Introduction
The American and Canadian Healthcare systems are two contrasting models that reflect the values, preferences, and choices of the nation of the society within the respective country. The healthcare reform debate is ongoing. The evaluation of these systems by comparative analysis has composed a clear picture of their strengths, weaknesses, and problems. In this paper, we will dissect the two healthcare systems (American and Canadian), examining the different facets that make them what they are. At the heart of this examination lies a critical inquiry into the overarching question: what are the methodologies these two countries, located close to each other in terms of geography but having different political ideas, apply to fulfill the duty of protecting the health and welfare of their citizens?
Accessibility of healthcare services is among the key constraints that need to be reviewed in both countries. In the U.S., the public health care funding system is a mix of private insurers, divergent insurance plans, and undue dependence on employment-based insurance, often resulting in a complex system of unequal distribution of health care. The flaw of this system lies in the fact that it has brought about an unequal system that disproportionately affects the poor and the disadvantaged. The interest of the private sector characterizes the United States healthcare care, while the universality of the Canadian healthcare system stands for the elimination of financial barriers to healthcare care, embodying the philosophy of healthcare as a right rather than a privilege.
Costs are yet another essential aspect to be looked at in this comparison. Among the developed countries, the USA spends the most share of its GDP on healthcare; even so, it is also a nation with both accessibility and medical debt problems. Although its budget does not always benefit from favorable financial conditions, Canada’s single-payer system has always kept per capita health expenditures low and healthcare costs relatively well equalized. Through analyzing such economic variables, each system’s sustainability and efficiency are better understood.
Moreover, the quality of care plays an important role in the health outcomes. The United States has a leading medical technology, top-notch research facilities, and a medical culture of innovation. Despite this technology-intensive environment, systemic problems include inequities in healthcare provision and the tendency to treat rather than prevent. Canada may need to be better equipped with such technological advancements. Still, it lays more emphasis on preventive and primary care services that make healthcare outcomes spectacular as well as the health of its citizens amazing.
Finally, the article addresses the intricacies of the healthcare systems of the United States and Canada. Through thoroughly examining and comparing main concepts, charges, accessibility, and quality of services provided, we deliberately seek to offer an equally fair representation of the various approaches in healthcare delivery. By examining the systems, we will become more aware of their problems and solutions, eventually overcoming national borders and joining the worldwide discussion on the future of health care.
United States Healthcare System
The American healthcare system, consisting of private enterprise, individualism, and market-driven forces, is the complete opposite of the Canadian healthcare system. According to Shi and Singh (2022), the United States leans towards a predominantly private system of healthcare ideologies where the profit motive and the market forces dictate the practice of medical services. With our study centered on the American healthcare system in all its diversity and complexity, the investigation goes beyond the details of healthcare delivery to reveal the societal implications, economic challenges, and ethical issues that define the healthcare system in the United States.
The American healthcare system was established based on its market-driven philosophy, which seeks to put private insurers and for-profit hospitals at the forefront and promote competitive forces. Campbell et al. (2022) stated that the system is supported by the principle of individual decision-making and responsibility and that consumers deal with the confusion of choosing insurance plans on a complex web to select one suitable for their needs and personal preferences. One of the main concerns of this healthcare system is the individualistic character represented by its model, switchblade innovations, and medical advancements on the one hand, but even glaring disparities in healthcare access on the other.
Availability or accessibility, which is the main pillar of every healthcare system around the globe, is the problem that remains persistent in the U.S. even now. Berchick et al. (2019) argued that human-made barriers exist in the form of different private insurers and varieties of coverage plans that blur the picture for patients in the U.S. Millions of people do not have coverage. Because of this, they are exposed to medical bills, which can cause harm to a group of people who are already vulnerable. The employment rate and its impact on the healthcare sector is one of the main problems because those who lose their job also lose their connection with essential health services. The absence of a national safety net leaves millions of Americans in an awkward position of facing possible bankruptcy due to the unforeseen bills for medical services.
The outrageously high healthcare costs in the United States function as a bullying and envying entity that prevents the fulfillment of the American dream. However, compared to their peers, even countries that spend more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP may not have better quality and equitable access. According to Dieleman et al. (2020), the particularity of the U.S. system, based on private insurance companies, has initiated a disordered and profit-oriented approach, which puts the interests of shareholders above the needs of the people. Unfortunately, for many Americans, medical debt is an ever-present enemy, a symptom of the systemic problems that have been in place in the U.S. healthcare system for a long time.
Quality of care, as one of the essential aspects, possesses the two-sided nature of excellence and inequality in the American healthcare system. Shi and Singh (2022) stated that American medical institutions are the most renowned in the world, and they use the most advanced and latest technology, which makes them magnets for medical talents from all corners of the world. However, this veneer of excellence masks a harsh reality: even if people miss good health care in the United States, that doesn’t mean every patient will not have sufficient treatment. Even to date, outcomes in health keep being affected by race, socioeconomic status, and geography, leading to the conclusion that systematic inequities not only exist in the American healthcare system but also have persisted over time. While some people are lucky to receive the latest cutting-edge treatments, some face different problems in getting the typical services the American healthcare system offers.
The USA’s healthcare system is getting more and more complex, and the gap between the individualistic way of thinking and the collective welfare is becoming more visible. The foundation of the American model, featuring personal responsibility, is preserved in the nation’s collective consciousness. emphasis on individual choice and autonomy has an impact far beyond individual decision-making. It is not only an element that dismantles the health care system but also an element that shapes the policies, influences the distribution of resources, and states which person has the right to receive health care (Campbell et al., 2022).
Ultimately, the American healthcare system is revealed as a complicated interaction of individualism, market forces, and systemic constraints. In peeling the layers of this complex tapestry, we bump up against issues that are much bigger than what the healthcare delivery system can address. The decision-making in this system reverberates to society, affecting people’s lives, communities, and the country at large. With its strengths and weaknesses in the open, the American healthcare system calls for a deep conversation about the values underpinning our approach to healthcare and health promotion. The system’s effects on individuals, communities, and the nation should be considered in the future. The United States should explore a future where healthcare is a product and a right for all.
Canadian Healthcare System
The Canadian healthcare system, inspired by Social Welfare principles and an equal access commitment, starkly contrasts with the market-led landscape of the United States. As we venture into the Canadian healthcare system, we widen the scope of our examination, which encompasses the system’s structure and societal values, economic factors, and moral fiber upon which the system is built. Towards the center of Canada’s healthcare system is a principle known as universality; this is a foundation that asserts that all citizens have a right to healthcare (Aggarwal and Williams, (2019). In contrast to the United States, where people have to pay for healthcare out of their pocket, Canada’s healthcare system tries to eliminate financial barriers and make healthcare accessible to everyone. The country’s single-payer regimen, funded by the province’s taxes, is the foundational mechanism that guarantees every citizen the right to the same level of treatment regardless of their socioeconomic status.
Accessibility is the core value of the Canadian healthcare principles entrenched in the system. Canadians do not have to deal with the complications of private insurance providers and numerous coverage plans because this country provides a clear landscape (Marchildon et al., 2020). The lack of financial factors at the point of care assures that people get medical attention due to need and not financial ability. Equal access is not just a policy issue but proof of the communal belief that all people’s well-being is vital to society’s prosperity. Cost is always the focus of the debate widely encountered in healthcare issues; however, the discussion proceeds differently in Canada.
Although the system is not immune to financial challenges, Canada spends less than the United States on healthcare as a percentage of GDP. According to Marchildon et al. (2020), the single-payer model centralizes administrative functions and negotiates bulk purchases, contributing to cost savings. However, the opponents say that the increased waiting times for the selective treatments may be a consequence of this model. In contrast, the defenders interpret that the emphasis on preventive care and primary healthcare reduces the need for costly interventions, which may, in turn, lead to a more sustainable and affordable healthcare system.
The quality of care within the Canadian system is a matter of detailed analysis. Although Canada does not possess the same medical innovations as its southern neighbor, it has an edge in other factors. According to Jarvis (2023), a range of factors, like preventive care, primary health promotion, and addressing the social determinants of health, are emphasized and produce good outcomes. Canadians, on average, live longer and have lower infant mortality than their U.S. counterparts, which clearly demonstrates the efficiency of a system that provides a suite of health services, covering both health and wellness. The healthcare system in Canada mirrors its collective spirit that goes beyond the scope of healthcare delivery to encompass societal ethics and values (Marchildon et al., 2020). Their endorsement of health as a common responsibility, which is vested in the society’s citizens, gives citizens a sense of solidarity. Health care is considered not only as a service by Canadians but as the society’s collective pledge to the health and dignity of every single citizen. Such values are mirrored in public opinion that embraces the system; Canadians of all political hues normally support the egalitarian and universal ideals that underpin their healthcare system.
However, the Canadian system is also full of challenges. According to Moroz et al. (2020), service times for some non-urgent surgeries have long been a concern. In consequence, debates arise on the balance between prompt access and efficiency. Furthermore, the ongoing challenges for the system to constantly adapt and innovate are demographic changes, technological development, and evolving healthcare needs.
Differences Between the Two Healthcare Systems
The American and Canadian healthcare systems are different models, showing the opposite ideological foundations and societal priorities. The U.S. applies a market-based approach where consumer choice and private industry are the main priorities, making their health insurance system complex and diverse with coverage plans that differ and access to care that differs from one person to another. The emphasis on personal responsibility shifts the focus onto innovation, which gives millions no access to health insurance and leaves several people without any means to pay for their medical expenses.
Conversely, Canada stresses social welfare principles by keeping universalism and equitable access the key. This form of healthcare financing utilizes the taxation system in the provincial jurisdiction and is more of a single-payer in which no fee is charged at the point of service. Thus, healthcare is accessible to all citizens. The preventive medicine and holistic model in Canada provide good health results, but it needs some high-tech interventions compared to the United States. The fundamental problem of the U.S. system is the issues of accessibility, affordability, and disparities directed by market thinking. However, in Canada, where the principles of universality and equity are high on the agenda, more focus is laid on prevention and the health of all citizens.
Conclusion
Opposing approaches between the U.S. and Canada’s healthcare systems can be distinguished primarily by how they differ in ideology, values, and results. The U.S. healthcare system is constructed on the fundamentals of individualism and market forces. It is confronted with the complexities that drive inequalities, costs, and fragmentation of health services. But in Canada, what drives the social welfare system is the social democratic principles and attempts at achieving universality and collective responsibility through making it accessible to all, affordable, and offering positive results. The analysis of these models shows the role of society’s core values in influencing the healthcare system. While the global health system reform debate continues, these contrasting systems provide us with a lesson on what the priority should be for building a system that guarantees the health and welfare of all citizens regardless of borders. It is also necessary for us to have opinions about what the future of the healthcare sector should be.
References
Aggarwal, M., & Williams, A. P. (2019). Tinkering at the margins: evaluating the pace and direction of primary care reform in Ontario, Canada. BMC Family Practice, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-1014-8
Berchick, E., Barnett, J., & Upton, R. (2019). Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2018 Current Population Reports. https://census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-267.pdf
Campbell, T., Galvani, A. P., Friedman, G., & Fitzpatrick, M. C. (2022). Exacerbation of COVID-19 mortality by the fragmented United States healthcare system: A retrospective observational study. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100264
Dieleman, J. L., Cao, J., Chapin, A., Chen, C., Li, Z., Liu, A., Horst, C., Kaldjian, A., Matyasz, T., Scott, K. W., Bui, A. L., Campbell, M., Duber, H. C., Dunn, A. C., Flaxman, A. D., Fitzmaurice, C., Naghavi, M., Sadat, N., Shieh, P., & Squires, E. (2020). The U.S. Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016. JAMA, 323(9), 863–884. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0734
Jarvis, C. (2023). Physical Examination and Health Assessment – Canadian E-Book: Physical Examination and Health Assessment – Canadian E-Book. In Google Books. Elsevier Health Sciences. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IWy1EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=canadian+healthcare+right&ots=7FR15op8e6&sig=-J8SmRpeCCqvvGTqxj5nsUc0at8
Marchildon, G. P., Allin, S., & Merkur, S. (2020). Canada: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 22(3). https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336311?search-result=true&query=¤t-scope=10665%2F107132&filtertype_0=dateIssued&filter_relational_operator_0=equals&filter_0=%5B2020+TO+2021%5D&rpp=10&sort_by=score&order=desc&page=16
Moroz, N., Moroz, I., & Slovinec D’Angelo, M. (2020). Mental health services in Canada: Barriers and cost-effective solutions to increase access. Healthcare Management Forum, 33(6), 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470420933911
Shi, L., & Singh, D. A. (2022). Essentials of the U.S. Health Care System. In Google Books. Jones & Bartlett Learning. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ac90EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=united+states+healthcare+system&ots=PA_EK2NNF4&sig=clgTTr73m9pV4s_44M_XlcyqRM4
write