Douglas versus Manning: The Ideological Battle over Medicare in Postwar Canada

Abstract

The accepted narrative of the history of medicare in Canada does not do justice to the struggle between premiers Tommy Douglas of Saskatchewan and Ernest Manning of Alberta over two very different models of universal health coverage. Douglas and Manning were committed advocates of their respective models for ideological reasons, but these political differences had their origins in their conflicting interpretations of Christian teachings and biblical interpretation. These differences are examined in detail in order to arrive at a richer understanding of the values and the key policy design features of their respective models of medicare. Ultimately, Douglas’s model of medicare would be adopted in the rest of Canada even though Manningcare was the preferred choice of doctors, insurance companies, the business establishment, the majority of provincial governments, and fundamentalist Christians such as Manning who believed that Douglas’s model resulted in an abdication of individual responsibility and moral choice.