxes that fund the system. This seems counter intuitive because the tax is what funds that universal care system of Canada. In reality, a Canadian family of four can expect to pay about $11,320 for public health insurance per a year (Esmail). On average, the Canadian government spends about 11 percent of their total GDP (gross domestic product) in to their health care system, far less than the United States. This averages to about $6045 per a person (CIHI). What needs to be focus on in terms is spending is how to receive better health care for a lower cost. The Conference Board of Canada noted that the United States spent 25 percent more than Canada but yielded a poorer score in terms of its quality that the patient receives. On the other hand, Japan spent 25 percent less than Canada and had a much better score (Flood). Overall, there problems lie with the amount of money they are spending, spending more does not necessarily mean better quality of healthcare. Some
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.
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
Many people in the world may think that Canada has the ideal system of healthcare for it's citizens, but that may not be entirely correct. Although the healthcare system in Canada has excellent features such as the standard of care and acceptance of all it's residents, it is quite often misconstrued. Each province in Canada is different, but they all run with basically the same set of rules and regulations, each required by law for the basic health care services to be provided. Canada's healthcare system is based upon five main principles, those being universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility, and public administration. These principles are usually enforced, however, what some people do not realize is that there are a few negative aspects of the way healthcare is
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
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.
By 1971, all Canadians were guaranteed access important medical services regardless of income, employment, or health. Canada has one of the highest life expectancies and he lowest infant mortality rates of industrialized countries, which many attribute to Canada’s health care system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed. This act added provisions that prohibited extra billing and user fees for covered services. To support the ten year plan, the federal government increased health care to the Canada Health Transfer from 2006-2007 until 2013-2014 to provide growth in federal funding. On the other end the United states private for profit insurers based our premiums on age, gender, health status, and pre-existing conditions only covering the healthiest people and avoiding the sickest individuals which in turn e...
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.
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.
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 has become so long that someone diagnosed with a major illness may die before they can be properly treated.
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
Canadian health care system is well developed, highly efficient, and even with drawbacks it provides Canadian resident the best health care they deserve.
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.
In sum, America needs to reevaluate the status quo surrounding medical care. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the current model only benefits a select few and causes insufferable costs for the rest of the world. If there is no reform for these issues, money will continue to be siphoned directly into the pockets of large, for-profit companies that benefit from the strife of