Competition vs. Cooperation

Healthcare in Canada case study

BLOCK 1 - Dryden & Lindsay

Define the following terms and relate to the case study.

a. competition: the act or process of trying to get or win something (such as a prize or a higher level of success) that someone else is also trying to get or win : the act or process of competing. : actions that are done by people, companies, etc.

b. cooperation: the actions of someone who is being helpful by doing what is wanted or asked for; common effort.

c. two tiered health care: a private system alongside the current public institution to provide options, encourage more efficient and cost-effective services through competition.

d. "skip the queue":The act of entering a queue or line at any position other than the end.

e. moonlighting (Australia): In Australia doctors must work half of the year in the public healthcare system and the other half of the year in the private healthcare system. Medical professionals working as dual workers in both systems to try and prevent the split with more advanced and less advanced doctors. This often causes workers in the public healthcare system to see their patients privately so that they can make a bigger profit.

Summary of Issue/case study:

Canada’s health care system or Medicare began in Saskatchewan in the 1930s. A decade later this system was finally implemented and it became the first public healthcare system in Canada. In 1966 Lester B. Pearson and the federal Liberal government passed the Medical Care act extending funding to the provinces for universal healthcare plans. During the 1970s, the agreements were drastically altered when the stipulations were lifted by the federal government, but the amount of funding was also considerably decreased. As a result the government started charging user fees to pay physicians etc. In 1984 in the attempt to protect public health care Pierre Trudeau passed the Canada Health Act guaranteeing funding to provinces if certain criteria were met. Universal and free health care is an expensive and complex institution to maintain: Canada is struggling to preserve the system. Today’s complaints consist of long wait times in emergency rooms and a lack of specialists, shortage of medical staff to inadequate diagnostic equipment, disparity between provinces to accessibility problems in rural areas, and a lack of focus on preventive medicine. Despite the problems Canadians show overwhelming support to this system. In 2005 this system was challenged when a Quebec citizen wanted to pay for a hip replacement because he said that it was violating his right to life, liberty and security of the person. He took this to the supreme court and they made a historic decision and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. In 2006 Ralph Klein, premier of Alberta proposed a controversial health care system and they were going to do it with or without Ottawa's consent. It was called “The Third Way” The two teired system would bring a private and public system into place. This would allow patients to pay for hip, knee, spinal and cataract surgery. This allowed doctors to work both in the private and public system. This was posed as a complete contradiction of the Canadian Health Act and pit Alberta Vs Ottawas in a showdown over jurisdiction, legality and provincial and federal rights. Klein vowed to fight Ottawa on the reforms stating “It is time to open up the system, to take the shackles off and to allow regional health authorities to try new ideas, encourage competition and choice” Prime minister Harper said no because his election promise was to keep public healthcare and he was criticized for this due to his soft stance. But in April of 2006 Klein resigned as prime minister and leader of the PCP party and the Alberta government stated that they will not be pursuing “The Third Way” for the foreseeable future.

Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:

We don't think the system is a bad idea, but we think that moonlighting and doctors giving worse treatment to public patients then seeing them after hours privatized is bad because it is unfair and favors rich people. We believe that even though this system may favour rich people, they should still have the option to have things be privatized. Yet others who may not have enough money to cover these expenses should still have them available under public healthcare. For example less urgent or small procedures could be privatized, but not everything. We ideally would like to see a private and public healthcare system with rules and regulations. We think that self interest is too much of a problem to allow doctors to switch between a privatized or public system as they will take advantage of people to get more money.

Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?

BLOCK 1

Mason and Carson

Define the following terms and relate to the case study:

a. Competition:

The act or process of trying to get or win something (such as a prize or a higher level of success) that someone else is also trying to get or win : the act or process of competing. : actions that are done by people, companies, etc.

b. Cooperation:

The actions of someone who is being helpful by doing what is wanted or asked for; common effort.

c. Two Tiered Health Care:

A private system alongside the current public institution to provide options, encourage more efficient and cost-effective services through competition.

d. "Skip the queue":

When an individual finds a way to acquire medicare by paying out of pocket, using contacts in the healthcare system to get an advance, and pestering hospitals to get faster treatment in the public healthcare system.

e. Moonlighting (Australia):

In Australia, doctors are forced to work 50% in the private sector and 50% in the public sector so that there isn't a split between good and bad doctors between the private and public care sectors. Basically it makes doctors working in the public health sector refer their patients to themselves in the private sector so they can make more money.

Summary of Issue/case study:

The public health care system started as a provincial one in Saskatchewan then spread to Alberta and B.C. before eventually gaining funding from the federal government.
There is a need to reform the current healthcare system due to long wait times, poor service, and lack of staffing.
There is a suggestion that we have a two-tiered system where both public and private health care run alongside each other
In 2005 the supreme court ruled that Quebec residents can pay for their own healthcare that is already covered under the Quebec medicare.
In 2006 Alberta Premier Ralph Klein proposed the “third way” which would allow for people to have both provincial health care and private insurance which would cover things not covered under provincial health care.
This system never panned out due to mass opposition and Ralph Klein's retirement as premier

Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:

We agreed and believe that less important medical related things should be privatised but that more expensive operations and procedures should still be part of the public health care system. But there would need to be a limit on how many doctors, nurses, etc. can go into the private health care system in order to protect the public system from being deprived of experienced staff.

Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?

Page updated

Report abuse