Canada deserves a national health system.

A defining--some would say peculiar--feature about Canada and Canadians is the strong position that we give social programs within our national identity. FORUM presents an essay by Dr. Thomas Noseworthy based on an address to the annual meeting of the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges in April 1996. In it, Dr. Noseworthy calls for a national health system. He sees the federal government retaining an important role in preserving medicare and, in fact, strengthening its powers in maintaining national consistency and standards. Dr. Noseworthy's views are contrary to the governmental decentralization and devolution of powers occurring across the country. In a "point/counterpoint" exchange on this issue, we have invited commentaries from three experts. Raisa Deber leads off by noting that while a national health system may be desirable, constitutional provisions would be an obstacle. Governments, says Deber, have an inherent conflict of interest between their responsibility for maintaining the health care system and their desire to shift costs. Michael Rachlis reminds us that medicare fulfills important economic as well as social objectives. It helps to support Canada's business competitiveness among other nations. The problem, say Rachlis, is that public financing of health care does not ensure an efficient delivery system. Michael Walker offers some reality orientation. He observes that Canada's health care system is based upon ten public insurance schemes with widely different attributes. While he supports a minimum standard of health care across the country, citizens should be able to purchase private medical insurance and have access to a parallel private health care delivery system. Ultimately, this debate is about who should control social programs: the provinces or the federal government? We'll let you, the readers, decide.