d medicine in Canada feel the problem is not with the system but with the people themselves. They argue that people are exploiting the system and, "not taking enough responsibility for themselves"(Pierson 26). In any case, both sides agree that the main cause of these problems is lack of money, but instead of arguing how they intend to secure more money for healthcare, they argue whether socialized medicine is good or not. This question of good and bad is a philosophical issue best discussed over time. Instead, both of these sides should be joining together to fight for funds. Funds that their government owes them.
             In 1970, at the dawn of Canada's healthcare, the federal government promised to provide 50% of all healthcare costs in Canada. The other 50% was supposed to be provided by local provinces. Since then the government has yet to pay 50% of healthcare costs and, to add insult to injury, has steadily decreased the amount of funding they once promised. From 1970 to 1983 the Canadian government paid only 37% of all healthcare costs leaving the local provinces to pay the other 63%. At this rate, local provinces could fit the bill, but in 1984, when the Canadian government amended the National Health Care Act, they cut their funding of health care costs down to a mere 29%. Then in 1990 after another budget cut, the Canadian government paid only 25%. Since then there have been so many cuts in healthcare funding that ever since 1990 the Canadian government, with a population of 21 million, has spent less on healthcare than Washington D.C. who has a population of only 4 million (Frampton).
             With ever-increasing demand and cost for healthcare, l
             ...