Inferior Universal Healthcare in Canada may have killed Actress

[blackascoal]

Actually the delay at the beginning is very common as patients have few symptoms (I mean I've hit my head and never thought to get treatment many times, probably you have too and she was on a very small beginners hill), her delay was only ONE hour, but she didn't arrive at a facility capable of treatment (with the diagnosis perhaps still unknown) until SIX hours after the injury.

CT scans are far more common in private healthcare in the US than universal healthcare Canada.
Honestly just read the whole article, it explains all this and very well, it's written by a physician.

The reason this case is mentioned is because it was someone famous, but it highlights the larger main problem of universal healthcare systems, wherein with no check on demand as it is free, combined with the usual inefficiency of government, you have longer wait times for just about any procedure, even emergency ones.

There was even a case in their (Québec) supreme court where they ruled that it was not acceptable that their universal healthcare system of denying people care by long wait times and that more private healthcare would be allowed.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118315110253_28/?hub=TopStories

Canadians don't wait in long lines for critical treatment .. they wait for elective surgey and other non-threatening solutions.

Let's drop the pretense and leave Ms. Richardson alone because this isn't about her, how to prevent this from happening again, or any of you giving a damn about her families grief. This is about the right-wing distaste for nationalized healthcare .. period. So how about we act like grownups and debate the issue of nationalized healthcare without the morbid pretense.

Let's start from here .. Canadians are healthier than Americans, with a longer lifespan and lower infant mortality, even though they spend much less on medical care.

Canadians devote about 10 percent of their gross domestic product to provide full health coverage for all citizens. American health costs account for about 14 percent of GDP, yet 45 million Americans have no health insurance and many more have limited coverage.

Some wealthy Canadians, not as many as you think, come to the US for some healthcare issues such as access to better medical equipment such as high-tech diagnostics, and for more immediate non-emergency treatment .. but the healthcare system is over-whelmingly supported in Canada .. in fact they see it a source of national pride and something that seperates them from America.

The issue of wait-time in a nationalized system can be addressed and solved by allowing for private clinics, which would also help in funding. If someone wants to bypass the public program in Canada, for example, and pay a doctor to perform non-emergency surgery after hours, they cannot. Because of fears that slipping the doctor a little something extra could lead to the breakdown of the equal-access-for-all principle, paying for insured services is illegal. By allowing for more private clinics we could reduce the wait time and lower the burden on the government. This is an idea that is growing in Canada and should be considered in our plans.

Surely we can examine the examples of nationalized healthcare that is in every other industrialized nation and devise a plan that best suits our interests.

There are a wealth of legitimate issues that can be discussed concerning nationalized healthcare ..which 62% of Americans support .. and it is becoming more and more apparent that those who oppose it have to resort to Terry Schiavo tactics because they don't have enough serious arguments to stop it.

 

[Onceler]

Canadians don't wait in long lines for critical treatment .. they wait for elective surgey and other non-threatening solutions.

Let's drop the pretense and leave Ms. Richardson alone because this isn't about her, how to prevent this from happening again, or any of you giving a damn about her families grief. This is about the right-wing distaste for nationalized healthcare .. period. So how about we act like grownups and debate the issue of nationalized healthcare without the morbid pretense.

Let's start from here .. Canadians are healthier than Americans, with a longer lifespan and lower infant mortality, even though they spend much less on medical care.

Canadians devote about 10 percent of their gross domestic product to provide full health coverage for all citizens. American health costs account for about 14 percent of GDP, yet 45 million Americans have no health insurance and many more have limited coverage.

Some wealthy Canadians, not as many as you think, come to the US for some healthcare issues such as access to better medical equipment such as high-tech diagnostics, and for more immediate non-emergency treatment .. but the healthcare system is over-whelmingly supported in Canada .. in fact they see it a source of national pride and something that seperates them from America.

The issue of wait-time in a nationalized system can be addressed and solved by allowing for private clinics, which would also help in funding. If someone wants to bypass the public program in Canada, for example, and pay a doctor to perform non-emergency surgery after hours, they cannot. Because of fears that slipping the doctor a little something extra could lead to the breakdown of the equal-access-for-all principle, paying for insured services is illegal. By allowing for more private clinics we could reduce the wait time and lower the burden on the government. This is an idea that is growing in Canada and should be considered in our plans.

Surely we can examine the examples of nationalized healthcare that is in every other industrialized nation and devise a plan that best suits our interests.

There are a wealth of legitimate issues that can be discussed concerning nationalized healthcare ..which 62% of Americans support .. and it is becoming more and more apparent that those who oppose it have to resort to Terry Schiavo tactics because they don't have enough serious arguments to stop it.

Excellent post. Nothing better than a more comprehensive look to counter "look at what happened to one person - clearly, universal healthcare fails."

Really good point about lifespan & overall health; one thing that is often overlooked in this debate is how much of a difference preventative care makes. When people don't have health insurance, they generally wait until something is wrong before seeing a doctor - aside from the fact that it likely costs much more at that point, it also takes a toll on American health.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Sad, sad, sad, sad.

Every day I think, after Dano makes his dumb post, how can it get any worse then this?

 

[blackascoal]

Excellent post. Nothing better than a more comprehensive look to counter "look at what happened to one person - clearly, universal healthcare fails."

Really good point about lifespan & overall health; one thing that is often overlooked in this debate is how much of a difference preventative care makes. When people don't have health insurance, they generally wait until something is wrong before seeing a doctor - aside from the fact that it likely costs much more at that point, it also takes a toll on American health.

Another excellent point my brother.

Many pregant women in America who don't have healthcare don't seek prenatal care, thus serious problems develop that could have been avoided with proper care. This example can be found throughout out system that unltimately lead to a greater burden on US taxpayers and the overall health of the nation.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Canadians don't wait in long lines for critical treatment .. they wait for elective surgey and other non-threatening solutions.

Let's drop the pretense and leave Ms. Richardson alone because this isn't about her, how to prevent this from happening again, or any of you giving a damn about her families grief. This is about the right-wing distaste for nationalized healthcare .. period. So how about we act like grownups and debate the issue of nationalized healthcare without the morbid pretense.

Let's start from here .. Canadians are healthier than Americans, with a longer lifespan and lower infant mortality, even though they spend much less on medical care.

Canadians devote about 10 percent of their gross domestic product to provide full health coverage for all citizens. American health costs account for about 14 percent of GDP, yet 45 million Americans have no health insurance and many more have limited coverage.

Some wealthy Canadians, not as many as you think, come to the US for some healthcare issues such as access to better medical equipment such as high-tech diagnostics, and for more immediate non-emergency treatment .. but the healthcare system is over-whelmingly supported in Canada .. in fact they see it a source of national pride and something that seperates them from America.

The issue of wait-time in a nationalized system can be addressed and solved by allowing for private clinics, which would also help in funding. If someone wants to bypass the public program in Canada, for example, and pay a doctor to perform non-emergency surgery after hours, they cannot. Because of fears that slipping the doctor a little something extra could lead to the breakdown of the equal-access-for-all principle, paying for insured services is illegal. By allowing for more private clinics we could reduce the wait time and lower the burden on the government. This is an idea that is growing in Canada and should be considered in our plans.

Surely we can examine the examples of nationalized healthcare that is in every other industrialized nation and devise a plan that best suits our interests.

There are a wealth of legitimate issues that can be discussed concerning nationalized healthcare ..which 62% of Americans support .. and it is becoming more and more apparent that those who oppose it have to resort to Terry Schiavo tactics because they don't have enough serious arguments to stop it.

Here is more proof then, I should add that once Americans realize the enormous amount more in taxes they would have to pay for extended government healthcare as Oregon and Hawaii did, they quickly become opposed to it. WHY do you think the Repubs took congress in 1994? Because we all saw the massive costs of just how astronomical it would cost to cover something as large as the healthcare sector.

Here is a story a man called Robert Dorion whose father died while waiting for heart surgery in Canada's publicly funded system. (Publicly funded as in the government health care that all the Democrats are trying to sell you on because health care is too expensive)
http://www.ctac.ca/english/pdf/globe_apr19_bleeding.pdf

Here is a bypass info from Canada written by a Canadian doctor
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-160/issue-10/1469.htm
Health care may be expensive in the U.S., but at least you can get it, if you were in Canada with cheaper health care, you may well have died on a waiting list had you needed care.

Here is info direct from the Canadian government of universal health care (as in what Obama wants) fully admitting that people die on waiting lists in Canada's universal health care system:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/waiting_list.html

This also details the problems of government health care:
http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg129n.html

Do not forget, that government has become more and more involved in health care, increasing it's costs. Also, Democrats have been pushing for more and more lawsuits against the health care system. (Trial lawyers were the number one group donor to the Dems in 2000, surpassing trade unions for the first time in decades).
With more lawsuits and payouts comes higher health costs as part of what the insurance and health industry charges you will go to paying out millions to gouging trial lawyers.

Interestingly in Canada's universal health care system, it is almost impossible to sue anyone.

My point through all of this, is that as government has tried to do more in health care, the price has gone up, not down.
After 1994, when Liberals couldn't force government health care on everyone, they instead are trying to make it as unaffordable as possible so that people will have no choice but to turn to government health care.
I feel saddened that I must admit they are succeeding, with hardly anyone noticing, even worse blaming companies for this.

A final thought for you. Liberal Democrats constantly say that health care insurance is expensive because of corporations and profits. However if this were true, then why hasn't life insurance gone up substantially for more profits there?
The answer is that Liberal government and their trial lawyer allies, have kept the hell out of life insurance. Thus proving that the problem with expensive health care is with government, not with industry.

 

[Thorn]

Excellent post. Nothing better than a more comprehensive look to counter "look at what happened to one person - clearly, universal healthcare fails."

Really good point about lifespan & overall health; one thing that is often overlooked in this debate is how much of a difference preventative care makes. When people don't have health insurance, they generally wait until something is wrong before seeing a doctor - aside from the fact that it likely costs much more at that point, it also takes a toll on American health.

Exactly. As you know, I'm Canadian (well a US immigrant now) and have lived most of my life under the Canadian system. Even among my compatriots I'm unusually healthy, but that aside, it's stressed among us, in schools and public awareness blurbs in the media, etc., how to remain healthy, eat nutritious foods, etc. Your point about preventive health care is excellent. I don't remember a time when this wasn't a part of my life. Also as you've said, access to health care before a condition reaches crisis proportions saves a LOT of money.

I posted something on this topic shortly after joining this board, an analysis of some of the factors that probably contribute to the costs of health care in general and some items that may differentiate Canada vs. the US. Don't have time right now to dig it out but will later if it comes up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"COULD actress Natasha Richardson's tragic death have been prevented if her skiing accident had occurred in America rather than Canada?

Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners and quick access to specialists like neurosurgeons. While all the facts of Richardson's medical care haven't been released, enough is known to pose questions with profound implications.

Richardson died of an epidural hematoma -- a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive.

Could Richardson have received this care? Where it happened in Canada, no. In many US resorts, yes."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0326200...canadacare_may_have_killed_natasha_161372.htm

No... most skiers do not have CT scans done every time they bump their head. Regardless of whether it is in the US, Canada, Europe etc...

My insurance company would dump me if I went in for a CT every time I fell hard and bumped my head skiing. Though I am intelligent enough to wear a helmet.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What delusion, please actually read the article, it's written by a physician and says WHY it's more probable she died with Canada and universal healthcare.

"Assuming Richardson initially declined medical care here as well, once she did present to caregivers that she was suffering from a possible head trauma, she would've been immediately transported by air, weather permitting, and arrived in Denver in less than an hour.[/B]

If this weren't possible, in both resorts she would've been seen within 15 minutes at a local facility with CT scanning and someone who could perform temporary drainage until transfer to a neurosurgeon was possible.

If she were conscious at 4 p.m., she'd most likely have been diagnosed and treated about that time, receiving care unavailable in the local Canadian hospital. She might've still died or suffered brain damage but her chances of surviving would have been much greater in the United States. "

Obviously universal healthcare is worse, if it was better WHY would rich Canadians travel to the US for private care?

No, she would not have been. They do not airlift people to Denver for bumping their head. Side note... there is a hospital in Vail and another in Steamboat that can handle damn near anything thrown at them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's the really sad part of this, and the post that Sol made the other day partly explained that, I think. We also have to remember that helicopters in mountainous areas, even low mountains like the Laurentians, pose a serious avalanche hazard. This, coupled with the extremely low probability of need, would make the feasibility of maintaining a copter service unlikely.

Had she been able to go directly to the Montreal Neurological Institute (she didn't go there at all), she probably would have survived. The key would have been for the ski patrol not to accept her refusal of medical treatment and to insist, in the face of a possible head injury, that she be assessed. How far their authority to do that is questionable, however. Perhaps this tragedy will make people who suffer what may appear to be minor head injuries reconsider this in the future.

While I agree that this situation is sad for her and her family, there is just no way that they are going to provide that level of treatment for skiers. Not in Canada, not in the US. Way too many people go down hard and bump their head while skiing or boarding. The smart ones wear helmets to help prevent injury. The rest, well most get lucky and have no lasting ill effects. Occasionally something like this happens. Normally it would not get any attention by the media.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How much authority do they have to do that against someone's will?

I missed your previous thread on this .. why did she refuse care?

Because she was standing laughing and thought she was fine. This was just a fluke accident.

 

[blackascoal]

Because she was standing laughing and thought she was fine. This was just a fluke accident.

Just as I thought.

Thank you.

 

[blackascoal]

Here is more proof then, I should add that once Americans realize the enormous amount more in taxes they would have to pay for extended government healthcare as Oregon and Hawaii did, they quickly become opposed to it. WHY do you think the Repubs took congress in 1994? Because we all saw the massive costs of just how astronomical it would cost to cover something as large as the healthcare sector.

Here is a story a man called Robert Dorion whose father died while waiting for heart surgery in Canada's publicly funded system. (Publicly funded as in the government health care that all the Democrats are trying to sell you on because health care is too expensive)
http://www.ctac.ca/english/pdf/globe_apr19_bleeding.pdf

Here is a bypass info from Canada written by a Canadian doctor
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-160/issue-10/1469.htm
Health care may be expensive in the U.S., but at least you can get it, if you were in Canada with cheaper health care, you may well have died on a waiting list had you needed care.

Here is info direct from the Canadian government of universal health care (as in what Obama wants) fully admitting that people die on waiting lists in Canada's universal health care system:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/waiting_list.html

This also details the problems of government health care:
http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg129n.html

Do not forget, that government has become more and more involved in health care, increasing it's costs. Also, Democrats have been pushing for more and more lawsuits against the health care system. (Trial lawyers were the number one group donor to the Dems in 2000, surpassing trade unions for the first time in decades).
With more lawsuits and payouts comes higher health costs as part of what the insurance and health industry charges you will go to paying out millions to gouging trial lawyers.

Interestingly in Canada's universal health care system, it is almost impossible to sue anyone.

My point through all of this, is that as government has tried to do more in health care, the price has gone up, not down.
After 1994, when Liberals couldn't force government health care on everyone, they instead are trying to make it as unaffordable as possible so that people will have no choice but to turn to government health care.
I feel saddened that I must admit they are succeeding, with hardly anyone noticing, even worse blaming companies for this.

A final thought for you. Liberal Democrats constantly say that health care insurance is expensive because of corporations and profits. However if this were true, then why hasn't life insurance gone up substantially for more profits there?
The answer is that Liberal government and their trial lawyer allies, have kept the hell out of life insurance. Thus proving that the problem with expensive health care is with government, not with industry.

Much respect for you brother .. even when we disagree.

However ..

Shamelessly Exploiting Natasha Richardson

Now this is truly sick. "Canadacare May Have Killed Natasha" says the New York Post, trumpeting an article written by Cory Franklin, first published by the Chicago Tribune (and given splashy play by the Daily Beast). Just as we are gearing up to begin debate in this country over a much-needed public healthcare plan comes a story perfectly calculated to arouse the fears of Americans that "socialized medicine" would endanger their health. Leaving aside for a minute the baselessness of those fears--and the bad taste involved in this nakedly political exploitation of an admired (and progressive) actress's tragic death--there's one little problem with Franklin's theory. It's wrong.

Richardson, Franklin writes, "required an immediate CT scan for diagnosis" after the head injury she sustained in a skiing accident. But, he claims, the hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, where she was treated, was not a "facility capable of treatment." Franklin notes that, while "it hasn't been reported whether the hospital has a CT scanner, …CT scanners are less common in Canada." And he goes on to say that people who criticize the private US system for having too many specialized services like CT scanners are ignoring that "it is better to have resources and not need them than to need resources and not have them."

So Franklin's argument is based on the assumption that the hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts lacked the equipment it would have needed to diagnose Richardson, all because of the decrepit state of government-run medicine.

Franklin, it turns out, is either guilty of deception or shockingly shoddy journalism, or some combination of both. A phone call from The Nation to the Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts elicited some interesting information. The hospital has a CT scanner. Its director of communications would not, out of understandable deference to the family's wishes to protect her medical privacy, divulge whether or not Richardson received a scan. But there's no reason to believe that she did not.

Of course it is possible to miss the proverbial forest for the trees here. The larger point is that, even if the facility had lacked adequate resources, that would not have been the fault of Canada's socialized medicine. Indeed, its national health system has been under assault from its own homegrown neoliberals, especially in Quebec, called "ground zero for healthcare privatization" in a recent report. The proliferation of private clinics has created a two-tiered system that effectively undermines the public system, draining resources and rendering it less functional and less popular. This gambit--eviscerating government services to the point that people lose faith in government, which in turn reinforces the key tenets of conservative ideology--is sadly familiar, a US export Canadians would have been better off without. Let's hope that in the coming healthcare debate, we'll heed the lessons Canada's experience has to offer--grounded in fact, not right-wing fantasy.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/421710/shamelessly_exploiting_natasha_richardson?rel=sidebox

My point exactly. Let's have real debates about nationalized healthcare, not morbid pretense.