Path Dependency Theory In Canada

All children should be offered the same opportunities. Local policy will be based on national policy but with information relevant to the local area (e.g. contact details, list of professional bodies etc.)

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.

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

This paper will discuss the Canadian healthcare system compared to the United States healthcare system. Although they’re close in proximity, these two nations have very different health care systems. Each healthcare system has its own difficulties, and is currently trying to find ways to improve. Canada currently uses the Universal Health Care system; which provides healthcare coverage to all Canadian citizens (Canadian Health Care, 2007). The services are executed on both a territorial and provincial basis, by staying within the guidelines that have been enforced by the federal government (Canadian Health Care, 2007).

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

Social- Some children grow up in socially disadvantaged areas, poor housing conditions, low income households and single parent families, this in turn may affect a child’s learning development and restrict communication, and how you approach a family whose child may be affected due to their social background circumstances should be aware of the manner in which you approach them. Listening in a non-judgemental way and understanding, not criticising can lead to effective communication.

Most Canadians are very proud of their health care because it provides citizens universal coverage on the basis of need. However, in the recent decade, Canadians have observed obvious deterioration in the quality of the system in regards to waiting times, availability of the best technology, and adequate numbers of doctors and nurses. The apparent decline within the system has made many Canadians more open to a variety of options than they were a decade ago, provided that the core elements of the system are preserved and that these changes lead to tangible improvements in quality without damaging accessibility. In the article Canadians’ Thoughts on Their Health Care System: Preserving the Canadian Model through Innovation by Matthew Mendelsohn, he stated that 1/3 of Canadians support the two-tiered healthcare system, which offers its citizens an option of public or private health care. Canada will benefit from a two-tier health care system because it will shorten waiting times, other countries with two-tier healthcare have proven to be successful, will encourage doctors to return and stay in Canada, introduce competition and give citizens freedom to choose.

No narrative about Canadian health can ignore the two-headed hydra of growing health care expenditures and shrinking government revenue. Nor would a conscientious analysis ignore the burdens of an aging population, the growing prevalence of chronic conditions, and the system’s attempts to shorten hospital stays. Yet, to focus on these issues is to further risk marginalizing those among us who don’t even make it past the parking kiosk of our health care system. These are the ones left behind who watch, like members of an audience, the experiences of others, and then quickly disappear from our collective consciousness.

     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.

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

These aspects include, increase of poverty if the child is in a lone parent household (even higher if the lone parent is female), if the child is indigenous, a recent immigrant or disabled (256/257?). It is hard to think of a solution of poverty that will help people defeat poverty. I believe that if society stopped grouping people into categories such as female, indigenous, disabled, etc. than intersectionality would have less of an effect on poverty then it does now. It is important that intersectionality not have such a powerful affect on people’s poverty status because it is unfair to those who are below the poverty line due to these characteristics that are out of their

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.

At some point in time, we all must have had a chance of sitting in a waiting room of a hospital. I had a chance to visit the doctor last week and it was horrible, I had to wait to meet the doctor for around 4 hours While I was dying of pain. That made me to curse the whole hospital system in Canada and that 's the main reason that lead me to prepare this essay . British Columbia health care system with emphasis on " Providing " patient-centred care". which is defined as "Shifting the culture of health care from being disease-centred and provider-focused to being patient centered". This represents a great polished political language which they use to make people feel content and confident by confusing without them knowing that they are being confused.

The “Sociological Perspective on Health and the Health Care” introduced perspectives about social structure, and social relations. The readers learn the sociological theory and the main misconceptions related to health care, and their policies. It provides an explanation of the production and the distribution of health care services. Firstly, structural functionalism focuses on individuals and groups in society and how it maintains a social role. Furthermore, symbolic interactionism focus on the conflicts in interaction amongst individuals. Moreover, social constructionism focuses on the medical facts and social authority and the reign over all in society. Also, gender and race influence the social conditions, and implications evident in Canadian health. Class conflicts with the control of power and the relationship between the employers and employees. It enhances the inequality evident in workplaces and the social stratification; ranking one by their assets. Materialism portrays that society is a social consensus rather than a conflict. However, this conflicts between the rich and the poor. Therefore, the healthcare impacts the minority, and affects it the most. Since the rich have an advantage of other options, however the minority struggles to afford private health care or buy their way around. Furthermore, the Marxist theory and oppression focuses on the exploitation by capitalism. It emphasizes on