Medicare Argumentative Essay

The Kirby and Romanow Reports were commissioned by different subsections of the Canadian government to give an overall view of the nation’s health care status and future recommendations for bettering the health care system. Senator Michael Kirby released the Final report on the state of health care in Canada on October 23, 2002 on behalf of the State Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Kirby, 2002). The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada chose former Saskatchewan premier Mr. Roy Romanow to ask citizens across the country their issues, thoughts and concerns regarding current and future status of the nation’s health care system. This inquiry resulted

In order to sustain the health care system, the Canadian government needs to strategically plan for the years ahead and invest more in preventative care rather than curative care. Canada should enforce non-medical health policies which are not only going to promise healthy living for

When asked to describe what makes Canada unique compared to other countries, many outsiders might yell out “Hockey!” “Cold Weather!” or “Free Health Care!.” Health care is definitely one of Canada’s most noticeable trademarks when compared to the United States, but the reality is that our health care services are not what they are made out to be. Canadians tend to take pride in the fact that they have a Government funded health care system, but the system is failing at a rapid pace. One can gage the quality of health care in our country while at the emergency ward in any hospital, where most Canadians realize its downsides. The Government spends most of its budget towards health care but Canadians are not feeling an improvement. Waiting

Its purpose is to provide facilities that already exist with health services and resources to provide the best possible health for Canadians (Royal Commission on Health Services, 2004). Public policy refers to the governments role in achieving an objective causing a change in society through major priorities. In this case the priority here is for every Canadian to have adequate an effective health regardless of their socio-economic status. (Role of Knowledge in Public Health, n.d., pg 89) However, this priority becomes controversial when political parties begin to get involved due to power shifts. The dilemma here is not about who is eligible to retrieve medical services but rather the policies that are made by the influence of other institutions such as marketing companies and political parties that result in health

The Canadian health care system is funded majorly by the public, with very few private donations. Over the past few decades acts of large-scale philanthropy by wealthy private donors have started to increase, due to the investments in social programs and infrastructure from the government declining. Without the aid of private donors and large sources of income from outside of the public (government) the infrastructure of all hospitals, clinics, and the totality of western healthcare systems would collapse and ultimately fail as the system is set up presently. There is an opportunity of keeping a healthy and happy society sustained by public funds, as long as the government is able to step up and provide the healthcare system with enough funds, making the donations from philanthropists an excess instead of a necessity.

By understanding the two opposing systems regarding health care, I believe that the Canadian health-care system should in fact be privatized. Despite the fact that the public health-care system is a great way of providing medical care to everyone, I believe that I am not receiving the best health-care that I could be receiving in other countries. Another reason why I favor privatized health care over publicized is because of what progressive taxation imposes among individuals who have a higher salary, they are taxed at a higher rate, due to the fact that they possess a larger amount taxable than those who do not make enough. I believe that hard working, successful individuals should be able to take advantage of their accomplishments, therefore

It was as leader of the NDP that he advocated for a national health-care system. Although interestingly, while most Canadians would regard Douglas as the ‘Father of Medicare’ and the CBC designated ‘Greatest Canadian’, it was actually ‘his forgotten successor’ who legislated it’. (Reynolds)

     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.

Medicare and Medicaid are two of the United States largest broken systems, which must sustain themselves in order to provide care to their beneficiaries. Both Medicare and Medicaid are funding by a joint effort between the federal government and the local state government. If and when these governments choose to cut funding or reduce spending, Medicare and Medicaid take the biggest hit. Most people see these two benefits as one in the same, two benefits the government takes out of their pay check to help fund health care. While the government does deduct a sum from paychecks everywhere, Medicare and Medicaid are very two very different programs.

The constituent contacted the GAO asking why her father got denied Medicare. Her father is residing in California and he came to visit his family in Oregon.He needed to see a dentist, so he applied for OHP, but got denied. The constituent was informed that her father cannot receive Medicare in two states at the same

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

To this day, many Canadian citizens are all glad for the free health care plan available in Canada. Little do most people know, that Tommy Douglas was the one who made this possible. Though the modern day healthcare plan is a bit different from what Tommy Douglas had envisioned, it still remains true to the “helping society” idea. The most key difference between Tommy Douglas’ health care plan and the modern day one, is that parallel services could exist. Not many people are aware of this but, you could technically pay to use a private doctor if you didn’t want a government employed one. Those private doctors could dictate the price of their service, this was known as “extra billing”. On the other hand, modern day Canadian healthcare does not

The lack of flexibility within government, however, as Armstrong articulates that “opposition now comes not only from the big provinces but also from forces such as doctors’ organizations […] those seeking for profit” (Armstrong, p153). Governments’ are influenced from behind the scenes in the form of private investment and wealthy investors such as lobbyists. I do believe that if the government becomes more flexible, it would under these conditions - eliminate public funding across the board and implement a free market due to the persuasion of partisan funding. With the electoral system Canadians have in place, bipartisan voting and four or five-year electoral schedule, it differs political parties from imposing such changes, as they are confined to public opinions (Malcolmson, p227). In comparison, Armstrong defines our ‘rigidity’ as praise for resistance of private corporations and lobbyists, avoiding “pressuring individual legislators” (Armstrong, p21). The for-profit industry is heavily funded, therefore, can offer significantly more public persuasion. Furthermore, as discussed by our guest lecturer, we are geographically linked to the largest for-profit regime on the globe – our television is directly influenced by American advertisements, enticing our population to believing that we are restrained in choice of care by our government.

This is largely because I didn’t think that it was important. However, after doing research on this topic and participating in the debate during the tutorial, my way of thinking about these issues have changed and I have a strong opinion on this topic. I strongly believe that Canada should adopt a two-tiered health-care system. There is one main aspect of the two-tiered health-care system that appeals to me. Individuals who can’t afford private health-care are still covered by the government, and those, who are stronger financially are able to purchase the necessities (the health-care insurance) they require. It calms me to know that regardless of one’s financial status, they are still able to access health-care. This concept relates to me on a personal level. A couple of years ago, one of my best friends who lives in New York City tore his ACL playing basketball. I recall him telling me how, when he attempted to go through the public health-care system, he was told it would take months to book an appointment for a MRI scan. He decided later to go through the privatized health-care system where it was much faster. He was able to book a scan plus a surgery, and recover much faster than he would’ve been able to in the public healthcare system. Hence, this emphasizes my point that those who are able to afford the luxury of a privatized healthcare

Over the last two decades, opening the door to the private healthcare system in Canada has been subjected to a lot of arguments, both for and against, as election polls constantly rank the reform in health care system as the vast majority of voter’s number one concern [1]. Opponents of private system claim that in a market-based system, health care providers avoid accepting lower-income patients, and give the priority to well-insured patients who are in good overall health [2]. Moreover, they believe that private delivery of care would harm the public system, due to the diversion of financial and human resources from the public sector [3].Despite all arguments against private sector, and in support of public health system, the recent Commonwealth