Posted on 03/21/2009 6:45:53 AM PDT by vadum
Did the fact that Canada has a socialist, government-run healthcare system --similar to the kind that President Obama wants to ram down the throats of Americans-- kill acclaimed actress Natasha Richardson?
The short answer is yes, it may very well have done so.
Regarding the case of the actress who fell on a ski slope at Mont Tremblant resort in Quebec, AP reports:
As a steady stream of celebrities pay their last respects to Natasha Richardson, questions are arising over whether a medical helicopter might have been able to save the ailing actress.
The province of Quebec lacks a medical helicopter system, common in the United States and other parts of Canada, to airlift stricken patients to major trauma centers. Montreal's top head trauma doctor said Friday that may have played a role in Richardson's death...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
No! It was an accident.
Short answer, it contributed, no doubt about it.
She refused treatment, and said she was okay. Even in our own system, she would have died. Blaming the accident on the socialist medical system is stupid.
I thought that yesterday when I heard the news at the top of the hour that she didn’t get looked at until 4 hours after the accident so I’d thought yes. With head injuries time is of the essence.
ping
No, she killed herself.
She refused to go to the hospital until it was too late. I doubt having a copter available would have made a different in the long run.
But the larger question: how many people does Canada's Universal Health Care Kill???
Might have been an accident, but she could have possibly been saved if she could have received treatment in time. NO neurosurgeon at the hospital, no lifeflight helicopter to take her to one.
Sadly, a lot of people bang their heads and think they are “okay”.
In the last few days I have heard about a half dozen stories related to me, firsthand accounts that are very similar to Ms. Richardson.
Lots of things that people do for recereation, especally skiing, are considered to come with some degree of risk. People accept that risk and understand that they may break tear up a knee or turn an ankle, at worst maybe break a bone. Most people don’t forsee themselves getting killed.
It was an unfortunate accident.
Yeah, I see your point and if she refused treatment then no, it didn’t. I didn’t even know who this woman was or what happened. Are we sure she refused? If so, then she must’ve felt fine.
I’ve heard of several accounts over the last few days which have a resemblance to Ms. Richardson’s situation.
I didn’t ask, but assumed these occurred in the USSA.
I can’t see trying to score Universal Healthcare points on this story. There are many other, far better examples of how we would be ill-served to switch to the Canadian model of healthcare.
Stupid, yes. But politcally savvy, in a disgusting and shameful way.
Like I’ve always said, “socialized medicine is genocide.”
Exactly. I hit my head ice skating a couple of years ago, and didn't go to the doctor even though the facility's first-aid staffer suggested it. If I had died, instead of just having a bump on my head for a couple of weeks, it would have been my fault, not the skating rink's or the local medical services'.
If anything, this current line of discussion about Ms. Richardson's is likely to make people think the option to refuse medical attention should be eliminated. Is that what we want?
“But the larger question: how many people does Canada’s Universal Health Care Kill???”
Canada’s infant mortality rate is lower and their average life expectancy 3 years longer.
The issue is the expense, and the fact that all citizens are compelled to pay for it through taxes. But to argue that their system ‘kills people’ is nonsense when more of their babies survive and then they live longer. Infant mortality and life expectancy are both inextricably linked to the amount of and quality of health care people are recieving.
Again, it’s the expense and the imposition of it by the state that’s the issue; the results of their healthcare system speak for themselves. Much better and more comprehensive for anyone who isnt a multi-millionaire.
The head trauma killed her. The inaccessibility of trauma care prevented her from receiving adequately and timely treatment. Two different propositions: the latter far more scandalous than the former.
Given the fact she refused treatment a team of twenty life-flights wouldn’t have made a difference. She thought she was fine until it was too late.
Silly to try to lay the blame on poor healthcare when healthcare of any type was refused.
The majority of hospitals in the USA do not have neurosurgeons on staff. Why should the Canadian hospitals?
Thank-you. Stupid arguments like this one do nothing to advance the position.
She Refused the EMT's. Later when she felt a headache she went to the hospital FOR TREATMENT. She walked in and was conscious. The hospital did not add trauma, headache, and a deteriorating condition as a serious problem. It did not do an MRI probably because it didn't have one. Canadian socialized medicine is just not up to private care. Defending it is STUPID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.