Canadian Health Care System, Good or Bad.
Pat and Hugh Armstrong, authors, in their article "Canada's System Is A Model For Health Care Reform", reprinted in Health Care: Opposing Viewpoints, argues that the Canadian health care system is superior to the United States' market-based system. They support their argument with three reasons. First, they reason that 96% Canadians prefer their health care system to the United States'. They use as support the five principles of the Canadian Health Care Act. This is a criteria for funding set out by the government and the provinces must follow them. The five principles are universal, potable, accessible, comprehensive, and publicly administered. Second, Pat and Hugh Armstrong argues because the government is the main purchaser of services, health care is not only cheaper for individual taxpayers, it is also cheaper for employers facing unions strong enough to successfully demand full health care coverage. They use as support the Chrysler Corp. In the United States, Chrysler pays more for health care than it pays for steel. In Canada, Chrysler does not have to pay for basic hospital costs and therefore its employee costs are lower. Third, they state the rich and the poor go to the same hospitals and doctors. The way they support this is by explaining the Canadians one-tier system. In other words, you can't tell the difference between the hospital rooms, high-tech services, or doctors' appearance. They conclude their article by saying if you were in a doctors office you wouldn't be able to tell if you were in Toronto or Minneapolis.
Those who oppose Pat and Hugh Armstrong would argue that Canada does not have one of the best health care systems. First, you think Canadians don't get the proper care in a timely manner. You think they have to wait to long for proper medical treatment. You know that as a parent if your son would have to wait in an emergency room with a broken leg, you would become irate.