Textbook Notes (280,000)
CA (170,000)
UTSC (20,000)
Chapter

A+ Notes: Health Care


Department
Political Science
Course Code
POLB50Y3
Professor
Cochraine

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Heard and Cohn
- at time of Confed, prov. given control over local hospitals
- feds were given resp. over most imprt issues
-prov. had constitu. resp. but no fin. ability – EI, pension
- same w/ medicare, feds aren’t invading prov. resp., rather feds welcomed
- modern reality, all issues discussed by both feds and prov.
- Can’s sys: each prov design own sys w/ funding from feds
- universality, comprehensive, accessibility, portability, public administration
- prov. already have great autonomy hard to argue for less fed involvement
- health care not possible w/o fed. ldship prov. reluctant to act
- ex. prov. allowed user fees, affecting accessibility Canada health act bans user
fees
- health care is expensive, Ottawa needs control to maintain compet. adv.
- fed. funding allows for more equality across provs
- fed. spending powers – doesn’t interfere w/ prov. ability to legislate
- POGG – courts decided feds could pass laws in prov. jurisdiction (contradicts
literal interpretation)
- of national concern – health care & access for all is vital to Cdn society
author states criminal law as example (p 111) but just because consulted doesn’t mean
control
national concern – could be any issue not just health care
should feds take role in regulating or just funding? for ex, the list of essential services
legal argument – violate constitution
feds use spending power to regulate – ex. reduce funding for prov that allow user fees
violates spirit of constitution – if following letter of law, but what are practical needs?
policy argument – prov. in best pos to determine diff. health care needs and structure
of health care sys
prov. has experience running health care sys for last 30 years
more opp. for experimentation in ten diff. prov. rather than single national program
for the sake of equity, need fed. role in health care, but not strong role
philosophical argument – draw national gov’t away from more imprt issues (ie.
defence)
nation building through health care program? same can be achieved through foreign
involvement?
constitution – consider the context
I agree with 1st argument that prov do have option to make own policies if they’re willing
to forfeit fed funding
it seems prov. are all that unwilling to allow fed involvement
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version