# data[].attributes.body
Motto for the Canada Health ''to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."

# data[].attributes.body
Health care in Canada' is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities.[2] It is guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act of 1984.

# data[].attributes.body
As a result of the budget cut, in April 2012 the CBC announced it would cut its English Services budget by $86 million, of which $43 million was a reduction of programming and the remainder from the elimination of 256 jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
universal coverage for medically necessary health care services provided on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay.

# data[].attributes.body
Employment insurance changes

# data[].attributes.body
You may be entitled to receive EI sickness benefits if:

you have paid EI premiums;

you meet the specific criteria for receiving EI sickness benefits;

your normal weekly earnings have been reduced by more than 40%; and

you have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period or, if you are a self-employed fisher, you have sufficient insurable earnings from self-employment in fishing during the qualifying period.

# data[].attributes.body
You may be entitled to receive EI regular benefits if you:

have paid premiums into the EI Account;

lost your employment through no fault of your own;

have been without work and without pay for at least seven consecutive days in the last 52 weeks;

have worked for the required number of insurable hours in the last 52 weeks or since the start of your last EI claim, whichever is shorter;

are ready, willing, and capable of working each day; and

are actively looking for work (you must keep a written record of employers you contact, including when you contacted them).

# data[].attributes.body
You may not be entitled to receive EI regular benefits if you:

voluntarily left your employment without just cause;

were dismissed for misconduct; or

are unemployed because you are directly participating in a labour dispute (strike, lockout, or other type of dispute).

# data[].attributes.body
child care and family benefits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overview of child and family benefits - Canada.ca

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information about benefit programs and services such as child and family benefits, and the automated benefits application that contribute to the economic and social well-being of Canadians.

# data[].attributes.body
Canadians who are sick, pregnant, or caring for a newborn or adopted child, as well as those who must care for a family member who is seriously ill with a significant risk of death, may also be assisted by Employment Insurance.

# data[].attributes.body
Employment Insurance (EI) provides Maternity and Parental Benefits to individuals who are pregnant, have recently given birth, are adopting a child, or are caring for a newborn.

# data[].attributes.body
The amount you pay is based on your salary.

# data[].attributes.body
Employment Insurance (EI) provides temporary financial assistance to unemployed Canadians who have lost their job through no fault of their own, while they look for work or upgrade their skills.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro's and Cons of

Universal Health Care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.).

2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.

3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.

4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.

5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.

6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.

7. People will have an easier time starting their own business or working part-time if health insurance is covered.

8. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage.

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

5. The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleaze that is already prevalent in other areas of government.

6. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

7. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

8. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

9. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

10. In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment, nor pursue medical careers in general.

11. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

12. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

13. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

14. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

15. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

16. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.

17. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.

18. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Related Links

Overview/Background

It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada. The Obama administration passed a health care bill that takes the U.S. part of the way towards a government-controlled system. How far it takes us is up for dispute. The new law is sure to be debated and modified for years to come. This debate discusses whether a complete government takeover of health care should be undertaken.

1. The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.). Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums. In all fairness, the 45 million uninsured number has been called into question since in includes illegal immigrants, people making over $75K who choose not to buy coverage, and others who have options for coverage but choose not to get it. The true number of people without options is closer to 15 million.

2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.

3. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. One of the biggest weaknesses of our current health care systems is that patients with a past or current medical condition such as cancer or asthma often cannot obtain affordable health coverage. Some insurance companies won't even give a policy to such individuals, or if they do, they will cover everything BUT their past diagnosed conditions. Anyone with an expensive illness or disease must then often face one of two choices: use up all their own money, or leave the condition untreated. In a universal system, no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied coverage. People could change jobs without fearing the loss of health insurance.

1. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency. A recent study showed that nearly 1/3 of doctors would leave the profession if the Obama health care bill was put into law.

2. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend severaltrillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?

3. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed,some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? Just think of the whole can of worms opened by the abortion & birth control issue? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?

4. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.

Reader Comments A 20-Point Solution to Health Care Crisis Why We the People Don't Want Obamacare 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care ProCon.org - Right to Health Care Universal Health Insurance Why Your Stitches Cost $1500 Universal Health Care: Grassroots Free Health Care Government: If It Ain't Broke, They'll Break It Those Fantastic Socialist Medical Systems Americans for Free Choice in Medicine Health Care Based on Good Will, Not Profit Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters Wikipedia: Universal Health Care Debate The Individual Medical Investment Account The Absolute Truth about Health Care Reform Insurance Suggestions
Is anything missing? Is any of the material inaccurate? Please let me know.
Joe Messerli
Page Last Updated:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.). Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
With very few exceptions, every person in Canada over the age of 18 who earns a salary must pay into the Canada Pension Plan. You and your employer each pay half of the contributions. If you are self-employed, you pay both portions.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1946 the first Canadian
province to introduce near
universal health care.

# data[].attributes.body
There are three kinds of Canada Pension Plan benefits:

disability benefits (which include benefits for disabled contributors and benefits for their dependent children);

retirement pension; and

survivor benefits (which include the death benefit, the survivor's pension and the children's benefit).

# data[].attributes.body
Deficit of $21.1 billion dollars

# data[].attributes.body
Declining Employment Insurance beneficiaries

# data[].attributes.body
Your contributions provide you and your dependents with basic financial protection if you become disabled or die.

# data[].attributes.body
Total revenue of $225 billion dollars

# data[].attributes.body
Spending on health care per age group in 2007

# data[].attributes.body
Canada's budget 2012

# data[].attributes.body
'Universal Healthcare's

dirty little secrets'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AS THEY TACK left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support - along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.

What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and although physicians do not face the same legal requirements, we do not hear of many who are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance.

You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is "no evidence," Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, "health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care."

Another common concern is that the young and healthy will go without insurance, leaving a risk pool of older and sicker people. This results in higher insurance premiums for those who are insured. But that's only true if the law forbids insurers from charging their customers according to the cost of covering them. If companies can charge more to cover people who are likely to need more care - smokers, the elderly, etc. - then it won't make any difference who does or doesn't buy insurance.

Finally, some suggest that when people without health insurance receive treatment, the cost of their care is passed along to the rest of us. This is undeniably true. Yet, it is a manageable problem. According to Jack Hadley and John Holahan of the left-leaning Urban Institute, uncompensated care for the uninsured amounts to less than 3% of total healthcare spending - a real cost, no doubt, but hardly a crisis.

Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms - such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets - that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable

As H. L. Mencken said: "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." Universal healthcare is a textbook case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AS THEY TACK left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support - along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California 's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Employment Insurance benefits - Canada.ca

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Includes information about Employment Insurance (EI) temporary benefits for workers, sickness, fishing and family-related benefits as well as how to apply online and submit a report.