Income Inequality Essay

2721 Words May 20th, 2011 11 Pages
Currently there are many problems and flaws with the way the Canadian government’s policies deal with healthcare, income inequality and poverty. Time to time changes in policies have been made, perhaps to improve these issues, however, the gap between rich and poor keeps increasing and there is very little improvement in healthcare and the economy. In fact, healthcare keeps on becoming costly. Major issues like income inequality and poverty are not being taken care of by the government. According to Dr. Raphael (2002) poverty is caused by several reasons such as inequality in people’s income, weak social services and lack of other social supports (p.VI). He states, “Poverty directly harms the health of those with low incomes while income …show more content…
15). There are also delays and lack of service for home care for senior citizens and elderly mentally challenged people. According to author Soroka (2007) 87 percent Canadians claim that there is a great amount of lacking in the number of doctors and nurses (p.16). This happens because government is failing to provide more money to hire more doctors and nurses (Soroka, 2007, p. 16). Yet, the government brings in many immigrant doctors and nurses based on their education who still can not find a job in Canada. So it seems that even when there is qualified doctors and nurses available, they government is failing or not investing enough amount of money to hire them.

According to Green and Milligan (2007) the gap between Canada’s rich and poor has increased significantly from year 1980 to 2000 (p. 3). The study shows that rich and poor are heading in different directions at an extreme level where the top 1% earners and CEOs only getting richer while middle and the poor only gets poorer (Green & Milligan, 2007, P. 3). As an example Green and Milligan (2007) shows that during 1980 to 2000 top 5% Canadian earners earned about $121,260 disposable income where as the bottom 5% families had only $3,104 as disposable income (p.3). This means that the top earners had 39 times higher income bottom 5% earners (Green & Milligan,

Related Documents