Canada’s health care system was formed in the 1950s and 60s, and is known as Medicare. It is a system that Canadians support and it is predominantly public. It has basic health care that is available to all citizens, incorporating aspects of the private system as well. After an in-depth analysis of private health care associated with neo-conservatism, and public health care associated with welfare state liberalism, I have come to the conclusion that the more effective option for Canada would be public health care. After the explanation of the relationship between welfare state liberalism and public health care, I first argue that public health care is very accessible, and universal, therefore allowing the individual to have access to health …show more content…
care nation-wide. I then explain that it is more affordable than private health care when it come to the average Canadian citizen. Subsequent to an explanation of the relationship between neo-conservatism and private health care, I acknowledge that the private healthcare system has some merit in the Canadian context, because health care quality would be improved with quicker access to it, and the upper classes would not be under as much pressure in the taxation for the healthcare system. Conversely, I counter that private health care is a blockade to providing universal and quality health care equitably because it is only beneficial to the wealthier classes. Argument 1: To begin, to strongly argue why public health care is a better choice for Canada, the relationship between the welfare state and public health care, and why liberals advocate for it, must be explored in-depth and understood.
The Canada Health Act of 1984 ensures universal access comprehensive coverage, and public funding for hospital and physician services . Liberals may advocate for public health care because it is found in liberal political theory and acts as the basis to the ideology of a welfare state. Liberalism was founded on the ideas of liberty and equality; This may be why Liberals prefer universal healthcare compared to private healthcare as the former provides equal opportunities compared to the latter. One’s health can impact their access/variety to opportunities . When looking at the Canada Health Act from the liberal perspective, you can see that the goal of Medicare is to establish that sick individuals should be able to become/stay healthy and enjoy equal opportunity as a healthy individual. In the end, the welfare state believes that being both portable as well as universal are crucial characteristics for provincial …show more content…
plans Argument 2: Accessible and universal My first argument for why public healthcare is the better option compared to private healthcare is that it is more accessible and universal. Ninety-one percent of Canadians say they have a regular source of care, usually a family physician. This shows that many Canadians from any social class has access to healthcare and the right to live a healthy life. Public healthcare is also important as it represents what our government stands for and supports the liberal ideology. Through its 10 provinces, Canada has plenty of well-established health care systems, all somewhat different but each committed to principles of universality and accessibility. This system of healthcare is an accurate representation of what the Canadian political view is. Not only are all these systems established in the provinces of Canada, both the patients and the physician have just as much flexibility within the system. The patient and physician has substantial freedom of action, which means that patients can choose their doctors and visit more than one doctor for the same problem, and doctors can choose how many patients they can have. This provides an extremely large amount of freedom and flexibility for both patient and doctor. This accessibility helps Canada stand out as a great example for other countries to follow in terms of how accessible healthcare is. Argument 3: More affordable Next, public healthcare is more affordable for the average Canadian compared to private healthcare. Health care is publicly insured and available to all at no charge . This allows Canadians who may not be well off or are struggling in the economy top still have access to proper healthcare. Canadian healthcare has evolved over the years to be even more affordable for the Canadian population. At the start of the introduction of Medicare, health policy was still controversial; this may be due to user charges being in place. Now in the present, having no user charges are what Canadians define as an essential component of universal healthcare. Overall, Canadians standby and admire our healthcare since health is viewed as a right and nobody can be denied medical care just because they are unable to pay. Public healthcare is something that Canadians view as here to stay because of how affordable it is compared to private healthcare and would not like the progress of public health-care to be reversed with the implication of private healthcare. Argument 4: How private healthcare and neo-conservatism relate In Canada, the term “private healthcare” is constantly affiliated with neo-conservatism. Private health care is a system that is paid for by private sources, including, employer-provided health plans, out-of-pocket expenses, private insurance plans, etc., . This is a view that is in support of neo-conservatism and fits directly with the ideology. Neo-conservatism also accentuates personal responsibility, individualism, and reliance on the market . Since this is the case, the market paradigm of neo-conservatism is said to conflict with the human right to health, and there are questions to if health can be recognized in the neo-conservative system. Since the ideology of neo-conservatism is to be more individualistic, public health care is simply not an option. This has always been the case when it came to healthcare. When the government was establishing healthcare, the conservative side suggested that healthcare be reprivatized. The neo-conservative goal to have a private health care system instead of a public healthcare system ultimately comes down to valuing individualism. Argument 5: Why Private Healthcare may be better To have a better understanding of the topic at hand, one must also explore the advantages that private health care may provide.
For one, private healthcare has more accurate information available. This is due to the fact that the current health-care system in Canada is too big for the federal government to be able to accurately and effectively handle all of the patient’s information. This being the responsibility of smaller medical companies would be more efficient. Compared to public health, which has different wait times in each province, the way private healthcare is structured may help wait times be more consistent and lowered due to multiple companies handling health care. This is crucial in helping Canadians who are in dire medical situations. While many Canadians think that public health care is better for Canada, other Canadians think that the option to have private health insurance should be allowed if it provides better options and opportunities for the patient . In this case, private healthcare could be a very viable option for Canadian citizens. Overall, private healthcare may outdo public healthcare due to private healthcare being the more efficient
option. Argument 6: Why private healthcare sucks Though private healthcare does have its advantages, it simply is not the best option for Canada. A huge downside to private healthcare is who has access to it. In pushing privatization, maintaining equal access to its benefits proves to be close to impossible. This goes against what it means to be Canadian. Privatization creates an increasingly inequitable class ; which it an unacceptable compromise to take when the current system in Canada provides equal access to healthcare for everyone. Citizens in poverty would also not have access as employer provided insurance and private insurance only cover a small population of people. Private health care creates a barrier between people which is unnecessary and unacceptable in Canadian societyand a violation of social justice. This goes against Canadian values and therefore cannot be a proper fit for Canada’s healthcare system. Conclusion: To conclude, one can safely associate public health care with liberalism and the welfare state, as well as neo-conservatism with private health care. In this essay, one can conclude that public health care is more universal and accessible than private healthcare; and that it is also more affordable for the Canadian population. Thus, it is preferable. While this essay looked at how private healthcare has its own benefits and strong arguments when compared to public healthcare, the overall deduction is that it is inferior to public healthcare when the comes to Canadian political views. Healthcare is an important aspect of what it means to be Canadian and public healthcare is what the Canadian people have come to support.
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
Saskatchewan’s governmental agencies approach to the shortage of doctors in the province favors too much the structuralist approach and would be more effective in the long term if switched to a humanistic approach. Throwing money at a problem may work for a little bit but what happens when the money runs out? So are current programs a true fix or a short-term solution doomed to fail. We look at the possible causes for the shortage of doctors and then examine the governmental responses put in place to deal with the problem, both past and present. We look at which perspectives are more successful between the structuralist approach and the humanist approach when it comes to the Canadian health care system.
Conservatives, ideology places the values on status quo. They have difficulties accepting changes, and believe that change should be taking at a slow pace. They believe that human institutions are the product of a gradual process of experience. Conservatives believe slow changes would be more effective over a long period of time. time. They believe changing institutions and practices would affect the would affect the underlying structure. Conservatives be that it is not realistic to expect that that changes in institutions and practices would replace the existing without causing chaos.
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.
The Canadian health care system promises universality, portability, and accessibility; unfortunately, it faces political challenges of meeting pub...
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.
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.
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.
In Canada, access to health care is ‘universal’ to its citizens under the Canadian Health Care Act and this system is considered to the one of the best in the world (Laurel & Richard, 2002). Access to health care is assumed on the strong social value of equality and is defined as the distribution of services to all those in need and for the common good and health of all residents (Fierlbeck, 2011). Equitable access to health care does not mean that all citizens are subjected to receive the same number of services but rather that wherever the service is provided it is based on need. Therefore, not all Canadians have equal access to health services. The Aboriginal peoples in Canada in particular are a population that is overlooked and underserved
Jeffrey Simpson, “The Real Problem with Canadian Health Care,” National Post, accessed February 14, 2014, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/jeffrey-simpson-the-real-problem-with-canadian-health-care/.
Liberalism is the best ideology for Canada’s government and is a good combination of both Socialism and Conservatism. Liberalism takes the finer parts from both ideologies to create a better form of government. Canadians now have a choice in which ideology they like better by this compromised form of government. The centre of the spectrum and the equilibrium of government and individual ownership is the definition of Liberalism.
Today, Canadians are concerned about 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 of 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 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