Canadian Health Care System, Good or Bad

Canadian Health Care System, Good or Bad

Pat and Hugh Armstrong, authors, in their article "Canada's System Is A Model For Health Care Reform", reprinted in Health Care: Opposing Viewpoints, argues that the Canadian health care system is superior to the United States' market-based system. They support their argument with three reasons. First, they reason that 96% Canadians prefer their health care system to the United States'. They use as support the five principles of the Canadian Health Care Act. This is a criteria for funding set out by the government and the provinces must follow them. The five principles are universal, potable, accessible, comprehensive, and publicly administered. Second, Pat and Hugh Armstrong argues because the government is the main purchaser of services, health care is not only cheaper for individual taxpayers, it is also cheaper for employers facing unions strong enough to successfully demand full health care coverage. They use as support the Chrysler Corp. In the United States, Chrysler pays more for health care than it pays for steel. In Canada, Chrysler does not have to pay for basic hospital costs and therefore its employee costs are lower. Third, they state the rich and the poor go to the same hospitals and doctors. The way they support this is by explaining the Canadians one-tier system. In other words, you can't tell the difference between the hospital rooms, high-tech services, or doctors' appearance. They conclude their article by saying if you were in a doctors office you wouldn't be able to tell if you were in Toronto or Minneapolis.

Those who oppose Pat and Hugh Armstrong would argue that Canada does not have one of the best health care systems. First, you think Canadians don't get the proper care in a timely manner. You think they have to wait to long for proper medical treatment. You know that as a parent if your son would have to wait in an emergency room with a broken leg, you would become irate. Second, you feel it's nice to be able to shop for the best doctors and get excellent treatment and care. You would become upset if you were told to see a general practitioner, when you really needed to see a specialist. To you, it matters who you see for your treatment. Finally, you know that the health care system sounds appealing, but you hate the thought of giving more of your hard earn money to the government in the form of taxes for health care. You feel that Americans

are taxed enough and additional taxes will not fit in your budget. You would rather go without health care than pay what Canadians do in taxes.

If you disagree with the Armstrongs, you have some very good reasons for your opinion, and indeed, the American system has some good qualities. However, the Canadian health care system is superior to the United States' market-based system, and that is why 96% Canadians choose their health care system over anyone else's.

First, you think Canada has a problem with their waiting lists. People have died waiting to see a doctor. I do agree that waiting lists could be a problem, however the people in the United States who don't have money or insurance have a bigger problem. Robert Evans and Noralou P. Roos, University of British Columbia and University of Manitoba, in their article "What is Right about the Canadian Health Care System?" reprinted in the Third World Traveler, stated "Access is rationed by ability to pay, not by waiting" (1 of 3). Sure you have heard Canadians wait along time to been seen by a doctor. However, if you go into the medical facility you are seen in a timely manner. The illusion that the United States is superior to Canada is because it would cost United States insurance industry and provider of care $45 billion if taken away.

Second, you feel it's nice to be able to shop for the best doctors and get excellent treatment and care. Yes it would be nice to choose the best doctors and get excellent treatment and care. However, imagine your husband got laid off work, and you needed to see a doctor for an infection you had, and now you didn't have