• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 Te Success
& 
Future Success of Universal Health Care
Frederick Ding Canadian History CHC2DMr. Manuel Sanchez July 28, 2008Revised April 2009
 
Universal Health Care 2
Universal health care, with all its aws and limitations, is a viable system that has been proven successul by Medicare in Canada and that will continue to succeed well into the uture. It is a simple matter to quantiy thepositive eects Medicare has had on health since the 1960s — both statistically and socially — and these ar out- weigh the ew overrated downsides. In addition to the positive and visible eects, the system in Canada recognizesthe principle that aordable health care is a basic right, and that the government must take care o its citizens.Indeed, its ounding by ommy Douglas has shaped the Canadian society in ways no other event has. Lookingorward into the uture in an ever-changing world, the Canadian implementation o universal health care is onethat is both economically sustainable and wide in coverage, making it a suitable model or the United States andother such nations in their utures. Te ounding o the Canadian health care system, and its present-day exist-ence, are some o the most signifcant events in Canada’s modern history, and inuence more than thirty millionCanadians every single day.Certainly, Medicare is an important social program or every Canadian, whether ill or well, and statisticsare the frst and easiest way to see its benefts. Alexandra Shimo (2008) noted that the lie expectancy o menand women are greater in Canada than in the United States. Also, a smaller percentage o Canadians suer romheart disease, diabetes, and obesity than Americans (Shimo, 2008). Te (statistically) better health in Canada issometimes attributed to healthier liestyles and ood choices, not necessarily the health care system. Conversely,the ederal government is still responsible or preventative care and public education campaigns such as Canada’sFood Guide (Shimo, 2008). Te only thing that sets Canada apart rom the United States in this area o health isgovernment involvement in the well-being o its citizens, which clearly has had positive impacts.However, there are notable aws with the system that shows its limitations as compared to the Americanmarket-oriented system; waiting times and technology are two o the most commonplace problems. Waiting timeissues begin at a basic level: sick Canadians generally wait more than our hours while waiting or emergency roomtreatment (Shimo, 2008). Tose with lie-threatening diseases such as cancer could wait or weeks or months onend beore undergoing complex procedures (Shimo, 2008). John Goodman (2005), writing or a publication o alibertarian think tank, claimed that ewer U.S. seniors perceived long waiting periods — or both serious and non-emergency surgery — as compared to seniors in Canada. (However, that argument was based on data rom 2000, whereas Statistics Canada (2006) estimated about 60% o those needing cardiac or cancer surgery waited less thana month.) Tose who complain about waiting periods are oten those electing to receive non-emergency surgery;admittedly, the perception o long waiting times exists in Canada. Also, when it comes to technology, Canadiansreceive less high-tech medical procedures per capita compared to Americans, such as in coronary bypass surgeries(Goodman, 2005). Simply, health providers in the United States have good income and can aord loads o greattechnology, while “Canadian hospitals can’t invest in medical equipment or new technology as easily” (Halvorson,2007, p. 83); the United States had nearly three times as many C scanners than in Canada per million people
Te Success & Future Success of Universal Health Care
 
Universal Health Care 3
(Canadian Institute or Health Inormation [CIHI], 2005). Evidently, Canadians ace longer waiting periods thanAmericans or the same treatment, and Canadian acilities have less high-tech equipment than American hospitalsand clinics; these acets o universal health care convince some, such as John Goodman, that the Canadian systemis inerior to a capitalist approach.On the other hand, those aws are ar outweighed by social benefts. Te Canada Health Act, which deliv-ered universal health care to all citizens, contains many important messages, perhaps most notably “that continuedaccess to quality health care without fnancial or other barriers will be critical to […] the health and well-beingo Canadians” (Canada Health Act, 1984, preamble section). Tis assurance is well embodied in Canadians’ will-ingness to seek care without being impeded by ear o medical costs. ypical Canadian citizens and permanentresidents do not concern themselves with fnances when it comes to treating common ailments and injuries, and itis a oregone conclusion that they will seek proessional care; only 12% o Canadians, compared to 31% o insuredAmericans and 68% o uninsured Americans, choose not to seek treatment (Shimo, 2008). Tough Medicare isonly obligated to provide basic care (CBC News, 2006), that basic care makes a big dierence; in other systems where even basic care is not covered, potential patients oten decide whether to go to a hospital or doctor basedon their ability to pay, as illustrated in Uninsured in America, when “[t]he cost o the emergency room sometimesdeters her [a woman with migraines] rom going, even when she is in terrible pain” (Sered & Fernandopulle, 2005,p. 67). (It is important, though, that Canadians have basically the same health as insured Americans with goodcoverage, and that Canadians are only truly advantaged over the tens o millions who are uninsured or whose in-surance policies do not cover much (Shimo, 2008).) Goodman (2005) argued that the Canadian system doesn’tallow those who can pay and “need” the care to get it frst, but the universality ensured by the Canada Health Act was specifcally intended to prevent people rom receiving dierent care based on fnancial status; or instance, onecannot pay more to jump to the head o the waiting list (CBC News, 2006). Tus, the Canadian health care systemhas improved the general health o Canadians by treating everyone, including poorer persons, leading to a betterperception o health and the health care system overall as well as visible consequences.At a undamental level, health is a basic right that alls under the broad government responsibility o public welare. In a nation such as Canada, where “peace, order, and good government” are ounding words, “Canadians want both [ederal and provincial] levels o government involved in health care” (Lazar & St-Hilaire, 2004, p. 40).As is the case with nearly every other Western industrialized nation (Halvorson, 2007), Canada provides universalcoverage to all o its citizens as well as permanent residents, and the reasonable care that is aorded to everyone,pre-paid through taxes, satisfes the medical needs o most o the population. For many Canadians, as is the case with many people in the United Kingdom and France, losing Medicare would provoke a vocal reaction as thoughthey had been deprived o a right; ater all, Canadians do value the system and consider health care a basic right(“Health Care”, 2008). It is simply inconceivable to have to pay as much as $12,500 or an appendectomy (Sered& Fernandopulle, 2005), and as one elderly woman mentioned on Michael Moore’s Sicko (2007), no average Can-adian amily could easily pay that cost. Even John Goodman (2005), who resists the “right to health care”, notedthat the general belie is that people in oronto and London have a right to health care which is not present in
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...