Funding of Universal Health Care Coverage: Is it still possible in next Future: Canada Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak takes its course in World, financial pressure mounts on all levels of government across the country, cost-sharing of medical and hospital care covered by the public plan health insurance has once again become a very big conflict.Following the Canadian constitution in 1867, the door is opened to a national health insurance plan. Succeeding document indicates that the monitoring and delivery of health services is a provincial and territorial responsibility. The provinces have therefore, at different rates, implemented their own public health insurance plans. Government of Saskatchewan got the ball rolling, establishing a provincial universal public hospital insurance plan in 1947 and a provincial universal health insurance plan in 1962. Due to its constitutional reality, the country has 13 relatively distinct health care systems, one for each province and territory. However, these systems have much in common, as they draw their fiscal and legislative origins from the same series of agreements which, since the late 1950s, have defined the terms of cost sharing between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments. and territorial.This article analyze historical federal government cost shares shows a difference of about $20 billion in current funding depending on whether tax points transferred in 1977 are considered, and results ranging from a surplus of some $15 billion to a deficit of some $23 billion if only the transfer payment is observed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".