Healthcare
Amidst globalization and americanization, it is sometimes hard to define what being Canadian is. No value is as distinctly Canadian as that of universal health care, as it is the only country in the world that offers it. Perhaps this is why the debate over the privatization of healthcare has been a heated one. True, the valued Canadian health system is going through a period of crisis and is undoubtedly in need of some serious reform. Privatization of health care and the eventual establishment of a two-tier system has been offered as a solution. Privatization will supposedly lower costs, improve efficiency, and improve the quality of healthcare. Many do not take these statements at face value, and with good reason due to the stronger contradictory evidence coming from the public healthcare side, as well as knowledge of the detriments that will come along with privatization. Those in favour of privatization argue that opposition to privatization is unfounded and is a close-minded attempt to protect the status quo. This is not true. The Federal and Provincial governments are aware that changes need to be made in the health system in order for it to survive. In a sense, the opinion to keep public healthcare is not one of maintaining
the status quo, but rather rejecting that which will bring no new benefits and at the same time be detrimental to the already suffering healthcare system. What about efficiency? Efficiency is seen as the greatest characteristic of the market system. It is thereby concluded that if the bare minimum of resources are being used to actualize a goal, the rate of service will increase as well. For this reason, private health providers have promised shorter waiting lists. There is no evidence to support this claim, but there is evidence that supports the contrary. A Manitoba study found that wait times for cataract surgery for doctors operating in both the private and public sectors was actually 130 per cent longer than for those who were operating only in the public sector. This translates into a wait of 13 weeks more than one would find at a public healthcare center. This is not efficient at all and demonstrates a lower quality of care. It is assumed that the move from public to private healthcare would not even be considered unless the private system could offer something new and beneficial. The biggest factor pending this decision depends on whether the quality of care would improve under private administration of the healthcare system. It is evident that public and private healthcare providers are driven by different incentives. Economists believe that public healthcare providers will perform at a mediocre level because managers are not directly rewarded by profits, but rather by perks for their centers like larger budgets and more pleasant working conditions. On the other hand, the goal of private healthcare providers is only profit maximization. This profit must come from somewhere, mainly at the expense of facilities or levels of patient care, or staff wages and working conditions to provide services at the same price as public healthcare providers. Privatization simply means more public money going to profits instead of patient care. This in no way demonstrates an increase in the quality of care received. As for incentives, patients would feel more secure in the knowledge that a doctor is caring for them because they want to see their medical situation improve, not because they expect a big bonus from the
Some common words found in the essay are:
Yes Canadian, , Federal Provincial, healthcare system, healthcare providers, private healthcare, health care, public healthcare, private healthcare providers, health system, public system, universal health, quality care, market system, universal health care, canadian health system, healthcare system based, people priced market,
Approximate Word count = 1502
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
