Synthesis Essay On Health Care
Brianna Falls
Robert Zackowski
Synthesis Paper
English 101
11/28/2017
Synthesis Paper
How can Canada maintain free Healthcare from a business standpoint and what do Canadians do differently towards this versus how America runs health care? This answer can be found through focusing not on money, but rather what the money is spent on when it comes to healthcare between the United States and Canada. While the United States is one of the biggest money spenders when it comes to health care, it's demands and medical prices are viewed to be harsh. The United State’s healthcare in many ways is more hurtful than helpful within a medical case, giving the consumer a right to health care but not necessarily helping them with it. Another standpoint that …show more content…
can be looked into, focuses on the healthcare that is used and what ways the United States and Canada use their money that is set aside for healthcare, differently. This difference can specifically boil down to the types of health care each place provides.
As Canada focuses on awareness of natural remedies in order to prevent the use of health care altogether, the United States focuses on helping with the payment of doctors bills and what is absolutely necessary when you are in the hospital.
For instance, The “US amounted to about $34 billion in out-of-pocket spending in 2007, with $11.9 billion spent on visits to practitioners” and in doing so the prices of health care rises, without actually helping to prevent individuals from getting sick, to begin with (Nicola K. Gale). Is it better to have healthcare and pay for it and it’s helpful when it comes to doctor's visits, or is it better to have free health care with restrictions on what you can have to help you in a medical time of need and have a higher tax rate? This can be said true, as Canadians do have the right of gaining free healthcare, but if you need it for a long-term medical reason or more serious matter, it is usually in their interest to pay for healthcare anyways (Right to Health Care). Either scenario shows that the rights individuals have regarding healthcare is limited and costly, just in different ways and so an individual is left to hope that neither one is …show more content…
needed. An article from Routledge Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine refers to what differentiates Canada’s health care from the types of health care Americans predominantly use. For instance, while health care in both Canada and the United States, work for a cost-effective form of health care, both have different approaches to how to take on this battle. While Americans tend to rely on CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine), Canada has ruled this out and chooses to target alternative health services and natural products to act as a preventative and in most cases a way to fight illness.
Canada’s form of health care and their ideas are inspiring some individuals while confusing others, however, the difference between these two fighting thought processes is the facts. For instance starting and growing from 2007, the US has between 17.4-27.4% of their population using CAM, while Canada has 71-71% using alternative or natural health products (Nicola K. Gale). In return, maybe the numbers speak for themselves and as Canada has a higher demand for health care options, an alternative practice had to be put in place to take care of the people who live there, while the US still profits from individuals buying health care and just need new policy or regulations in order to change America's mindset and help more individuals for less (quality over quantity). So the end questions fall on specifically the difference between health care options from the United States to Canada, in which we can decipher who has a better system at hand, along with how each area conducts health care from a business standpoint. As we learn this information, not only can individuals gain a sense of understanding for what they are or aren’t receiving but also determine for themselves what they wish to invest their money in.
While the United States is one of the largest nations, it doesn’t have a stable health care system and the health care system put in place today has varied throughout the years.
The complaints began in “...the 18th and 19th century the US federal government did not finance or otherwise provide healthcare to the public.” (Right to Health Care). As complaints piled up in the 20th century, policies were put into place and health care became the main issue, still being a topic of discussion in today times. Over the years, variations of health care systems consisted of policy changes that go along with higher versus lower insurance fluctuations. Whereas, Canada has a smaller population and guarantees its citizens to have free health care after the standard amount of time living in the
area.
Bringing up another popular question, If the United States has an ever-growing population, why can’t a standard health care that’s affordable and stable be put into place? This question brings us back where taxpayer dollars are going and how high taxes are in Canada versus the United States. Each year, Canada has a vastly higher amount of taxes than the United States and in return for this, they provide a simple and basic health care system for their citizens. This system is revolved around free health care and harder difficulties in other areas when someone is sick. For instance, it becomes harder for Canada’s citizens to get more expensive medication for free and if they have to be emitted into the hospital since space is limited and they aren’t paying then they earn a basic shared room with a curtain divider. Many citizens in Canada disagree with the level of service they are offered and despite having higher taxes, they opt to get health insurance as well.
Health insurance is the United States is needed so that individuals can be provided with care and the medicine they need and be able to afford the services, while in Canada having health-insurance is simply a luxury. Canadian citizens work to afford health-insurance so that they can gain their own room and be allowed the luxuries normal individuals strive to gain when being emitted into the hospital in order to have a comfortable stay. These circumstances bring up the pros and cons of having higher taxes and free healthcare, versus paying for health care with lower taxes. Each policy has implemented its own complaints and while the grass is always seen to be greener on the other side, it can be broken down to what Canada versus the United States choose to stand for and what each of its citizens are allowed to gain from each.
One pro that could come from free health care in the United States would be derived from its impact, less individuals would complain and less would be sick. However, every victory comes at a price and if the United States were to do so then rationing would begin. For instance, due to the desperation individuals have for health care, a shortage of it especially if it was free would appear. This conclusion leads the United States into even more debt than it is now for the healthcare it gives out and service restrictions would have to be implemented if it had a chance at continuing.
Service restrictions, controlled distribution, budgeting, and price setting are all a part of how Canada’s government affords to maintain free healthcare for it’s citizens (Right to Health Care). By breaking up healthcare into these sections, it makes the healthcare considerably worse and therefore makes it pointless for the United States to make healthcare free, because if they do then a whole new set of issues will arise.
Works Cited
Edited by Nicola K. Gale, THE HARM PRINCIPLE AND LIABILITY FOR CAM PRACTICE: A
Comparative Analysis of Canadian and United States Health Freedom Laws | Routledge
Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Credo Reference, 2015, search.credoreference.com/content/entry/routcaam/the_harm_principle_an d_Liability_for_cam_practice_a_comparative_analysis_of_canadia n_and_united_states_health_freedom_laws/0. Summarize the main focus/ main idea of your source by answering the following questions: What is the point of the source? What topics are covered? How would you explain this source to someone else? How would you characterize its credibility?
Analyze two or three of the specific strategies/methods that the author of the source uses to achieve their main focus/main idea. (See “Logos” document. “Logical Fallacies” document and Logos Ethos Pathos website on Moodle for guidance) How do they go about proving that their argument/perspective is credible and correct? What kinds of evidence do they use? Then, answer the following questions about your source: How does it relate to the other sources in your paper? The heart of a god annotated bibliography is the comparative analysis of sources. Your next key question is: How does the source relate to your own views? Remember, similarity and contrast are the beginnings of analysis.
Reflect on exactly how the source fit into your paper by telling me where in the paper you used the source and why you used it there. How does the source help to shape your argument?
“Right to Health Care.” Right to Health Care | ProCon - Credo Reference, Procon, 24 Feb. 2017,
5:07:21 PM PST,search.credoreference.com/content/entry/procon/right_to_health_care/0.
Summarize the main focus/ main idea of your source by answering the following questions: What is the point of the source? What topics are covered? How would you explain this source to someone else? How would you characterize its credibility?
Analyze two or three of the specific strategies/methods that the author of the source uses to achieve their main focus/main idea. (See “Logos” document. “Logical Fallacies” document and Logos Ethos Pathos website on Moodle for guidance) How do they go about proving that their argument/perspective is credible and correct? What kinds of evidence do they use? Then, answer the following questions about your source: How does it relate to the other sources in your paper? The heart of a god annotated bibliography is the comparative analysis of sources. Your next key question is: How does the source relate to your own views? Remember, similarity and contrast are the beginnings of analysis.
Reflect on exactly how the source fit into your paper by telling me where in the paper you used the source and why you used it there. How does the source help to shape your argument?
Robert Zackowski
Synthesis Paper
English 101
11/28/2017
Synthesis Paper
How can Canada maintain free Healthcare from a business standpoint and what do Canadians do differently towards this versus how America runs health care? This answer can be found through focusing not on money, but rather what the money is spent on when it comes to healthcare between the United States and Canada. While the United States is one of the biggest money spenders when it comes to health care, it's demands and medical prices are viewed to be harsh. The United State’s healthcare in many ways is more hurtful than helpful within a medical case, giving the consumer a right to health care but not necessarily helping them with it. Another standpoint that …show more content…
can be looked into, focuses on the healthcare that is used and what ways the United States and Canada use their money that is set aside for healthcare, differently. This difference can specifically boil down to the types of health care each place provides.
As Canada focuses on awareness of natural remedies in order to prevent the use of health care altogether, the United States focuses on helping with the payment of doctors bills and what is absolutely necessary when you are in the hospital.
For instance, The “US amounted to about $34 billion in out-of-pocket spending in 2007, with $11.9 billion spent on visits to practitioners” and in doing so the prices of health care rises, without actually helping to prevent individuals from getting sick, to begin with (Nicola K. Gale). Is it better to have healthcare and pay for it and it’s helpful when it comes to doctor's visits, or is it better to have free health care with restrictions on what you can have to help you in a medical time of need and have a higher tax rate? This can be said true, as Canadians do have the right of gaining free healthcare, but if you need it for a long-term medical reason or more serious matter, it is usually in their interest to pay for healthcare anyways (Right to Health Care). Either scenario shows that the rights individuals have regarding healthcare is limited and costly, just in different ways and so an individual is left to hope that neither one is …show more content…
needed. An article from Routledge Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine refers to what differentiates Canada’s health care from the types of health care Americans predominantly use. For instance, while health care in both Canada and the United States, work for a cost-effective form of health care, both have different approaches to how to take on this battle. While Americans tend to rely on CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine), Canada has ruled this out and chooses to target alternative health services and natural products to act as a preventative and in most cases a way to fight illness.
Canada’s form of health care and their ideas are inspiring some individuals while confusing others, however, the difference between these two fighting thought processes is the facts. For instance starting and growing from 2007, the US has between 17.4-27.4% of their population using CAM, while Canada has 71-71% using alternative or natural health products (Nicola K. Gale). In return, maybe the numbers speak for themselves and as Canada has a higher demand for health care options, an alternative practice had to be put in place to take care of the people who live there, while the US still profits from individuals buying health care and just need new policy or regulations in order to change America's mindset and help more individuals for less (quality over quantity). So the end questions fall on specifically the difference between health care options from the United States to Canada, in which we can decipher who has a better system at hand, along with how each area conducts health care from a business standpoint. As we learn this information, not only can individuals gain a sense of understanding for what they are or aren’t receiving but also determine for themselves what they wish to invest their money in.
While the United States is one of the largest nations, it doesn’t have a stable health care system and the health care system put in place today has varied throughout the years.
The complaints began in “...the 18th and 19th century the US federal government did not finance or otherwise provide healthcare to the public.” (Right to Health Care). As complaints piled up in the 20th century, policies were put into place and health care became the main issue, still being a topic of discussion in today times. Over the years, variations of health care systems consisted of policy changes that go along with higher versus lower insurance fluctuations. Whereas, Canada has a smaller population and guarantees its citizens to have free health care after the standard amount of time living in the
area.
Bringing up another popular question, If the United States has an ever-growing population, why can’t a standard health care that’s affordable and stable be put into place? This question brings us back where taxpayer dollars are going and how high taxes are in Canada versus the United States. Each year, Canada has a vastly higher amount of taxes than the United States and in return for this, they provide a simple and basic health care system for their citizens. This system is revolved around free health care and harder difficulties in other areas when someone is sick. For instance, it becomes harder for Canada’s citizens to get more expensive medication for free and if they have to be emitted into the hospital since space is limited and they aren’t paying then they earn a basic shared room with a curtain divider. Many citizens in Canada disagree with the level of service they are offered and despite having higher taxes, they opt to get health insurance as well.
Health insurance is the United States is needed so that individuals can be provided with care and the medicine they need and be able to afford the services, while in Canada having health-insurance is simply a luxury. Canadian citizens work to afford health-insurance so that they can gain their own room and be allowed the luxuries normal individuals strive to gain when being emitted into the hospital in order to have a comfortable stay. These circumstances bring up the pros and cons of having higher taxes and free healthcare, versus paying for health care with lower taxes. Each policy has implemented its own complaints and while the grass is always seen to be greener on the other side, it can be broken down to what Canada versus the United States choose to stand for and what each of its citizens are allowed to gain from each.
One pro that could come from free health care in the United States would be derived from its impact, less individuals would complain and less would be sick. However, every victory comes at a price and if the United States were to do so then rationing would begin. For instance, due to the desperation individuals have for health care, a shortage of it especially if it was free would appear. This conclusion leads the United States into even more debt than it is now for the healthcare it gives out and service restrictions would have to be implemented if it had a chance at continuing.
Service restrictions, controlled distribution, budgeting, and price setting are all a part of how Canada’s government affords to maintain free healthcare for it’s citizens (Right to Health Care). By breaking up healthcare into these sections, it makes the healthcare considerably worse and therefore makes it pointless for the United States to make healthcare free, because if they do then a whole new set of issues will arise.
Works Cited
Edited by Nicola K. Gale, THE HARM PRINCIPLE AND LIABILITY FOR CAM PRACTICE: A
Comparative Analysis of Canadian and United States Health Freedom Laws | Routledge
Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Credo Reference, 2015, search.credoreference.com/content/entry/routcaam/the_harm_principle_an d_Liability_for_cam_practice_a_comparative_analysis_of_canadia n_and_united_states_health_freedom_laws/0. Summarize the main focus/ main idea of your source by answering the following questions: What is the point of the source? What topics are covered? How would you explain this source to someone else? How would you characterize its credibility?
Analyze two or three of the specific strategies/methods that the author of the source uses to achieve their main focus/main idea. (See “Logos” document. “Logical Fallacies” document and Logos Ethos Pathos website on Moodle for guidance) How do they go about proving that their argument/perspective is credible and correct? What kinds of evidence do they use? Then, answer the following questions about your source: How does it relate to the other sources in your paper? The heart of a god annotated bibliography is the comparative analysis of sources. Your next key question is: How does the source relate to your own views? Remember, similarity and contrast are the beginnings of analysis.
Reflect on exactly how the source fit into your paper by telling me where in the paper you used the source and why you used it there. How does the source help to shape your argument?
“Right to Health Care.” Right to Health Care | ProCon - Credo Reference, Procon, 24 Feb. 2017,
5:07:21 PM PST,search.credoreference.com/content/entry/procon/right_to_health_care/0.
Summarize the main focus/ main idea of your source by answering the following questions: What is the point of the source? What topics are covered? How would you explain this source to someone else? How would you characterize its credibility?
Analyze two or three of the specific strategies/methods that the author of the source uses to achieve their main focus/main idea. (See “Logos” document. “Logical Fallacies” document and Logos Ethos Pathos website on Moodle for guidance) How do they go about proving that their argument/perspective is credible and correct? What kinds of evidence do they use? Then, answer the following questions about your source: How does it relate to the other sources in your paper? The heart of a god annotated bibliography is the comparative analysis of sources. Your next key question is: How does the source relate to your own views? Remember, similarity and contrast are the beginnings of analysis.
Reflect on exactly how the source fit into your paper by telling me where in the paper you used the source and why you used it there. How does the source help to shape your argument?