This research paper will present literature in review on critically assessing the main arguments of the heated debate on the publicly versus privately financed health care system in Canada.Indeed a lot of contention has been raised in the last few years over the subject of so called “two-tier” healthcare. Although, universal healthcare is very cherished in Canada, there is a growing sentiment that introducing a private system will alleviate the burden on the public system.
An important part of this essay will assess the central arguments epitomized by the protagonists of the two-tiers system, specifically in the "Framework for Reform, Report of the Premier's Advisory Council on Health, 2002" A particular focus will be assessing the rationale of the pro-public funding because it is consonant with the core of the main central arguments. The current discourse on a possible introduction of a two-tiers health care system represents one of the most dangerous social projects since it would substantially erode the very fabric of the Canadian society, Canadian identity and the Canadian traditional values.
One of the central argument of the protagonists of the two-tiers system is based on assumption that the system is no longer financially viable and requires a massive financial injection, which cannot be provided by the federal government and is uneasy to increase the funding to the provinces. However there is a merit in this argument.Overall provincial/territorial government expenditures on health have increased substantially over the past two decades,from about $11 billion in 1977/78 to almost $56 billion in 10 years.1 Furthermore, it is expected that the national spending will exceed $100 billion per year in 2012.2 The situation is indeed alarming in respect to the drug costs, which are expected to grow substantially over the next decade. Across the country, drug costs are expected to rise from $4 billion today to …