The basis of health reform is built on the fundamental structures of politics, medicine, and society. Medicine is a continuously changing field that requires the adaptation to different techniques and situations. Contradicting the evolving medical field, the advancement of health policies have remained at a standstill as changes are rarely made. The loss of resources and efficiency in the overall health system is the result of a lack of correlation between the evolving field of medicine and the progression of an inclusive health insurance. Antonia Maioni, the author of Parting at the Crossroads: The Development of Health Insurance in Canada and the United States, emphasize the vast similarities pertaining to healthcare services, medical research …show more content…
Evidently, those that are rich and able are more likely to receive superior health services than those in desperate need, reinstating differing social values as well as lack of union and equity within society. In the article, Maioni positions her argument regarding the social Democratic Party assistance in provoking government interest in health reform (Maioni, 1997). The social democratic party (NDP) is notable as a mechanism that exert considerable influence in the development of health policies. Contrary to the emergence of a third, social democratic party in Canada, United States lack a representative mechanism for organized labour group contributing to the strong opposition towards the universal health insurance program. As Rose and Chaison state in their scholarly article, the connection between organized labour and the social Democratic Party has enhanced the political influence of Canadian unions (Rose & Chaison, 2001). The absence of independent voices in America translates to the lack of health care reform, as it limits within the parameters of Democratic unions. To reinstate the validity of her argument, Maioni draws on the postwar evolution of health reform in Canada and the United States, arguing the labour movement was initial catalysis that pushed for socialized medicine (Maioni, 1997). As a result of the political potency that the labour movement created, it is difficult for parties to obtain …show more content…
With the evolution of the Democratic Party, society has become more influential, developing a predominant voice in political activities; particularly regarding socialized medicine and the principle of universality within political institutions. Maioni emphasized the influential contribution of social values on health policies, focusing on societal values on the development of welfare state through a neo-institutional approach. According to Maioni, political parties conditioned by formal institutions play critical role in the process of health policies as it serves a precedent function between state and society (Maioni, 1997). The constraints on third party formation and success channeled demands for health reform through the deeply divided Democratic Party. Moreover, democrats within the United States refuse to support former United States President Harry S. Truman’s idea of adopting universal health care to protect their social policy and civil rights executive autonomy (Maioni, 1997). This concludes that societal factors and public opinion have a greater supremacy on Canadian government than American government due to deeply divided parties and the centralized control of the policy-making process. According to Forget, it is important to identify and acknowledge the social and institutional differences between two countries
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.
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.
Armstrong, P., & Armstrong, H. (1996). Wasting Away: The Undermining of Canadian Health Care. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Healthcare professionals want only to provide the best care and comfort for their patients. In today’s world, advances in healthcare and medicine have made their task of doing so much easier, allowing previously lethal diseases to be diagnosed and treated with proficiency and speed. A majority of people in the United States have health insurance and enjoy the luxury of convenient, easy to access health care services, with annual checkups, preventative care, and their own personal doctor ready to diagnose and provide treatment for even the most trivial of symptoms. Many of these people could not imagine living a day without the assurance that, when needed, medical care would not be available to themselves and their loved ones. However, millions of American citizens currently live under these unimaginable conditions, going day to day without the security of frequent checkups, prescription medicine, or preventative medicines that could prevent future complications in their health. Now with the rising unemployment rates due to the current global recession, even more Americans are becoming uninsured, and the flaws in the United States’ current healthcare system are being exposed. In order to amend these flaws, some are looking to make small changes to fix the current healthcare system, while others look to make sweeping changes and remodel the system completely, favoring a more socialized, universal type of healthcare system. Although it is certain that change is needed, universal healthcare is not the miracle cure that will solve the systems current ailments. Universal healthcare should not be allowed to take form in America as it is a menace to the capitalist principle of a free market, threatens to put a stranglehold on for-...
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
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.
Berman, M. L. (2011). From Health Care Reform to Public Health Reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39(3), 328-339. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00603.x
Makarenko, J. (2007, April 1). Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care: Findings and Recommendations | Mapleleafweb.com. Mapleleafweb.com | Canada's Premier Political Education Website!. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/romanow-commission-future-health-care-findings-and-recommendations
There has been a lot of talk and debate lately over Health Care Reform, as people are trying to answer the question – Should a universally accessible health care system be implemented in the United States (US)? This ongoing highly debatable issue remains a hot topic among US citizens from all walks of life, from the very poor to the very wealthy. Health Care Reform affects everyone. The vast majority of the US population is very dissatisfied with the current state of health care. According to the ABC News and Washington Post cooperative poll, 57 percent of Americans aren’t satisfied with the overall system of health care (Langer, 2009). Consequently, the issue of the Health Care Reform was born, but before analyzing the actual aspects of this reform it will be wise to brush up on those major attitudes and concerns which occupy ordinary people and how they respond to the unfolding changes in the area of health care and social security.