Argument the deferral structure and parliamentary

This preview shows page 13 - 15 out of 29 pages.

Argument : The deferral structure and parliamentary institutions of the Canadian political system encouraged the formation of a social democratic 3 rd party and enhanced its efficacy in promoting health policy reform. The institutional constraints of the American political system impeded the emergence and consolidation of this type of policy “entrepreneur” and forced the proponents of health reform to restrain their strategies in order to appeal to a wider coaling within the Democratic Party. The presence of third party candidates in the US has been influential in modifying major party platforms and realigning their political bases, but only rarely have these third parties functioned as autonomous political forces. Even though third parties in Canada have little immediate chance of forming a government, they can influence federal policymaking. Issue “entrepreneurs” they can bring serious alternatives to the policymaking agenda. Canadian political system does not include a central institution that can represent regions and provinces at the federal levels such as the US Senate - distinctive form of federalism The rise of the federal CCF in public opinion polls by late 1942 it was in a dead heat with the Liberals and Conservatives combined with the popularity of health insurance. The Liberal government feared that the challenge of the CCF would undermine electoral support among the working class, since organized labour was favored establishing a contributory health insurance program that would insure similar standards of care for workers across the country. - conservative adopted the progressive label to widen its appeal in the western provinces against the CCF - liberal party moved to usurp the left’s social reform platform In order to receive federal assistance, provincial medical plans would have to provide comprehensive, universal, publicly administered benefits for all citizens under uniform terms and conditions transferable between provinces. Although the opposition of organized medicine different in both intensity and strategy, medical interests in Canada and the US shared similar concerns about maintaining professional autonomy, preferring voluntary insurance and limited public programs for low income families and the medically indigent. American labor had more input into the administration’s health proposals than their Canadian counterparts, who maintained a wary distance from the major parties and leaned more toward the type
13
of social reform advocated by the CCF platform. The Democratic party in US remained deeply divided and polarized over the issue that compromise was virtually impossible. US program targeted the aged. The absence of this kind of targeting of the aged was one of the most important distinguishing features of the Canadian hospital insurance plan. The debate in Canada centered around universal entitlements, reinforced by the demands of the CCF at the federal level.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture