In Samuelson and Antony’s book Power and Resistance, renowned sociologist Professor Pat Armstrong tackles the topic of health care reform from a critical feminist perspective. Her analytic critique of the historic tenets of Health Care policy in Canada, effectively points out a systemic disadvantage for the women of our society. Which, in the spirit of transparency, completely blind sighted me as a first time reader because, well, this is Canada. Canada, the internationally renowned first world nation with a reputation for progressive social reform. The same Canada that Americans make fun of for being ‘too soft’. As far as the world is concerned we’re the shining nation-state example of how to do health care right. Needless to say, Professor …show more content…
This shift effectively illustrates a trend toward a more community-based approach to care, and with an aging population it is becoming increasingly clearer to reformers that an institutional approach to health care is not something we can afford. This shift has furthermore caused many hospitals to downsize, and between 1994 and 1996, 85 percent of Canadians hospitals reduced their workforce by 10 percent. Professor Armstrong argues that this tendential shift perpetuates conditions that limit a woman’s access to care. Using the case of Pembroke Civic Hospital and Lowe v. Health Services Restructuring Commission (1997), Professor Armstrong attempts to illustrate just that. Wherein, the closure of Pembroke Civic Hospital was argued to restrict access to health services pertaining to sexuality, reproduction, and abortion. The reason being that these services would be left to the Catholic Hospital, which by religious code would have an obvious bias towards the provision of said services. Ultimately, however the Court rejected the argument due to a physician’s testimony of never experiencing any interference in carrying out his medical responsibilities, and the fact that neither hospital provided abortion as a service in the last 14 years. Consequentially, the Court’s rejection of this claim does not serve to …show more content…
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
Have you ever been sick? Chances are you have. Medical care is very expensive; a simple check-up can cost up to and over $100. If a check-up costs that much money, think about how much an operation might cost. If it weren’t for Medicare or (Free) Universal Health Insurance, it is possible that some of you would be bankrupt by now. The inventor of this system is Tommy Douglas, voted the greatest Canadian of all time by the CBC broadcasting channel. This remarkable man was the former premier of Saskatchewan for 17 years and the father of Medicare.
Tommy Douglas was born in Scotland in the year of 1904. At the age of 15 Douglas
The Canadian health care system promises universality, portability, and accessibility; unfortunately, it faces political challenges of meeting pub...
Many policies have shaped Canadian healthcare. In 1962, Saskatchewan enacted the Medical Care Insurance Act (MCIA). The MCIA provided coverage in the province for services provided by physicians. Physicians were allowed to bill the patient for any amount over what the government would pay. Other provinces began considered similar programs. In 1966, the federal government passed the Medical Care Act. Under this act physician services were covered under programs administered at the provincial level. The fees were split at a 50% rate between the federal and provincial governments. Another act, known as the Hospital Act allowed the provinces to develop their own health plans. Some provinces took a more inflexible approach to billing. After these acts were implemente...
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.
“Honey, you’re not a person, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!” If a husband were to say these words to his wife today, he would likely receive a well-deserved smack to the face. It is not until recently that Canadian women have received their status as people and obtained equal rights as men. Women were excluded from an academic education and received a lesser pay than their male counter parts. With the many hardships women had to face, women were considered the “slave of slaves” (Women’s Rights). In the past century, women have fought for their rights, transitioning women from the point of being a piece of property to “holding twenty-five percent of senior positions in Canada” (More women in top senior positions: Report). The Married Women’s Property Act, World War I, The Person’s Case, and Canadian Human Rights Act have gained Canadian women their rights.
From 1960 to 1990 the women’s movement in Canada played a significant role in history concerning the revolution of women’s rights. Although it was a long road coming for them, they were able to achieve the rights they deserved. Women struggled for equality rights to men but primarily their rights as a person. Since the 1960s women’s rights had significantly changed, they had to work hard for the rights that they have in the present day. Females across the nation started speaking out against gender inequality, divorce, and abortion. This uprising coincided with the Women’s Movement. Through the Royal Commission on the status of women they were able to gain equality rights and they were able to have access to legal abortions through the Charter Rights of Freedom and obtain no-fault divorce through the Divorce Act of 1986.
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 of 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. Canada’s health care system is gradually growing to be a major concern in today’s society, providing Canadians with the standard of care they deserve.
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
It is apparent that women as a group continue to experience poverty and hardship more significantly than men. One of this week’s readings illustrates how women continue to juggle paid and unpaid work, insecure employment, have multiple jobs, and seasonal work with few work supported health benefits. It is evident that even in the twentieth century women face multiple barriers to employment. These barriers include: lack of good quality childcare, lack of affordable public transportation, inflexibility of employment and much more. The article by Reid and LeDrew states how, “more than 1,772,000 women in Canada live in poverty” (Reid and LeDrew, 2016, p. 54). The primary causes of women’s poverty are described as being labor market inequities, domestic circumstances, and welfare systems. However, overwhelming findings from the article states how women’s domestic responsibility limits
After the end of the Second World War, Canada was in a state of reconstruction, both socially and politically. The conclusion of this terrible war brought a will and need for change. The government and its citizens took vows to implement progressive change for the future of the country. Among thousands of people who started gradually working towards causes to make a difference, some reformists attracted more attention to the eyes of Canadian citizens as well as the Federal Government. A particular activist, who started her campaigning even before the beginning of WWII, achieved the most progress for her cause during the years after the war. Due to her work dedicated to women’s rights in Canada, especially in Quebec, and her impressive political
The constitution of the World Health Organization states that “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition” (Koh and Nowinski 2010 pp 949). One would hope that this sentiment would also include the low income women of our society, however it has become a harsh reality amongst poverty stricken women that fair and affordable health care is difficult to provide for themselves and for their families. Women with an income below the federal poverty level are at a higher risk of being uninsured or under insured than the general population (Legerski, 2012). The inability to acquire adequate health insurance both privately offered and state funded, in particular can be a serious barrier to low income women's ability to seek health care (Magge, 2013). Furthermore poverty can cause some women to engage in dangerous “street involvement” causing health care providers to act with unjust prejudice in regard to their health care (Bungay, 2013). This paper will attempt to further address and justify these broad statements regarding low income women and their relationship to health care. It makes the argument that if we must see the highest attainable standard of health care as a fundamental human right than by not safeguarding our society’s impoverished women from these trials and tribulations are we not, as a country making a concession that low income women are less worthy or these rights?
The principle of “public payment, private practice” for “medically-necessary” hospital and physician services have been instituted by the Medical Care Act, creating policy legacies that reinforce institutional barriers to change (Abelson et al., 2004). However, passive privatization is occurring in Canada due to new technologies, with life-saving innovations such as drugs and genetic therapies emerging as the future of health care therapy (Flood et al., 2006). Yet, these innovations fall outside the scope of core services that receive public coverage, serving as an example of the limits to the principles underlying health care in Canada. Ironically, these non-core services are taking up an increasing proportion of provincial health care budgets (Ballinger et al., 2001). Thus, unless Canadians are prepared to broaden the definition of “medically necessary” to be more inclusive, they must be prepared to look at alternative options to funding these services, such as “two-tier” or for-profit delivery
“The National Council of Women of Canada lobbied for wide-ranging reforms that helped build this country’s social safety net. This large network of local, provincial and federal councils had its beginnings in 1893 at a meeting held near here, in the original Horticultural Pavilion. At a time when only a few women could vote and then only in
The ban on abortion was also linked to the prohibition of the distribution of birth control. However, the criminalization of abortion did not reduce the quantity of women who desired to have one. Instead, the women resulted to self-induced abortions and/or continued to see untrained practitioners. One of the main reasons behind the criminalization of abortion was that the doctors at the time wanted to be granted the exclusive rights to practice medicine and to prevent other practitioners, such as midwives, from taking more clients for less money. By 1910, legal abortion was only attainable through a physician’s approval. It wasn’t until the late 1960s that states began to repeal the abortion laws.