A Debate About The Privatization Of The Public Healthcare In Canada

Healthcare is among the basic structures of an economy that ensures citizens get access to medical care and medical resources. The management of the healthcare system in many economies around the world is undertaken by the government in an attempt to ensure equality regarding services offered to the public. The structure offered by the government always contains some gaps, and this is where the private sector, including religious healthcare units, comes in. Health care should thus not be privatized because everyone in society should be treated equally. Healthcare should be provided to all people regardless of social standards.

Opening up public healthcare for privatization is a step that might throw the healthcare system under grim strain due to the difference in financial status among the citizens. (Woolhandler,2003) Canada already has a working structure, and with privatization, the pillars of the public healthcare system will be weakened as the private sector tends to attract all the specialists, leaving the public sector straining to offer quality healthcare to the patients. Furthermore, privatization aims to save public funds, but this puts a financial strain on the citizens as the private sector tends to charge more for its services than the public sector.

Canada is a multicultural economy that has different people living harmoniously; thus, it is appropriate to treat them equally to avoid division and discontent amongst them. There are many ways healthcare can minimize costs and improve its services, but privatization should not be accepted. The social status and practices of different people in Canada, through diversity, can achieve equal healthcare services in the public sector as opposed to the private sector. Take, for example, the United States, where private sectors have escalated charges in the provision of healthcare to their citizens. Uninsured citizens in the United States keep rising, and those insured are always paying a substantial fraction of the bill out of their own pockets, which proves that privatization is failing and is more expensive in the long run.

The mortality rate of infants in Canada is low compared to that of the United States and Germany, which adopted the partial privatization of the healthcare system( Widdifield,2015). More so, the life expectancy stands out in Canada as compared to other established economies, and all this can be credited to the public structure of the healthcare system that sought to provide equal and quality services to the public

The private sector, instead of overshadowing the public healthcare system, should adopt their regulations and provide alternative effective and cost-conscious services to complement the public services (Pollock,2004). This should give a fairground and improve access to healthcare in the country. A healthy competition between private and public healthcare will create alternatives for the citizens and improve efficiency in the healthcare system. With partial privatization, healthcare ostensibly looks like its interest is the people’s well-being, but in the real sense, business is trying to take over and control the healthcare system of the country. This is set to benefit a few specialists and investors rather than the whole population as a whole and thus should not be implemented.

Private healthcare provides more efficient services to its patients than public healthcare, but this comes at an extra cost compared to public healthcare (Woolhandler,2003). This affirms the fact that financial status is a pre-determinant in one’s healthcare, which is not effective as it cuts out services for those who cannot afford them. On the other hand, public healthcare provides services to the entire population as their services are affordable to everyone. This is more effective in the long run as it does not cut out anyone from accessing healthcare in the country.

Another difference between private and public healthcare is the proportion of spending by the health institutions. The essential requirement, including drugs and homes in private institutions, is highly invested in as compared to public institutions and is always readily available. This gives the private sector an upper hand over the public health sector as many people with financial ability would always prefer private health centres.

The private sector operations are always done fast and efficiently due to a huge investment in machinery as compared to public healthcare (Woolhandler,2003). The buildings and spaces available in private healthcare institutions are more advanced; thus, services are swiftly done, ensuring waitlisting is done away with. This can be done in public healthcare, too, by renovating and increasing the number of medical professionals. Waitlisting is a common issue that separates public and private healthcare excellence. Much public healthcare indulges in waitlisting more than private health centres due to patient flux, thus negatively impacting the patient. The consolidation of having private healthcare set in as an alternative service offering in public institutions not only breaks down the public sector but also siphons the available resources from it.

Remedies of the healthcare system in Canada should include more allocation of funds to the health ministry by the government as the existing structures are serving the healthcare course but need more expansion and boost to stabilize the service provision. Many people would avoid private healthcare if they could get the same services at cost-effective institutions, such as the public sector. The economy also depends on healthcare, and with privatization, many people wouldn’t be able to afford the services, thus giving a slight surge in the tax income.

Another remedy is the regulation of the private sector, which is slowly siphoning medical professions off the public sector, rendering public healthcare less efficient. This regulation can oversee the restoration of public healthcare to excellence. The regulation should focus on the professionals and the private institutions providing services. Empowering public healthcare through strict laws that should be met before being licensed should be the way to go if a change is to be realized in the healthcare sector. Operations should also be limited in the private sector to ensure that power is given to the public sector in an attempt to improve public institution services.

With the increase in chronic diseases affecting the population, it is handy to provide ready healthcare to the citizens as they are loyal and pay their taxes as is required of them (Widdifield,2015). Many private sectors choose to ignore cases of those who cannot meet financial requirements for their treatment and sometimes detain some patients due to bills that they cannot meet. This further frustrates the patients who are supposed to be recovering. Privatizations may offer a short-term solution for the public woes in healthcare but will slowly turn back to worse situations.

Healthcare privatization is a step that can lead to a storm in the direction of an economy, putting strain on citizens, and should be avoided at all costs. The private sector is there to complement and fill in the gaps that are left out by the public sector. It is thus in line to give the private sector a limit and instil regulations on their service provision to avoid financial strain by the population, as healthcare is significant to all, irrespective of differences in age, gender, and any group they are affiliated with. Health care should be given priority, and more funds should be allocated to meet the growing demand from the increasing population. With these small changes and private healthcare regulations, the goals of these institutions will be achieved, and healthcare will be equally available to all.

References

Woolhandler, S., Campbell, T., & Himmelstein, D. U. (2003). Costs of healthcare administration in the United States and Canada. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(8), 768-775.

Pollock, A. M. (2004). NHS plc: the privatization of our health care. BMJ, 329, 862.

Culyer, A. J. (1988). Health care expenditures in Canada: myth and reality, past and future (No. 82). Canadian Tax Foundation.

Morgan, S. G., Law, M., Daw, J. R., Abraham, L., & Martin, D. (2015). The estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(7), 491-497.

Widdifield, J., Bernatsky, S., Paterson, J. M., Tomlinson, G., Tu, K., Kuriya, B., … & Bombardier, C. (2015). Trends in excess mortality among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Ontario, Canada. Arthritis care & research, 67(8), 1047-1053.