Frank Smith Says NB: Did Universal Health Care Kill Actress Natasha Richardson?

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Did Universal Health Care Kill Actress Natasha Richardson?

Did Universal Health Care Kill Actress Natasha Richardson?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...: That’s it in a nutshell. Socialized medicine, known by the euphemism universal healthcare, is about tightfisted government clerks rationing care.

Think about the folks at the Department of Motor Vehicles making your healthcare decisions for you while you wait in line.

Under government healthcare, faceless bureaucrats do not care if you live or die, as long as everyone receives equal treatment.

THIS IS COMING TO NEW BRITAIN, THANKS TO THE EUROPEAN SOCIALIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE!; March 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: HEAR THAT O'BRIEN? DeFRONZO?

TIGHT FISTED GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS RATIONING SOCIALIZED MEDICINE SO THEY CAN EQUALLY KILL PEOPLE?

AND YOU WANT IT IN CONNECTICUT? NEW BRITAIN?; March 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I could easily see a service like New Britain EMS being eliminated. Remember, under socialist medicine, all services are totally FREE! If you eliminate the reimbursement from insurance companies, is the city really going to be able to provide the current level of services for free?; March 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: maybe you'll dial 911, and be connected to a beaurocrat in Washingon who will review your symptoms and decide if you deserve an ambulance, but there might be a 6 to 18 month waiting list to get one, you know, just like in the UK.; March 22, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Had Actress Natasha Richardson been treated in America Health System she would be alive today, the slow drive between hospitals by Ambulance rather than by a short helicopter flight cost her her life.

In Canada it's not about saving lives it's about budgets and unions and health-care as a political tool.; March 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I would never have even considered
that the death of Natasha Richardson could be attributed to
the Canadian Health Care System.
An ambulance was sent to the accident promptly and was refused
sadly, by the actress.; March 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: An ambulance was sent to the accident promptly and was refused
sadly, by the actress.

They probably told her that they only treat Canadians since it is a socialist country.; March 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The sad part is that throughout American history the current system has come up with so many life saving ideas. With universal healthcare what would be the motivation to come up with new ideas. With the direction that we are taking under the current administration there will no longer be any motivation to excel in any area. If you work hard and earn a lot of money the government will just take it from you. Why not just be an average guy, work half as hard as you are capable and have the government take the money from whoever is foolish enough to take risks and work hard.

SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK PERIOD

Note to Anonymous who said...
I would never have even considered
that the death of Natasha Richardson...

When she started having headaches about an hour later, she was taken by ambulance to a hospital in Ste. Agathe, Quebec. then transferred to the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal later in the afternoon. Then was flown from Canada to New York City.

If Canada's health care is equal to that in the USA why would you transfer someone with a severe head injury to another country?; March 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: If Canada's system is equal to that of the United States, then why do the U.S. hospitals in the cities near the Canadian border treat more Canadians who run down here for medical treatments that they couldn't get in Canada than they do Americans.; March 22, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: It was reported that very quickly the actress was essentially brain dead. She was flown to NY to die there where her family could gather. There were no life saving measures at the NY hosp. She may have been moved within Canada too
but then we do that all the time.
Heart patients are often quickly moved to a more appropriate highly
skilled facility. Having money usually takes care of the level of
care in most countries. If the worst happens in this country and we succumb to universal health care
the wealthiest will still be able to affor the best for themselves.
Take for instance those that bankrupted our country and it's people through fradulent mortgages.
Those thiefs if they held onto their loot will be entitled to better care.; March 22, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said... She was flown to NY to die there where her family could gather....

I didn't think of it that way. I chose a poor example to highlight the pitfalls of a universal health care system.
However an article:
The Pitfalls of Socialized Medicine
by Joel Himelfarb
inFocus
Summer 2008
Points out that Great Britain invented the CT scanner, and for some period of time exported more than half the CT scanners used in the world. But today it has half the number of CT scanners per capita than we have in the United States. Canada faces similar problems with CT scanner shortages. Canada and the UK suffer from other similar shortages compared to the U.S. "Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis," writes John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, who spent more than two decades analyzing the performance of world health care systems. "The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain." Statistics compiled by the Paris-based Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2007 show that the United States compares very well with 11 other industrialized countries in the numbers of MRI units and CT scanners per one million people: The United States, with 32 CT scanners and 26 MRI units, led virtually every other nation (with the exception of Japan) in almost every category. What most Americans don't know is that Canadian drug prices are kept artificially low through price controls. Moreover, the U.S. health care system is a safety net for many Canadians. Indeed, they flock south of the border to obtain care that their own system denies them. Thousands of anguished Canadians have had hellish experiences getting the proper care they desire in their country's affordable health system. The U.S. health care system is far from perfect. But it provides the overwhelming majority of Americans access to the best care in the world. Moreover, many of the flaws in the U.S. system result not from a private marketplace, but from flawed tax and regulatory policies implemented by the federal and state governments. In fact European nations are trying to integrate market practices into their own health care systems. Indeed, they seek to emulate the American system.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/226/the-pitfalls-of-socialized-medicine; March 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I have been fortunate enough to enjoy private health insurance for
most of my adult life. As a middle class family working in the private sector we have seen our premiums and co-pays rise significantly over the past few years. In fact they have exceeded our salary increases this year as
merit increases were put on hold at our respective employers so we we are pedaling backward but thankful for employment. Recently a minor procedure at a private service facility cost me a $150.00 co-pay that coupled with two visits to the specialist,
another $50.00. I thank God for every bit of good health. I could not imagine if this was routine or
chronic? It would be a financial
hard-ship. I also wonder if those
on a public assistance programs incur the same sort of co-pay? Or
did my co-pay cover them too? I assume in the US based on our humanity that everyone is treated
with utmost respect and provided the same level of care regardless of our ability to pay. I could be
un-insured and if I arrived at the hospital with my ailment, I'm sure
I would be treated whether I could
pay or not.; March 23, 2009 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps the ski resort should have insisted that Natasha Richardson seek medical attention, regardless of how well she may have initially felt. It isn't uncommon for injuries to occur on the ski slopes.; March 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: So now it is the ski resort's fault for not "forcing" her to receive medical attention? I know you can refuse treatment here in the United States, but maybe when the socialists take over like in Canada, you have no choice to refuse treatment, just like you have no choice over who your doctor will be or even if you have access to a doctor.

The government decides based on community population whether your city or county even deserves a doctor. There are large areas of Canada that only have access to a nurse who can call a far away doctor by phone to seek advice if she doesn't know how to treat you.

Now that is change you can believe it!; March 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)