The Canadian Health Care Model

The disproportionate, poor health outcomes experienced by First Nations Canadians have been attributed to an uncoordinated and fragmented health care system. This system is rooted in colonial legislation and social policies that have created jurisdictional ambiguity and long-standing confusion among federal, provincial and First Nations governments as to who is responsible for First Nations health care (Kelly, 2011; Lavoie, 2013). The responsibility of healthcare resembles a “political football and while it is being passed back and forth, the health status of First Nations people remains the lowest of any segment of the population (Cook, 2011, p. 40). Despite attempts over the last 40 years to address this pressing social issue, the absence

Canada’s healthcare system is more accessible than the U.S, because Canada’s healthcare system covers all Canadian citizens as opposed to the U.S. healthcare system which depends on a person’s insurance. The U.S healthcare system is an insurance based system. In 2012, the U.S spent 2.8 trillion on healthcare (). Despite such spending on health care, many U.S. residents had no health insurance and several aggregate measures of health quality and outcomes recorded in the USA were poorer than the corresponding data from other high-income countries. In the U.S. if a citizen does not have insurance they will have to pay out of pocket for normal health care services. These out of pocket costs are usually extremely high. To put it in perspective, 18% of U.S citizens do not have health insurance (Costello,

The three issues that these experts notice include: the very poor management with lack of leadership, overspending on medication, doctors, and facilities; and lack of information being circulated throughout the health care service. Rachel Mendleson of the Canadian Business archive explains some of the problems with our current health care system in detail. To start off with, management is labelled as being very inefficient. Money is being wasted, there is a lack of desire to scavenge valuable information for better treatment, keeping records of treatment outcomes, and reducing the chances of unnecessary duplicate treatments. (Mendleson) It is argued that our health care system would benefit more if it would be viewed as a corporation with strong and co-ordinated leadership, planning, and spending. It is clear that the state of the health care system right now appears to be disorganized and poorly managed. An effective solution would be to introduce a system of corresponding responsibilities among different members in this field. This way, someone will be liable to provide effective management and explanations how the money will be spent. (Mendleson) This brings up the next issue of overspending towards medication, doctors, and hospitals. Rachel Mendleson writes, “the share of drugs in the total health expenditure increased from 9.5% to 16.5%... evidence suggests that Government

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 '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

The idea of what the Canadian Health Care system should be varies between the country's three political parties. According to the official website of the New Democratic Party of Canada, the NDP believes that every Canadian citizen should have quality, reliable health care. In fact, the NDP initially created Canada's public health care system. In addition to the current health care system, the NDP is trying to create legislation that would grant free dental and drug coverage for seniors over the age of 65. Lastly, recent debate in both Canada and the United States has been on the subject of whether or not health care should be privatized. It is the belief of the NDP that the privatization of health care would have a negative effect in

While many may argue that the Canadian health care system provides equal treatment to every Canadian, evidence shows that this is not the case. There are major discrepancies within the system regarding Indigenous people that need to be addressed including several factors such as: housing issues, stereotypes Aboriginals face and the lack of Aboriginal doctors.

Health care is an essential service needed by citizens. As a result, the government plays an important role by designing an appropriate health care system for its citizens. In this paper, a comparison between the health care system in the U.S. and Canada has been made. Using various literary sources, the comparison has been done considering the four components of health care services delivery; financing, insurance, delivery, and payment. The findings indicate that the health care system in the U.S. is expensive but more efficient than the single-payer health care system in Canada.

Accessibility and quality are being threatened due to cutbacks coupled with a lack of funding. There is a consensus now between medical professionals, the public, and the government that the health care system is deteriorating. It is failing to provide the quality of care promised in the CHA and prided by so many Canadians.

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

In this paper, there will be a comparative analysis to the United States (U.S.) healthcare system and Canadians healthcare system highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of both.

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

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

Medicare is facing a fiscal crisis that threatens its sustainability. The need for significant Medicare reform is increasingly urgent as 76 million baby boomers are expected to retire over the next two decade. According to the 201 Medicare Trustees Report, the Hospital Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2024. This translates to $27 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. Current projections indicate that health care costs will increase by more that 70 percent over the next ten years and will continue thereafter to consume an increasingly greater portion of personal income.

What proponents of private health care delivery fail to mention is the multitude of evidence demonstrating that private delivery models often fair worse than public delivery models in terms of health outcomes and of quality of care. For example, a 2002 systematic review of 26,000 for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals found that private for-profit delivery was associated with a 2% higher risk of death for patients (Devereaux et al., 2002). Similarly, a review of 149 studies spanning 20 years of data concluded that private for-profit models do not perform better on measures related to access, quality and cost-effectiveness (Vaillancourt-Rosenau & Linder, 2003). Moreover, evidence suggests that having more private, for-profit clinics may be associated with reduced access to care, as these clinics drain the limited supply of physicians and other health professionals from