Canadian EconomyJoin now to read essay Canadian EconomyTo be able to enjoy the benefits of maintaining personal health and prolonging life is a natural instinct instilled within every human being at birth. For this reason, health care should be available to each Canadian citizen, as a right. Privatizing health care transforms this right into a privilege to those wealthy enough to afford it. In accordance with the principle of utilitarianism, it is in Canadas best interest to continue the implementation of the current public health-care system. Adequate health care is a human right, it brings benefits to the economy and it is financially accessible to those who require medical attention on a daily basis.
Consequently, Canada’s system of public health-care is the first that enables people from all socio-economic backgrounds to enjoy the benefits. The government has shown time and again that that was one of the first priorities. During the first few days of the national election, the NDP Leader John Horgan made a controversial comment. He asked, “How can you not care for your friends and family?” Horgan claimed that it is not just being in public view that is being entitled to private and voluntary services. These are people who have access to the services required by his policies, while the health care benefit that the government is providing is one he believes is not available to all Canadians. That is not what Mr. Horgan meant by saying that a person who is entitled to private and voluntary health care that is for their own convenience and welfare should be treated as it is. The Canadian taxpayer has the right not to pay for this.
It is not just anyone making a mistake. Mr. Horgan continued his “You can’t pay as you please as I do” comment by saying that he should have tried to make an exception for those with disabilities who have access to the most comprehensive health information available. “There is no excuse,” he said, “for being discriminated against.” He noted that “people with disabilities” were treated as separate individuals and that it was not just discrimination to the extent that some with mental health difficulties were excluded. In his view, if the federal Conservatives had not changed Ottawa’s legislation, the most suitable solution for all would have been to reform the system, at least in a rational, non-discriminatory manner, to allow people with disabilities to participate in public safety programs and to have the opportunity to obtain the services provided by these available services.
In November 2015, Ms. Stott-McKenna made the case for Canada’s universal health care system. The NDP Leader made a similar argument when he said, “Health Canada’s public health care system stands for its integrity, it is one of the safest in the world, it can provide quality care to Canadians, it provides people health care free from charge.” Unfortunately, this is not the case in this case. The Conservatives did not go to the negotiating table and in October 2015, decided to change the way they implemented the law. However, if Mr. Justice Thomas had just given the Conservatives pause, he might have expected that the health care program for people with disabilities and their families would have been the same, without changes to the existing law. Instead, he was attacked by Ms. Stott-McKenna’s party and attacked a different approach. Her campaign slogan was: “We believe that government has the power to intervene and change the rules of the game while also protecting Canadians and their families”. The truth is not as simple as Ms. Stott-
Consequently, Canada’s system of public health-care is the first that enables people from all socio-economic backgrounds to enjoy the benefits. The government has shown time and again that that was one of the first priorities. During the first few days of the national election, the NDP Leader John Horgan made a controversial comment. He asked, “How can you not care for your friends and family?” Horgan claimed that it is not just being in public view that is being entitled to private and voluntary services. These are people who have access to the services required by his policies, while the health care benefit that the government is providing is one he believes is not available to all Canadians. That is not what Mr. Horgan meant by saying that a person who is entitled to private and voluntary health care that is for their own convenience and welfare should be treated as it is. The Canadian taxpayer has the right not to pay for this.
It is not just anyone making a mistake. Mr. Horgan continued his “You can’t pay as you please as I do” comment by saying that he should have tried to make an exception for those with disabilities who have access to the most comprehensive health information available. “There is no excuse,” he said, “for being discriminated against.” He noted that “people with disabilities” were treated as separate individuals and that it was not just discrimination to the extent that some with mental health difficulties were excluded. In his view, if the federal Conservatives had not changed Ottawa’s legislation, the most suitable solution for all would have been to reform the system, at least in a rational, non-discriminatory manner, to allow people with disabilities to participate in public safety programs and to have the opportunity to obtain the services provided by these available services.
In November 2015, Ms. Stott-McKenna made the case for Canada’s universal health care system. The NDP Leader made a similar argument when he said, “Health Canada’s public health care system stands for its integrity, it is one of the safest in the world, it can provide quality care to Canadians, it provides people health care free from charge.” Unfortunately, this is not the case in this case. The Conservatives did not go to the negotiating table and in October 2015, decided to change the way they implemented the law. However, if Mr. Justice Thomas had just given the Conservatives pause, he might have expected that the health care program for people with disabilities and their families would have been the same, without changes to the existing law. Instead, he was attacked by Ms. Stott-McKenna’s party and attacked a different approach. Her campaign slogan was: “We believe that government has the power to intervene and change the rules of the game while also protecting Canadians and their families”. The truth is not as simple as Ms. Stott-
The possibility of sudden illness is an inclusive matter and economic status is not one of the criteria. In other words, sickness can strike anyone at any point in time, regardless of income. Consequently, in a public health care system, the less fortunate have the chance to combat such inconvenient turn of events: an opportunity, otherwise unavailable under the implementation of private health care. In addition, car accidents and work-related injuries are not uncommon for the average, urban Canadian citizen. Similarly to illness, these events are also inclusive and random. Specifically, the victims of work-related injuries are likely to be found at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. These victims have the right to a prompt, affordable treatment. In addition, privatizing health care widens the gap between the quality of medical service provided to persons sitting on the opposite sides of the socio-economic spectrum; the rich have access to the latest technologies, while the poor struggle to relieve headaches. As mentioned before, public health care is immensely convenient to citizens. Its benefits however, also extend to the sphere of the national economy.
The economic benefits of public health care include greater demand for professionals in the medical field and development of Canadian pharmaceutical industries. The baby-boomer generation, settling into its final years of maturity, is one that requires constant medical care. With public health care, the prospect of becoming a medical professional is within the realm of public education and is accessible to young adults of average-income families. In a private health care system, only the rich are able to afford the expenses of training to become medical professionals. Thus, the medical field becomes extremely exclusive. Furthermore, on average, in a public health care system medicine sells in larger quantities, as opposed to the private systems. For this reason, to continue
The importance of providing more private medical care and the benefits for patients are not limited to the private health care. It has become important to create new health systems by implementing policies that help to ensure patients in private health insurance systems get adequate medical care in their primary care. Many health systems in the United States currently have poor, and often non-profitable, system for providing preventive and preventive care. In other words, they may not be able to afford such care in their primary care system. This has resulted in significant inequities in payment of physicians and facilities by health care professionals. More needs to be done.
Health systems can be managed through these other efforts by encouraging greater levels of access to health care, that is, increased access to primary care, in order to avoid ever having to leave the private, or public, system and for the primary care. Health system provision and the benefits for physicians and facilities
In order to avoid unnecessary, expensive medical care costs, many physicians and services must move to private providers, such as nursing home hospitals, which can cover their costs. Although some of the largest and most costly facilities in the nation in the private sector, they are not very well located to charge full-day, patient visits. Private health care could also make it much harder for physicians to cover a physician’s cost of care. This is because some doctors will provide some patients even if they cannot afford to pay for care. Therefore, the primary care system for physicians and hospitals is increasingly designed to be both highly regulated, for large numbers of patients and in the public sector. However, it has little to do with providing care or quality control–and it is highly inefficient. While insurance is usually well covered by other health providers, it is often poorly managed because of the many restrictions on how much and what is billed. Medicare, for example, does not allow private insurance companies to charge care in some of their Medicare program (e.g., hospitals and home hospices cannot charge any premiums to patients in those programs). As a result, they are extremely reluctant to invest in patient care because it could lead to a reduction in quality of care. In contrast, they may provide medical care for these patients because they can afford to cover it and the physicians will receive better care and profits. A small minority of doctors and hospitals have substantial private health care programs in the United States, and so these medical care programs could benefit patients as well. To improve the quality and cost of private medicine, many will need to reduce the costs of care by making available, for free, all of the private, insurance programs. Currently, hospitals often provide a great deal of care for patients, even that the hospital usually does not provide the essential medical care. If hospitals are not open to the public in certain areas of care, they may not be able to afford the services needed for the patient to pay for these services. This does reduce the supply of patients at all times. The problems faced by private health care and physicians in the United States are particularly acute in this regard. If a hospital decides it would, in many cases, be better to charge more and more of the hospital’s costs to cover the hospital’s needs, because
The Economic Case for Medical Care
A health-care system is a social welfare system created by collective decision making that is designed to ensure a level playing field for all of society. The economic benefits are not a purely social objective. A health-care system also provides a health insurance pool for all Canadians. The benefits are the result of a social policy that allows the majority of Canadians to pay for medical treatment and provide services to the population that needs it. For example, the Canadian Medical Association, established by the Conservative government in 2006, offers basic health insurance coverage for all Canadians, regardless of income (unless they are of the low-income bracket). In this way, the Canadian Medical Association is the health insurance model for all Canadians. With the right political will, legislation, and public policies, this program can be achieved. Furthermore, such health care systems are very, very simple to administer. A single enrolment system allows for a one-time payment of $500 towards a purchase of health insurance, and thus provides a single-stop solution for all Canadians from the cost-effectiveness perspective. A single payment plan allows for a single enrolment of health insurance that provides a one-stop solution to all health-care problems. By enabling this single-stop solution, physicians should have the capability to provide treatment to members of their patient community without having to pay for it. This universal health-care program would be a great investment in Canadian health for all Canadians. It is important for those of us wishing to contribute to a public health care system to know how such a program can be run. And, the benefits to be gained by such a program are in no way limited to this Canadian health care system; this is a system that can provide the health insurance benefits that the majority of Canadians need. •
With the right political will, legislation, and public policies, this program can be achieved. In addition, such a health care system can be very, very simple to administer. The single enrolment system allows for a one-time payment of $500 towards a purchase of health insurance, and thus provides a single-stop solution for all Canadians from the cost-effectiveness perspective. By enabling this single-stop solution, physicians should have the capability to provide treatment to members of their patient community without having to pay for it. This universal health-care program would be a great investment for all Canadians. It is important for those of us wishing to contribute to a public health care system to know how such a program can be run. And, the benefits to be gained by such a program are in no way limited to this Canadian health care system; this is a system that can provide the health insurance benefits that the majority of Canadians need. •
Through a single enrolment system, physicians can take their responsibilities with them. Physicians will not become dependent on the government of the day to deliver care. Instead, they could receive that money by becoming independent and contributing to and receiving government benefits. These benefits will be provided not by the government of the day but rather by people who share the same life goals and aspirations with each other and with the same resources that Canadians have to contribute.