Home

She died because of her own stubborness....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29733775/

Don't you mean she likely died because she wasn't given a CT scan and seen by a neurosurgeon immediately after being admitted to the hospital?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0326200...acare_may_have_killed_natasha_161372.htm

Scott_Thornley,

No I mean she had very little time to receive treatment for her head injury after the initial impact. Upon arrival of the ambulance she refused to be seen by the paramedics and would not allow them to transport her to the hospital. She waited too long before the paramedics were sent for again, and by then it was a little late to stop the damage process.

Furthermore, if she had died from neglect by the medical staff at the hospital, if they had truly waited too long to give her the required examination and subsequent treatment, why was that not part of the autopsy report, and why has the family not filed a lawsuit or made a statement against the hospital and it's staff ?
It's seems very unlikely that they would let something that horrendous pass by without bringing it to the attention of the proper authorities, so subsequent action could be taken. A statement would made by the hospital defending themselves, an immediate investigation would be performed. All this of course would have come to light and the public would become aware of it, as is with everything happening in this day and age of "Media First". Mind you I do doubt it would have taken from March till now for it to become public, but I could be wrong.

The New York Post said she "may have died", not she "did die" from lack of treatment. If it had been true why did they not follow up with another article or a series of articles proving their theory to be right, and enabling them to give Canada's Healthcare System a good $hit kicking, and upping their circulation and profits in these hard pressed for money times.

Mind you, you are confident in your statement and I could be completely wrong, right ?

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...sha+Richardson+doctor/1441951/story.html

Lynn D

If Ms. Richardson's family had such faith in CanadaCare, why was she moved to the hospital in New York?

As to the lack of lawsuit - why is that germane? Will it bring Ms. Richardson back? Would there be any financial stimulation to CanadaCare to improve their facilities (Answer: No, as all damages paid are taken out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer). Then there's the whole "Standard of Care" issue. I'm sure that Ms. Richardson was treated to "Standard of CanadaCare", meaning while there'd be plenty to hang on a U.S.A. hospital, there'd be little to argue in a Canadian court.

Most telling, is that in the U.S.A., if you arrive conscious with a epidural hematoma, odds are you're going to live. What with CT scans, access to neurologists, neurosurgeons etc... End of Story..

Scott

P.S. Well there is this little blurb out of your Vancouver Sun article:

[quote]�You have to do a cost-benefit analysis,� Saba said. �It takes time to get the helicopter�s medical team assembled, get the helicopter to the location of the patient, pack in the patient and fly the helicopter to Montreal.�

Scott_Thornley,

May I ask if you have ever been treated/used the Canadian Healthcare System first hand ? Have you ever been involved in/with the medical field at all in Canada ?

Lynn

Whether or not I've been exposed to CanadaCare is (again) not germane to Ms. Doig's statements, nor Ms. Richardson's death. I'm certainly not asking you about your medical history in the U.S.A. am I?

When it comes to items of actual relevance though, this little article is most certainly pertinent to what Ms. Doig is stating. And it's from your own Vancouver Sun:

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

Regards,
Scott

P.S. I actually had a great experience being treated in a PRC clinic, but there's no way I'd want those doctors/that facility to be holding my life in their hands.

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

n007,

The number of medical errors has nothing to do with how health care is paid for and rationed.

Also, the number of medical errors will only get worse if they push more people through medical schools with the vast majority of the additional students less qualified than the current students along with the reduced attention given to every student due to the additional students.

With the two systems existing side by side, people in Canada, at least do have a choice. They can utilize the sytem available to everyone, in Canada, or they can spend their money in the US and access that system.
That the Canadian system is unsustainable in it's current form is undeniable. The entire system is top-heavy with administration taking an increasingly large bite. In addition, government bureaucrats behave more and more like free enterprizers and concentrate their efforts on retaining funding rather than providing care.
In the beginning the system was set up to be funded by the federal and provincial governments which would each provide 1/3 of the required funding. The users of the system would provide the final third via the payment of insurance premiums. The provinces would administer the system. Over the years, federal politicians and bureaucrats decided they would rather not return so much of the tax money to the people via health care so they reduced their share of the funding. Provincial governments, not to be outdone, endeavoured to do the same. Premiums were increased and costs were cut. Typically, costs were cut by reducing the number of productive workers and increasing the work load on those remaining. To monitor and allocate spending, more administrative (non-productive)staff are hired. Soon spending got out of control as contracts were awarded to the favourite bidder and supplies bought at exhorbitant prices. Local governments began to be taxed with the resposibility to come up with funding which , of course, came from property owners. Today, funding goes more to run a bureacracy than to fund actual health care and the federal government has abdicated their resposibility to a great degree (I think they now provide about 10% of funding). Keep in mind, this is not a case of people wanting the government to take care of them. It is a case of the people wanting to spend their money, via government, for their own benefit IE. health care.
So, the Canadian system has some problems but they are not insurmountable. The American system has no problems whatsoever if you want to believe the insurance companies. They are doing a great job of picking and choosing who to cover and, if not everyone can afford the premiums, so what? The important ones can. If a factory worker has had a couple of heart attacks, there is every reason to jack those premiums up. After all, if the next heart attack doesn't kill him, it could cost a bundle.
I can't help but come back to the treatment of US soliers and their families as an example of how a private insurance company and health care "provider" does not work. We have heard about the Canadian woman who had to wait and wait for a knee replacement. The same thing happens regularily to American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with injuries of all sorts. Their treatment frequently consists of loading them up with pain killers while they wait for months or even years for remedial surgeries. The soldier is not allowed to choose his care giver. The insurance company does that. The insurance company also provides or denies treatment according to their criteria of the day. How this is in some way superior to a public system, I have trouble understanding.
In a way, the US military model is an example of publicly funded but privately provided health care. A kind of a hybrid system we see any time any service is "privatized". I would say, no matter what the options, this is a system to be avoided. I'm sure it is a money maker for some involved but it doesn't serve the taxpayer and it doesn't serve the patients.
As far as the US health care "system" is concerned, I think they should probably start by re-vamping the VA system and getting it to work well to the benefit of veterans. Then, they can use that as a model to provide health care insurance and treatment to those who cannot now afford it. Wealthy people and those too obstinate to change, could continue to fund insurance companies and HMO's as they do now.
I am puzzled as to how some Americans can be so outraged at the idea of having their tax money used to pay for health care and yet seem perfectly content to have the same money used to ensure the payment of substantial bonuses to parasitic porkers on Wall Street. Apparently, public funding at some level is just fine. GD

Greydog,
Thank you for the wonderful(and logical) post!

Johnny $

I have been treated and received the finest care from several Canadian MD's. Unfortunately for those of you in Canada, they are al practicing in the USA right now. They are not fond of the system, and it is NOT all about higher earning power. The #1 reason they tell me is they wanted the ability to treat their patients in the manner they see best. They found that impossible under the Canadian System. Their words, not mine.

Why do so many Canadians relocate? We have a lot of them here in Fla. Some are snowbirds and seem uniformly to be nice folks. A lot of them get medical attention in the winter here that is unavailable, or just inconvienient to get in Canada. As I understand, most of this is covered by the Canadian system.
I have heard; as all of us on either side of the border anecdotal problems. One thing is true... cancer patients survive longer in the US.
The blinding truth to recognise is that ANYTHING run by the Govt., I don't care where isn't going to work well. Know any real go getters in Govt. service? I know there must be some but effective and cost consious aren't things that go with Govt. run.
Too many think there is a free lunch... don't think so.
I don't know the proper attribution but.... SOONER OR LATER YOU RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE"S MONEY!
Bill

Anne Doig is the incoming president of the CMA, which, like the AMA, is a quasi-union with tremendous lobbying powers. If you think that they represent the best interests of their respective countries, I suggest you avoid talking to Florida real estate agent and stock brokers. They represent their members - doctors - and are looking to create as much gain for their members as possible. The way that they want our respective systems "fixed" would bankrupt us all.

I've lived and worked in both countries. I'd take the Canadian system hands-down. They both need fixing. The difference is that the US system probably can't be fixed. The AMA has had you guys by the balls for years, and there is no sign that they'll be letting go any time soon.

The AMA does virtually nothing. They are useless as a lobbying force.

They don't have to lobby, they decide which institutions get accredited to teach medicine. Give that a think or three.

Will

Chalk up one more that they have by the short and curlies. Keep dreamin'.

Importation of prescription drugs from Canada rises despite FDA's best efforts to protect Big Pharma's profits in the U.S.
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

The FDA is losing its battle waged against the pocketbooks of American consumers: people are importing more prescription drugs than ever, and they're getting them from Canada, Mexico and even the U.K. This concerns the FDA, of course, which has gone all out to protect the profits of Big Pharma by attempting to monopolize the U.S. drug market in much the way that the Chicago mob from a hundred years ago tried to control the flow of alcohol.
The FDA's financial war against the American people isn't winning any friends at the states, either, where state budgets for health care demand that states seek cheaper sources of prescription drugs wherever possible. State Governors, in particular, are fed up with the FDA's corruption and they're speaking out against the agency's monopolistic, strongarm tactics by going public with their own information. Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconson puts a link to Canadian pharmacies right on his web site, much to the anger of the FDA, and outright tells people that the FDA's drug racket is a sham. The Governor of Minnesota has long fought the FDA as well. In fact, there are a growing number of Governors and city officials who are now accusing the FDA of conspiracy and violating federal law in order to protect the profits of U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

The FDA is doing everything that a good mob boss should be doing: they're strongarming search engines to prevent online pharmacies from advertising, they're spreading fear and disinformation by claiming that drugs from Canada are somehow more dangerous than drugs from the U.S. (they're exactly the same drugs, with the same side effects), and even going so far as to search vehicles for drugs -- LEGAL drugs -- that return to the U.S. from Canada. Maybe they'll soon train drug-sniffing dogs to locate Viagra and Prozac, too.

Yet despite the best efforts of the FDA, drug imports continue to rise. That's because the American people are not fools: if the same drugs are cheaper across the border, they're going to look across the border. If a state can save a hundred million dollars a year by importing drugs for state employees rather than buying them at the ridiculous sky-high markups found in the U.S., a state is going to look very seriously at importing. The fact is, the FDA's drug racket is starting to buckle at the seams. They've tried using fear, intimidation and censorship to control the U.S. drug market, and it's not working: people are finding out the truth about prescription drug profits and pharmaceutical profits, and they're fed up with it.

Only a fool would pay U.S. prices for prescription drugs, and only a criminal agency like the FDA would try to make it illegal for individuals, cities and states to use the free market to seek better prices on the prescription drugs they believe they need.

The actions of the FDA in this regard are so blatant that I can't believe the nation isn't calling for a criminal investigation of the agency right now. It's time to reform the FDA and fire the politicians there who knowingly compromise public health in order to protect drug industry profits. It's time to put in a Department of Internal Affairs at the FDA that investigates and prosecutes precisely this sort of corruption. Because what we have right now at the FDA is an agency that operates a whole lot like the Russian maffia. Free market be damned: the FDA's here to protect you!

For better or worse, it's the profits on drugs that can be made in the U.S. that drive U.S. pharmaceutical R&D. Kill the profit, kill the rate and amount of R&D...

Note the number of companies in this list that are based in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies

<hint - you won't even need one hand>

Scott

Quite simply, most of us who pay taxes are NOT happy about the Wall Street bailout and would not have approved the bailout if we had an Athens-like democracy rather than a republic. Too bad we aren't represented in Congress or the White House, and that lack of representation is what makes so many fearful of the results of government-run health care.

On another topic, since someone posted about drug prices in Canada vs. drug prices in the U.S. If the U.S. switches to some form of socialized medicine, the whole world will suffer the consequences because we in the U.S. pay for the drugs for the rest of the world, both in the R&D phase as well as subsidizing the production through the higher prices we pay. Similarly, we in the U.S. pay the freight for many (most?) of the advances in medical technologies and techniques. Some smug, delusional Canadian posted about how much more of our GDP we pay for medical care - well our medical spending raises his standard of care because the drugs and technology developed in the U.S. end up in his country, as well.

The U.S. pays the way for the whole world in medical advances just like we do in our defense spending to protect the free world by suppressing terrorist organizations and deterring rogue states. Sure there's some spending on medical advances done in other countries, but not like there is in the U.S. The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 15 (#2-#16) COMBINED. I wouldn't be surprised if medical research (including pharmaceutical research) was similar. We're blessed, so we are happy to help out, but don't act like your system is better than the one to the south that raises your standard of care and provides an alternative when your health care system cannot or will not meet your needs.

[/quote]

don't act like your system is better than the one to the south
[/quote]

News flash - It ain't an act - it's the truth. Keep drinkin' the kool aid.

As I said earlier, I've lived in both systems. The US has many, many strong points, but the medical system ain't one of 'em. Canada wins that battle hands down, despite the weaknesses in our system. And I'm not being blindly chauvinistic, as I'm aware that there are some European countries that put both our systems to shame.

The sad fact is that American health care costs are out of hand, regardless of how they are funded. The US needs to put its superiority complex to rest for awhile and have a look around. It's okay to copy and build on others' ideas.