Disparities In Canada

In the article, “Parting at the Crossroads: The Development of Health Insurance in Canada and the United States” the author Antonia Maioni argues various points as to why Canada and the United States of America have such different approaches to targeting the healthcare system. The topics covered by Maioni included, “Health Reform in Canada: The Role of the CCF-NDP”. Here Maioni discuses in great detail, the historical background to how Canada got to where they are in the health system through the ups and downs that occurred in Parliament due to “the public demand for action on medical insurance” which was influenced by the highly successful medical insurance program that existed in Saskatchewan post-world war. It goes to show, that the passing

In the book on a citizens guidelines to policy and politics, Katherine Fierlbeck argues that, “The 1983 Canada Health Act replaced the 1947 Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services act

Canada’s healthcare system started in 1946 and is made up of a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens. It is publicly funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis with in the rules set by their federal government. Since the late 1960’s Canada essential has had a universal health insurance system covering all services provided by physicians and hospitals. In 1966 Lester B Pearson’s government subsequently expanded a policy of the universal healthcare with the medical care act. Canada’s healthcare system is the subject of political controversy and debate in the country. While healthcare in America began in the late 1800’s but was truly born in 1929 when Justin Kimball

Health care expenditure accounted for an estimated 11% (214.9 billion) of Canada’s GDP in 2014 (CIHI, 2014). Canada boasts a universal, cost-effective and fair health care system to its citizens (Picard, 2010). However, despite great claims and large expenses incurred Canada’s health care system has been reported inefficient in it’s delivery to the population (Davis, Schoen, & Stremikis, 2010; Picard, 2010). As inconsistencies exist in health care delivery across the country, choosing priorities for the health of the Canadian people becomes of vital importance. In Ontario, progress toward a better health care system has been stated to be moving forward by putting the needs of the “patient’s first” (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC], 2015). This policy brief will give a background of health care issues in Canada related to Ontario. Three evidence-based priorities will be suggested for Ontario’s health policy agenda for the next three to five years. Furthermore, through a critical analysis of these issues a recommendation of the top priority issue for the agenda will be presented.

Public Policies strive to protect all citizens across the nation, includes low-income citizens who often go unrecognized in society. To make sure this happens, legislature has put forth the “The Canada Health Act”, which requires the provincial government to meet certain expectations regarding public-health care and insurance plans. Though this act states that health services are free and accessible facilities, issues arise when citizens need urgent medical attention but appointment are unavailable until weeks later. Many of these poor individuals cannot afford to pay the extra amount to receive faster care as oppose to their rich counterparts.

The Canada Healthcare act [R.S. 1985, c. C-6] passed in 1984. It ensures that all residents of Canada have an equal access to necessary physician services, no extra billing from physicians and hospital. The act is on five main principles, Public administration necessary services are to offer on a non-profit basis. Next, accessibility coverage with no extra charges and comprehensiveness coverage for all medically necessary services at all times. Portability coverage is to extend to all residents in all provinces and territories. The fifth principle is universality coverage for all eligible residents of all provinces and territories (SEDAP, 2007).

     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.

Looking back in Canadian History, numerous black Canadians have taken part in defining a universal and diverse heritage of Canada through numerous achievements and contributions traded by sacrifices of those throughout the years. Is is the actions of these people who have shaped, our national semiotics to become accepting. Building the acceptance through such of protest and perseverance, as they have shaped and continue to shape and develop Canada as a nation. Even though they have gone, they will never be forgotten as their impacts will prosper.

In the book on a citizens guidelines to policy and politics, Katherine Fierlbeck argues that “The 1983 Canada Health Act replaced the 1947 Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services act because of the shift from a system of 50-50 federal-provincial cost sharing to a system of block funding established in Ottawa in 1977” (Fierlbeck 2011, pg.20). Until the period of the mid 1980’s, the Canadian health care system is to be categorized in a disarray, having no foundation to components and accomplishment. The system is to rely mainly on cost sharing; whereby in a health insurance policy only a portion is paid by the health insurance. While enabling the insured party to pay a portion of the price of covered services. In this case, cost sharing is based on 50-50 provincial and federal cost-sharing agreement to a fault. By Ottawa giving tax transfers to the provinces in replacement of direct transfers, but the federal government had no capacity to conceal cash. This in return is able to affect provinces because it deprived the federal government effective, efficient, and responsive measure of provinces holding the five principles of the Canada health care. According to About Canada Health Care, Pat Armstrong and Hugh Armstrong speaks about the five principles of health care, which are; “Public administration, Comprehensiveness, Universality, Portability, and Accessibility” (Pat Armstrong & Hugh Armstrong 2008, pg.28). These five principles holds the provinces accountable to the

Canada ­as a nation is known to the world for being loving, courteous, and typically very welcoming of all ethnicities. Nevertheless, the treatment of Canada’s Indigenous population over the past decades, appears to suggest otherwise. Indigenous people have been tormented and oppressed by the Canadian society for hundreds of years and remain to live under discrimination resulting in cultural brutality. This, and more, has caused severe negative cultural consequences, psychological and sociological effects. The history of the seclusion of Indigenous people has played a prominent aspect in the development and impact of how Indigenous people are treated and perceived in today’s society. Unfortunately, our history with respect to the treatment of Indigenous communities is not something in which we should take pride in. The Indian Act of 1876 is an excellent model of how the behavior of racial and cultural superiority attributed to the destruction of Indigenous culture and beliefs. The Indian Act established by the Canadian government is a policy of Aboriginal assimilation which compels Indigenous parents under threat of prosecution to integrate their children into Residential Schools. As a nation, we are reminded by past actions that has prompted the weakening of the identity of Indigenous peoples. Residential schools has also contributed to the annihilation of Indigenous culture which was to kill the Indian in the child by isolating them from the influence of their parents and

For this study, my research question is “does representation on the Canadian House of Commons affect likelihood of political participation of visible minority groups?” The Canadian House of Commons is not a mirror representation of the Canadian population, so underrepresented groups may not feel as if their voice is being heard in the Canadian government.

The original intentions for the residential schools were to “remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.” These two objectives make it clear that in the past we viewed the Aboriginals as unequals, we treated them as if we were superior, trying to rid them of their culture and spiritual beliefs. The motives of assimilation were wrong and have no place in Canadian identity.

Canada’s health care system “can be described as a publicly-funded, privately-provided, universal, comprehensive, affordable, single-payer, provincially administered national health care system” (Bernard, 1992, p.103). Health care in Canada is provincial responsibility, with the Canada Health act being a federal legislation (Bernard, 1992, p. 102). Federal budget cuts, has caused various problems within Medicare such as increased waiting times and lack of new technology. Another problem with Medicare is that The Canada Heath Act does not cover expenditures for prescriptions drugs. All these issue has caused individuals to suggest making Medicare privatized. Although, Canada’s health care system consists of shortcomings, our universal

Individuals with higher levels of education tend to have better health, greater social engagement, longer life expectancy and they generally feel happier (OECD 2013). Throughout the Australian history, Aboriginal communities were deprived of basic human rights which resulted in poor quality of life and poor education outcomes

Inequality can rise in a society in which a small group is perceived to be benefiting unfairly or there are gaps between classes, that leads to anti-social behaviour and distress. This later can result into increase in crime, protest and social tension. The scenario described seems similar to “Piketty’s view of the future is dystopian” (Atkinson 2015, 4). The government leaders need to focus their attention on dealing with inequality. The Canadian government faces an increasing inequality due to wider gaps in income, which is resulted from globalization and technological advancement. The paper will discuss the current situation of Canada’s inequality, and the Canadian government’s plan to reduce inequality. Moreover, it will examine lessons