he individuals freedom of choice. Supporters of privatization maintain that these principles conflict with Canadians right to choose; the patients autonomy to choose to pay privately, and the physicians choice to provide preferential treatments to those payers ( Dirnfeld, 1996; Gordon, Mintz & Chen, 1998). Increasing choice in this manner would lead only to such detrimental practices as cream skimming, (Dirnfeld, 1996). Insurance companies would want only to provide coverage for those who meet certain low-risk physical criteria; physicians could care for those who could pay or for those who diagnosis proved to be the most profitable. This would be leading Canadians to take giant leaps backward in health care; moving towards the medical model of old that focused on disease and cure rather than health promotion and disease prevention.With privatization comes private insurance, which can then delegate the what, whom, where and when health care services are accessed, in turn greatly limiting the individuals choice (Armstrong & Fegan, 1998). Utilization of a private for-profit system will be restricted to those who have adequate insurance coverage or the ability to pay out of pocket. Accessing services could also become dependent on hours of operation and rights to different facilities as dictated by private business owners and restrictions imposed by insurance plans.Accessibility will also be affected when for-profit hospitals determine where to be established. Many Albertans live in rural areas too sparsely populated to encourage free-market competition. As more populated areas are bombarded with a barrage of health care competitors vying for their money, rural communities will be abandoned. Businesses and employees will be lured away by the prospect of fatter pocket books as profit is exchanged for people.Decreasing Cost vs. Non-profitOne of the driving forces behind privatization is that it will cut and control increasing health care c...
