The struggle between public and private healthcare is still a hot debate in contemporary society, primarily because the proponents of the two approaches hold certain views. The piece is entirely devoted to the narrative, which is my firm conviction that there appears to be a more appropriate mechanism for medical assistance, and that is a public one in comparison with the private one. The point is to clarify that it begins with differentiating a public healthcare system from a private healthcare system. Subsequently, this essay advances a clear thesis: because experience has shown that public healthcare systems, like Canada`s model, provide better health outcomes compared to the USA`s private healthcare systems. This statement is justified by the details of the combination of three key themes, which are analyzed in a deep manner. It commences by emphasizing the point that the Canadian universal public healthcare system nurtures equal access for every citizen across various socio-economic layers; this is not the case in America, where the private healthcare system is indefinitely disparate. Also, the document looks at how the Canadian health system manages health crises, such as how it has been coping during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but in comparison to the poor American system. Fourth, this article provides an analysis of whether Canadian public healthcare expenditure is competently utilized in comparison to the high price of the U.S. private healthcare system. The piece explicitly tackles counterarguments that can be made against each of the points mentioned. This further underscores the theory that public healthcare systems yield better outcomes compared to private ones. Through a detailed discussion, the essay aims to explain the advantages of a public health system; its implementation as a new norm for the whole country will be a beneficial and effective step towards universal healthcare access.
It is fundamental to understand the nature of public healthcare systems as opposed to private healthcare systems when addressing the matter of choosing the most effective model of medical care. A public healthcare system means government involvement in both payment and supervision of healthcare that, on most occasions, is funded via taxes. The system designs vary across the nations, which retain their integrity, but they still have government accountability for healthcare provision in common. In Canada, public healthcare, called Medicare, is funded by a partnership of federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
Canadian Medicare represents a reference point of the Canadian public health care system that provides universal insured access to legal residents of Canada. Including visits to hospitals and the counseling of licensed medical doctors, all performed in state-owned facilities, this health insurance provides a comprehensive range of medically necessary healthcare services. Nevertheless, it should be indicated that, on the same list of services like prescriptions, vision, and dental, the majority of physiotherapy admitted in the Canadian public health system is not available. However, these regions are not left out as the provincial governments subsidize the long-term and home care programs (Zambran, 256). Therefore, the country has more comprehensive healthcare coverage.
Canadian Medicare`s constitutional principles are written into the federal statute, and health-care plans must be aligned with these requirements. They are, namely, being publicly run, available to all, providing complete health coverage, fostering mobility between provinces, and guaranteeing care based on the utmost necessity. Through these provisions, the fundamental role of this legislative framework is to encourage equality and safety within the Canadian healthcare sphere. By establishing the Canadian healthcare provision plan in this way, the government of Canada may render healthcare services available to all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic status (Zambrana 256). The modus operandi signify an intrinsic conviction that society as a whole has a paramount role to play in ensuring the safety and well-being of its citizens. Through the creation of the Medicare system in Canada and taking into account its main principles, a public healthcare system demonstrates how it can deliver care that is equally accessible to all, based on the basic beliefs of universality and comprehensiveness.
The fact is that the United States also participates in government-funded health insurance programs besides operating them on a predominately private basis. About a third of the total domestic population in the U.S. is qualified to get these programs, which are suitable for different groups, such as Medicare and Medicaid, that serve specific demographics. Medicare for those over the age of 65, as well as patients with special diseases, gives them the chance of receiving medical assistance from the government. Then, Medicaid has income-based beneficiaries coupled with the request for both federal and state funding, thus making it a joint program. In addition, numerous bodies, including municipal, state, and federal employees, the conducted service people, and the veterans of the government, are also entitled to those government-funded health insurances essential for them.
However, two countries, Canada and the United States, which have both public healthcare systems integrated with multiple private healthcare systems, should be acknowledged. Both Medicaid and Medicare represent the government’s facets of involvement in healthcare provision, though the latter is essentially taking place within a free market healthcare system. In Canada, the public healthcare system works in tandem with private healthcare services, where people may turn to private insurance or cover the services without paying for them. Consequently, this contrast makes one realize the complexity of healthcare delivery and financing in both countries and shows that healthcare is a multifaceted matter in those countries. The designing and implementation of government-funded programs targets to extensively cover specific demographics as well as to bridge the gaps in private healthcare accessibility and the interaction between public and private industries to put in more efforts in understanding the healthcare systems of the countries.
Comparing public healthcare systems with private ones, it is obvious that they are not intertwined with government financing and are reached through private health insurance. In the US, approximately 68% of the population had obtained their healthcare insurance from private sources such as their employer by 2019, either through employer-sponsored plans or individual policies. The level of private-based healthcare in the U.S. is representative of an underlying value system where health care is too frequently perceived as a privilege that is only attainable unless one has a consistent full-time job, either by the individual applying for coverage or an immediate family member.
Private health insurance, in both Canada and the United States, is one of the essential factors that overcomes the gaps in the public healthcare systems in both countries. A good number of Canadians pay for private health insurance, which is a common practice, especially when it comes to filling the gaps that, in most cases, are not covered by public health care (Zambaran, 256). Likewise, in the United States, private insurance handles fields not covered by government-assisted programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. One group of Americans who purchase individual private plans is, however, a minority, while the majority relies on health insurance from their employer, where the employers also share the premium cost. The interesting fact is that, as expected, most people in the private insurance category find themselves without options for public fund insurance. Uninsured Americans, who comprised nearly 8% of the population in the US, were required to purchase private insurance plans for them to access healthcare services. This indicates that the specific role of private insurance lies in covering people who are not eligible for, or able to access, the government’s funded programs.
Comparing public healthcare systems with private ones, it is obvious that they are not intertwined with government financing and are reached through private health insurance. In the US, approximately 68% of the population had obtained their healthcare insurance from private sources such as their employer by 2019, either through employer-sponsored plans or individual policies.
The level of private-based healthcare in the U.S. is representative of an underlying value system where health care is too frequently perceived as a privilege that is only attainable unless one has a consistent full-time job, either by the individual applying for coverage or an immediate family member. Private health insurance, in both Canada and the United States, is one of the essential factors that overcomes the gaps in the public healthcare systems in both countries (Pylpchuk, 81). A good number of Canadians pay for private health insurance, which is a common practice, especially when it comes to filling the gaps that, in most cases, are not covered by public health care (Zambrana, 256). Likewise, in the United States, private insurance handles fields not covered by government-assisted programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. One group of Americans who purchase individual private plans is, however, a minority, while the majority relies on health insurance from their employer, where the employers also share the premium cost.
The interesting fact is that, as expected, most people in the private insurance category find themselves without options for public fund insurance. Uninsured Americans, who comprised nearly 8% of the population in the US, were required to purchase private insurance plans for them to access healthcare services (Thomas, 77). This indicates that the specific role of private insurance lies in covering people who are not eligible for, or able to access, the government’s funded programs.
Canada’s public health care system aims for equitable access, but rural areas face challenges due to limited healthcare resources. The concentration of resources in urban centers exacerbates inequalities. Solutions include incentives for rural practitioners, telemedicine, and infrastructure investments (Blankenau, 80). Despite challenges, Canada remains committed to equity and accessibility in healthcare.
Although insufficient healthcare accessibility in remote communities may be one of the problems in public as well as private healthcare systems, the tendency to state that the problem is exclusively caused by the nature of a healthcare system simplifies the picture naively. A number of possible reasons underlying a lack of access to medical services in both the public and private healthcare systems of the U.S. and Canada have been introduced by scholars in line with the research (Blankenau, 100). Facing similar concerns, doctors and specialists might decide not to work in remote areas because of the lack of a wide range of facilities rather than because of the type of healthcare system. There is also a widespread tendency among healthcare workers to concentrate in urban areas, thus creating an urban and rural divide in the issue of medical services.
In this sense, there is no doubt that the lack of healthcare is often felt by the most impoverished. However, it cannot be asserted that the type of healthcare system is the only cause of this issue. Rather than being affected by a single factor, the lack of expertise and training of healthcare workers is influenced by multiple issues, such as geographical issues, an unbalanced workforce, and the low level of education of healthcare professionals (Blankenau, 100). The absence of universal medical coverage in distant regions of the country, however, does not make the performance of the public health system less reliable. Rather, it points out the crucial feature of the provision of the programs that would address all the factors contributing to healthcare disparities that occur irrespective of the structure of the healthcare system.
The effectiveness of public health care systems, like Canada’s, is demonstrated by how they handle health issues like COVID-19. There is an interesting comparison of COVID-19 death tolls per capita between Canada and the United States, which serves as an apt illustration. By the end of July 2022, the United States suffered one of the highest per capita death tolls globally, with 3,100 deaths per million people, whereas the per capita death rate in Canada hovered around 1,111 deaths per million (Maioni, 276). This discrepancy substantiates the significance of public health systems like Canada’s in reducing the impact of health disasters like the COVID-19 pandemic. Stemmed by government funding and administration, a Canadian public healthcare structure made it possible for a synchronized and coordinated response, leading to a relatively low death rate. At the same time, the lack of a centralized organization and the profit-driven nature of the private healthcare system in the US were obstacles to managing the virus and containing its spread.
Moreover, the financial weight of healthcare in the United States highlights the benefits of public healthcare systems. In that the average American spends about twice as much on healthcare as the average Canadian, the burdensome nature of private health insurance premiums coupled with the intricacy of administrative systems causes inefficiencies and barriers to care availability (Marchildon, 94). In Canada, the absence of monetary exchanges within the system guarantees minimal administrative burden and equal treatment for patients, even if they have financial difficulties. Although Canadians may encounter longer waits for some services, the fact that public healthcare does better in the face of COVID-19 and other health crises reinforces its superiority over private health systems
Both Canada and the USA implement a combination of public and private medicine systems, which increases our perplexity about how much such influence contributed to their COVID-19 death tolls. Problems remain clear-cut, as the system itself cannot be the only contributing factor. Consequently, this situation leaves room for doubt.
The position that Canada and the United States do have a loose healthcare system, therefore setting aside the type of system in their response to COVID-19, is a misconception, as there are major implications in their different ways of unfolding the pandemic. The Canadian federal government was responsible for protecting vital medical facilities and services that served the community through public health care insurance that covered the entire nation (Maioni, 2023). On the other hand, most US citizens depend on a disjointed, privatized health care system, which, as the scholars show, not only isn’t good at coordination but also cannot provide the proper reaction fast enough (Avgar, 170). The possibility that will be experienced by millions of people due to the 2020 pandemic as they will lose their private healthcare coverage further underlines this funny business indeed. The financing of the private healthcare market in the United States was also heavily reliant on funding from the federal government (Maioni, 260). A striking statistic, otherwise, is the number of deaths per 100,000 people in Canada and the US, as such disparity is evidence enough that the public health system of the former helped to contain COVID-19 successfully in contrast to the latter, which has a primarily private healthcare system.
Financial competitiveness is also one of the major reasons why universal public healthcare is super preeminent as compared to the private system, based on a comparison between Canada and the United States. In Canadian public health, the removal of monetary transactions between patients and health providers leaves out user fees and co-payments and removes administrative complexity (Zambrana, 256). Therefore, in Canada, clinicians can get things done at lower administrative billing overhead, while in the US, they spend considerable time on administrative tasks due to the complexity of reimbursement processes (Marchildon, 50). Unlike the condescending intricacies of the private system in the US, the public healthcare system of Canada faces financial transparency, which makes the delivery of health care simple and thus minimizes bureaucracy in ensuring the delivery of health care. This efficiency not only rationalizes resource use but also allows for the delivery of care services to those in need without inequality related to financial impediments.
Hence, the economic grounds of Canada’s universal public healthcare system are beyond reproach and enable it to outperform private healthcare systems. Firstly, by allocating resources wisely and lowering administrative overheads, public healthcare systems similar to Canada’s illustrate their ability to render healthcare services that are generally accessible and comprehensive to everyone, irrespective of their economic background. The national uprising in favor of universal public healthcare as a way of life heralds a powerful way of paving the path towards universal healthcare access and building a thriving and more just society.
The Canadian public healthcare system partially provides a good financial option, but the problem of its efficiency arises due to the fact that the long-term and home care systems are not very effective. Studies reveal that, on account of cost considerations, providers employ individual service workers instead of registered nurses; as a result, the level of care will worsen (Thomas, 188). It contradicts the principle of the financial gains of a public system, making it challenging to determine resource allocation and the quality of service in particular health sectors.
The fact that the two-tier model like that in Ontario, which consists both of public and private options for long-term care and home care, puts the financial effectiveness of the public healthcare system under fire. According to the scholars, the employment of two systems brings about a situation where many people don’t have much confidence in government-funded initiatives; thus, this leads to the public sector’s cost constraints’ exacerbation (Thomas, 2020). Starting with so many options in your hands, politicians might be focused on the private ones, leaving the public system unattended (Thomas, 118). On the other hand, a privately operated system of long-term and home care will increase political support for private investments by obviously introducing more public participation. It will further respond to cost pressures by channeling the available resources in a way that will help meet the healthcare needs of the public sector in an effective manner. Therefore, the issue of whether or not Ontario’s public healthcare system is financially efficient will somehow persist as concerns still arise, but a two-tier system provides evidence of the need for political support and resource allocations, which are essential in maintaining the system’s effectiveness and sustainability.
Finally, the essay has demonstrated that the Canadian universal public health care system offers more fair access to health care for people of all levels of socio-economic status than the American private health care system. The Canadian health care system also experienced a smaller death toll per capita than the American health care system during the COVID-19 outbreak. This indicates that the universal public healthcare system is a better system for handling public health outbreaks. Lastly, the Canadian universal public healthcare system is more financially efficient than the American private health care system. This comparison of the Canadian and American healthcare systems illustrates that public healthcare systems are superior to private healthcare systems.
Work Cited
Avgar, Ariel C., et al. “Paying the Price for a Broken Healthcare System: Rethinking Employment, Labor, and Work in a Post-Pandemic World.” Work and Occupations, vol. 47, no. 3, 2020, pp. 267–79, https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888420923126.
Blankenau, Joe. “Comparing Rural Health and Health Care in Canada and the United States: The Influence of Federalism.” Publius, vol. 40, no. 2, 2010, pp. 332–49, https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjp043.
Braithwaite (Ed.). (2018). Healthcare systems : future predictions for global care (First edition.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22185
Braveman, Paula, et al. “What Is Health Equity?” Behavioral Science & Policy, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2018.0000.
Dyer. (2021). United States trails other rich countries on almost every measure of health, report finds. BMJ (Online), 374, n1955–n1955. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1955
Gohmann, Stephan F. “A Comparison of Health Care in Canada and the United States: The Case of Pap Smears.” Medical Care, vol. 48, no. 11, 2010, pp. 1036–40, https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181eb31d2.
Maioni, Antonia, and Pierre Martin. “Health Care in Canada and the United States.” Canada and the United States: Differences That Count, Fifth Edition, 2023, pp. 251–71.
Marchildon, Gregory P., et al. “Myths, Misperceptions, and Policy Learning: Comparing Healthcare in the United States and Canada.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 46, no. 4, 2018, pp. 833–37, https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110518821975.
Pylypchuk, Yuriy, and Eric M. Sarpong. “Comparison of Health Care Utilization: United States Versus Canada.” Health Services Research, vol. 48, no. 2pt1, 2013, pp. 560–81, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01466.x.
Ronis, Scott T., et al. “Comparing Strategies for Providing Child and Youth Mental Health Care Services in Canada, the United States, and The Netherlands.” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, vol. 44, no. 6, 2017, pp. 955–66, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-017-0808-z.
Thomas, Bryan. Is Two-Tier Health Care the Future? Edited by Bryan Thomas and Colleen M. Flood, University of Ottawa Press, 2020.
Zambrana, Ruth Enid, et al. “Social Determinants of Health: Intersectional Impacts of Race, Class, Ethnicity and Place.” The SAGE Handbook of Social Studies in Health and Medicine, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2022, p. 38–, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714357.n3.
write