Pharma Care Persuasive Essay

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.

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

I am here today to persuade you all that the Federal government should pass a bill to be able to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Canada 's healthcare system is praised globally for its universal and free healthcare. It started to take shape after World War II in 1945. Health insurance was introduced and was attempted, but was not successful even though there was an increase in the spending of health related services and goods. Fast forward a few years to 1961 where Tommy Douglas, the premier of Saskatchewan, developed the idea for an all-inclusive insurance plan. He later inspired the Medical Care Act in Canada in 1967, when he pointed out health care is a right for all Canadians. From this one thought, Canada has become of the many countries with a universal health care system. Ever since Tommy Douglas sparked the idea for health care coverage, Canada is praised for the way it carries out its system because of several key features. This system is publically funded, is universal and is accessible to everyone across the nation. Because this is a public system, funding comes from the tax payers and some federal funding, so there is no extra cost for the patients. Also, being a universal system it has offered care to all Canadians, immigrants and visitors. Unlike the U.S who does not provide healthcare to its entire population because it is a private system; access depends on how much someone could afford, and how

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

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.

We in America tend to take medications for almost any problem we have, from headaches to gastrointestinal pain, to more serious chronic disorders such as depression and attention deficit disorder. While many of the uses of such medications may be necessary and legitimate, many are not, and due to this fact, many people become dependent on medications, mentally, and or physically. This problem is not simply the fault of the individual; in fact, the blame can also be placed upon the medical community, and the pharmaceutical companies who produce the drugs. How often can one turn on the television to see advertisements for Claritin, Aspirin, Pepto-Bismol, or even Zoloft or Ritalin? The pharmaceutical industry is motivated by monetary

     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.

Canadians have been involved in a great controversy between the Americans over their ways of dealing with healthcare for many generations. The Canadians believe universal healthcare is best whereas the Americans believe that Private healthcare is what’s best. The easiest way to decipher who is most reasonable between these two faces of healthcare is to look at the Universal health care in Canada on its own, the Private healthcare in America, then an assessment to bring the two to opposed sides to a reasonable conclusion. Thus hopefully making a well-balanced decision.

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

This paper will discuss the prevailing Canadian debate of whether the federal government should have greater authority on administering health care. Essentially, Canada’s health care program referred to as Medicare, is administered by the provinces while regulated by the federal government through the Canada Health Act of 1984. One side of the debate, using the political theory of pluralism, argues against federal leadership and instead emphasizes for provincial authority on matters of health care since Canada is inherently composed of individuals with differing interests and values. Through a decentralized framework, each province will be able to implement efficient health services that will meet the demands of its citizens. Their

In the first Hall Royal Commission, Pharmacare is outlined as recommend in joining the covered benefits for Canadian citizens - Canadians pays slightly less than their U.S. counterparts for Pharmaceuticals (Armstrong, p51). Privatization influences an unequal system - creating significant hindrances for impoverished people in Canada, again creating a rich-poor divide that does not influence equality, which is the essence of the Canadian Health Act. As pointed out in The Canadian Regime, “In European Countries, drugs are covered by public insurance schemes. Why not do the same in Canada?” (Malcolmson, p226). Further, Malcolmson describes the possibility for the government to generate a type of bulk buying scheme - where we as a country can

In Canada, often times public versus private healthcare is a prevalent debate among citizens. Canada’s public health care system was implemented in the years surrounding the 1950s, this healthcare system named Medicare. This healthcare system here in Canada is one that all Canadians take great dignity in, and it states that “all insured persons have access to medically necessary hospital and physical services on a prepaid basis”; where “insured person” is defined as “a person lawfully entitled to be or to remain in Canada who makes his home and is ordinarily present in the province, but does not include a tourist, a transit or a visitor to the province”. In this essay, I will analyze whether it would be of greater benefit for Canada to maintain

The National Forum on Health (NFH), active from 1994 to 1997 under the direction of Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, sought to find ways to address healthcare and the health of Canadians. (1) Among the long list of health related issues addressed by the NFH, the recommendation of a publically funded pharmacare program. This call has been echoed again by the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, (2)