Individuals in favour of privatization often believe the United States provides more efficient healthcare and tend to be part of the upper class of the financial ladder (Angell, 2008, para. 1). This paper will establish the negative effects, which Canadians will face if Canada switched to a completely privatized healthcare system. Health Canada defines public health as, “universal coverage for medically necessary health care services provided on basis of need, rather than the ability to pay” (“Health Care System”, n.d., para. 1).
The health service is fundamental for the public, without the health service the majority of the public wouldn’t be able to be healthy and pro long their lifetime. With the health service many people are impacted positively every day. As well as helping the public it also helps the conservatives as they get votes from the older generation because the older generation need hospitals because as they grow old they need the health service much more. This is known as the grey vote and is essential for the conservatives if they want to win the general election. The conservative
Canada currently has universal healthcare and according to Dr. John O’Shea in the article Doctors Debate Universal Health Care: Pros and Cons from the Experts, Canadians often flock to the United States because of “prolonged wait times for many services, including cancer treatment and cardiac surgery.” There are often long waiting lists for even the most trivial of doctor visits, as well as the most imperative surgeries. This can be explained by what I previously stated; the demand will swell while the supply will remain the same. Bearing in mind that this will be government mandated healthcare, no matter how inconsequential someone’s situation is, they will have to be seen by a doctor – further putting off someone in actual need. Instances in which unimportant visits to the doctor will increase tenfold as people will figure if they do not have to pay for a doctor visit, they might as well be seen by a doctor, thus taking up a doctor’s time that otherwise would have been spent more
One of the issues that I’ll focus on is healthcare. Romney believes that healthcare is more than just 1/6 of the American economy. He believes that it’s a source of well-being for individuals and families, and he thinks that there are many good things in American healthcare, but with Obamacare things have taken the wrong direction with its high taxes and extended federal control. Romney believes that it’s better to let the states determine their own healthcare systems. Newt Gingrich is, like Mitt Rom-ney, not satisfied with Obamac-are.
As consider the acquisition requirement by Maple Group will affect the majority ownership of TMX, Wayne Fox, the director of TMX said merger with LSE also was the better choice than with Maple Group. The rejection inspired Maple Group patriotic feelings, as the local company of Canada, they didn’t want the Toronto stock exchange be the part of London stock exchange company, therefore, Maple didn’t give up to acquire TMX. Until 30 June, 2011, LSE and TMX give up their merge plan as no more than half of the shareholders of TMX agree with the acquisition. When we analyse the reason why Maple persistent in merge with TMX, some economists said like: Moffatt Mike of Richard Ivey said, the merge was based on the patriotism which will add the stress on investors who invest in Canada. Robert Young of Liquidnet Canada said, the merge wave inspired the patriotic feeling of Canadians, like what did by Singapore stock exchange group.
According to Mershner, “A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute” (Marshner). This is not how it should be in the U.S. The number of doctors employed in this country should rise rather than decline from the current level. Waiting periods for appointments longer than they are now are unacceptable. But at the same time if a Canadian has the civic right to have access to healthcare, it still would beat our current system.
In addition, the States had socially influenced Canada greatly, in terms of culture. Canada did gain some political independence, hampered by the fact that Canada depended on the United States for much of its social and economic success. Canada’s prime minister, Mackenzie King, did not follow the regular rules set by Britain. Instead he refused to send Canadian troops with Britain to invade Turkey in 1922. (Cranny p.55) Normally, when Britain went to war, Canada would automatically be at war as well, but King took a big step in not following orders from the mother country.
I’m a capitalist who believes in the free-market business model and who thinks that “health care” is a service provided by health care practitioners and a commodity purchased by consumers/patients. As far as the “universal” part goes, I’m fine with universal health care, health care for everyone I say! But I don’t think it should be government funded. In researching it, I've found that keeping health care costs low just boils down to simple economics and keeping the government out of it. (Everyone should read the following article if you haven't already and if you really want to learn about the implications of government-funded universal health care - http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp - it's very informative
Today millions of Americans cannot afford the sufficient health care they need. The price of health insurance is costing us the people thousands of dollars. Therefore, I believe the government should provide health care to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay for that care. Some rich people may prefer to pay for medical treatment, while the government must necessarily subsidize the health care for children, senior citizens, the unemployed and the homeless, as these groups cannot provide for themselves and, are extremely financially vulnerable. However, working adults can use the benefits of the medical insurance, which will give them an opportunity for a decent medical service and reduce the general taxation burden.
with all of its technology and high industrial development is still lacking to provide all its citizens health services. The health care system in the U.S. has major faults that affect both patients and physicians. Many Americans lack health insurance, and cannot be seen by a physician routinely. There is a shortage of physicians due to the cost of medical school and of malpractice insurance. In order to provide free education for medical students, malpractice insurance for physicians, and free health care for everyone, taxes need to be raised.