The Canadian health care system, characterized by universally available and publicly funded health services, has been a quintessential part of the Canadian identity since World War II. Indeed, under the umbrella of the federally funded Medicare system or Canada Health Act, Canadians have enjoyed physician services, hospital care, and a host of other medical services with minimal cost. However, a myriad of social and economic factors have accumulated over several decades culminating in a contemporary crisis precipitated by the untenable encumbrance that the Canadian health care system has become. Consequently, the sustainability of the current Canadian health care model has been called into question as the federal and provincial budgets have …show more content…
Older Canadians are susceptible to forms of chronic, terminal illness such as ALS and cancer. Consequently, government spending on health care costs related to sustaining the life expectancy of those in a palliative condition are expected to rise due to the aging demographics and unhealthy lifestyles of contemporary Canadians which will result in further strain on other Canadian social issues in need of government funding. Moreover, some individuals suffering from terminal illness may wish to seek assisted suicide which remains illegal in Canada pending what will be a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the near future (Brean, 2015). Should the Supreme Court rule that present assisted suicide laws are unconstitutional, some Canadians may choose this option; as a result, the costs associated with providing palliative care and the legal status of euthanasia represent another link between the Canadian health care economic crisis and …show more content…
For example, throughout his tenure as Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has steadfastly refused to meet with provincial premiers to address provincial economic concerns (Fekete, 2015). It is abundantly clear that increased co-operation between the different levels of government is required to create a more synergistic approach to resolving Canadian social challenges such as the economic burden of health
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.
The basic values of fairness and equity that are demonstrated by the willingness of Canadians to share resources and responsibility are displayed in Canada 's healthcare system, and have been reflected in the modifications and major reforms made to the system since its initiation. The system has been and continues to be modified as the country 's population and circumstances change, and as the nature of health care itself evolves. Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities. It is guided by the provisions of
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
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.
Armstrong, P., & Armstrong, H. (1996). Wasting Away: The Undermining of Canadian Health Care. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
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 public health care system in Canada is still flawed, proven through the wait times that many patients have to go through. Canadians may wait up to six to nine months for “non-urgent” MRIs . The waiting list is dreary for Canadians, unlike Americans who can get their services immediately through paying out-of-pocket, the long public sector in Alberta waits up to a year for services, the wait for cataract surgery was six weeks ; these waits for some patients put the public health care system to shame, and helps push the idea of the privatized health care system a bettering option for the future of the nation. Additionally, 41 percent of adult Canadians said they experienced a difficulty in accessing hospital and physician care on weekday nights and weekends . Furthermore, it is still evident that Canadians in fact pay a higher income tax compared to Americans, due to the fact that they are paying the fund the health care system through their taxes; however, it is still significantly less to pay for a public health care system than it is privatized . Privatization is further proved as a superior choice with regards to the discharge situation many Canadians face. In Canada, it is common to see patients discharged earlier than recommended due the rising amount of patients using the free-of-charge public health care system, patients are released “quicker and sicker” because of this . Additionally, when discharged, the public health care system does not cover home care and private nurse care ; further proving the notion that there is still some forms of privatization already in the health care system in
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 ...
Who owns your life? In the case of Canadians, the choice to die is not in your hands…unless you decide to break the law. Sue Rodriguez, 42, from British Columbia, fought the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the prohibition against Euthanasia. She lost to a vote of five to four. Sue later took her life with the help of an anonymous doctor. Ironically, Canada was founded upon the principles of rights, freedoms, and dignity. Why do our rights end when faced with Euthanasia? Does freedom from suffering not apply? How does artificially prolonging life respect human dignity? The act of Euthanasia poses many questions because there is an element of control. The following paper will examine why the control should be in the hands of the individual: Fundamentally, controlling one’s life should be an independent choice; additionally, the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia; moreover, many arguments against euthanasia are invalid.
Understanding What Is Home Home isn't just a house. It's where we feel safe, loved, and understood. Exploring what home really means helps us see how it shapes who we are and what we cherish. Esperanza's journey in The House on Mango Street is a poignant exploration of the concept of home and its significance in shaping identity and aspirations. Initially, she grapples with feelings of shame and discontent towards her house, yearning for a better life elsewhere.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.