Chapter 3: Medicare Debate in Canada
[ http://cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html ]

"The great object of the political economy of every country is to increase the riches and power of that country. If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered."
- Adam Smith

Adam Smith was a strong believer in the free market system and preached his writings through many books. He felt that the presence of government control would hinder the economic growth of not only individual companies, but the entire country as well. We see his ongoing argument for a capitalist system in the article given.

Recently, it was decided that the government of Quebec would not be allowed to restrict its citizens from buying private insurance for healthcare. The court stated that it wasn’t fair to those who wanted insurance for healthcare, since the government facilities weren’t able to provide the service in an acceptable amount of time. This issue was raised by a retired man of 73, George Zeliotis, who had waited a year for a hip replacement and was dissatisfied with the Canadian system of healthcare. He went to court to complain that it was an infringement on the charter, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security. Another man, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, also found himself with growing concerns with the health system. After a failed attempt to open his own private hospital, he too went to court with his concerns. “The government cannot continue to raise taxes to pay for health care,” he said. “Too many Canadians are suffering.”

“Too many Canadians are suffering” has been a phrase not unfamiliar to the government recently. Canada has always been prided upon the fact that our health care system is public and is accessible by all, however, this availability for everyone has caused some problems. Because no single person is entitled higher privileges to medicare, waiting times and lists have been increasing over the years. Private sectors have been looking into setting up private hospitals, and though it would be for profit, it could benefit many people. Many citizens are concerned about their health and the service that they will be provided with should they fall ill. Private companies are claiming that they could provide better service and reduce waiting times. If this claim turns out to be true, then the stress on public healthcare is reduced. This proves to be a positive third party effect because this in turn also relieves the stress on tax dollars, which could be spent elsewhere.

The government, on the other hand, feels that they should control healthcare due to many reasons, one of them being the third party effects. Quite obviously, a healthier population is a better thing. Why? If there are less ill people, then there will be a lesser chance of those would-be ill people spreading diseases, and a less chance of those would-be ill people dying. With a higher, healthier population, more products will be consumed, producing a booming economy. With the amount of people living in poverty in Canada, the government feels that it is their responsibility to make healthcare available to those who can’t afford it to back up the higher, healthier population idea. But at what price does this come? Should the government really have full control over medicare in the country? Should individuals who have the financial support be allowed options between private and public healthcare? Sure, it’s unfair for those who can’t afford private healthcare to have such a system, but isn’t it possible for private and public hospitals to co-exist, as do private and public schools? Personally, I think that both Adam Smith and the government views are correct on different levels. The government should continue funding for public healthcare centres, while at the same time allowing private companies to provide their own service. Looking at this from another point of view, shouldn’t people who work hard for their money be allowed to pay for better service, especially for something so important that it could mean the difference between life and death?