The Canadian health care system and related issues are hotly debated topics in Canada. The polarity of the debate is well represented in the somewhat divergent perspectives presented in the books: Health Care by Pat and Hugh Armstrong and The Canadian Regime by Patrick Malcolmson et al. Two aspects of the Canadian health care system are debated with vigor and vehemence, and will be the basis of the comparison between the two books, they are: federalism, and privatization. In Canada currently, the responsibilities of health care are split between federal and provincial governments, with the Federal government contributing about 20 percent of provincial health spending (225), 1 and while provinces provide the bulk of money, they adhere to federal
…show more content…
Pat and Hugh Armstrong have an interesting perspective on The Canada Health Act: “The Canada Health Act is a remarkable piece of legislation. For one thing it represents a clear defeat of strong physician opposition” (225).10 Pat and Hugh Armstrong frame the 1984 act as a vanquishing of doctor’s lobby more so than a federalist victory. This is further evidenced by this quotation from Health Care: “The Act’s brevity is, to a large extent, its strength. It made clear that we Canadians share common values when it comes to health care, and it allows each province to meet these principles and conditions in its own way” (25).11 Pat and Hugh Armstrong do not see the bill as being as staunchly federalist as Malcolmson el al. In The Canadian Regime Malcolmson et al. state that: “Thus, the federal government used its spending power to impose national standards, supporting a national conception of what health care means in Canada” (225).12 The perspectives of Pat and Hugh Armstrong and Malcolmson et al. diverge very clearly on this issue. Pat and Hugh Armstrong use language like, “each province to meet these principles and conditions in its own way” while Malcolmson et al. use language like, “the federal government used its spending power to impose national standards.” Malcolmson et al. continue to frame the health care issue in terms of federalism: “Now, provinces are responsible for the delivery of very expensive health programming, their single largest program and spending commitment. Yet they lack the tax revenues to do so sustainably” (225). Pat and Hugh Armstrong say that more federal money should be sent to the provinces to cover health
Pat and Hugh Armstrong have an interesting perspective on The Canada Health Act: “The Canada Health Act is a remarkable piece of legislation. For one thing it represents a clear defeat of strong physician opposition” (225).10 Pat and Hugh Armstrong frame the 1984 act as a vanquishing of doctor’s lobby more so than a federalist victory. This is further evidenced by this quotation from Health Care: “The Act’s brevity is, to a large extent, its strength. It made clear that we Canadians share common values when it comes to health care, and it allows each province to meet these principles and conditions in its own way” (25).11 Pat and Hugh Armstrong do not see the bill as being as staunchly federalist as Malcolmson el al. In The Canadian Regime Malcolmson et al. state that: “Thus, the federal government used its spending power to impose national standards, supporting a national conception of what health care means in Canada” (225).12 The perspectives of Pat and Hugh Armstrong and Malcolmson et al. diverge very clearly on this issue. Pat and Hugh Armstrong use language like, “each province to meet these principles and conditions in its own way” while Malcolmson et al. use language like, “the federal government used its spending power to impose national standards.” Malcolmson et al. continue to frame the health care issue in terms of federalism: “Now, provinces are responsible for the delivery of very expensive health programming, their single largest program and spending commitment. Yet they lack the tax revenues to do so sustainably” (225). Pat and Hugh Armstrong say that more federal money should be sent to the provinces to cover health