21 total posts
If you feel well or apparently think you do, you are allowed to refuse medical help. Walk away under you're own power and be done with it in the best of circumstances. But, sometimes that comes back to haunt you "if fact" not all is well. That happens and people pay the price. Maybe??? getting basic medical attention was warranted, but again its the person's choice. if they were knocked out "longer" and got to the hospital maybe the outcome would be different, but that wasn't the case. You roll the dice and take your chances.
You're allowed to
refuse medical care pretty much any time.
I noticed that you mention Fox, but didn't mention the story ?Was Canada?s healthcare the problem?? in the 25 March Chicago Tribune which was repeated by the New York Post. A search on her name and "cost benefit analysis" came up with that phrase in an article by
By Max Harrold, of Canwest News ServiceMarch dated 28, 2009.
Why s it that you only mentioned Fox?
RE: Why s it that you only mentioned Fox?
Because that is where(the only place) I saw the article?
And I mentioned...
And I mentioned the articles I found because I couldn't find the article with a search at the web site of Fox News, and ran a Google news search. That search seemed to show that the story has been out elsewhere previously. It is curious that you didn't notice it when it was covered by other news organizations, but when Fox mentioned it at a later date, you seem to object.
The "hook" of the story was the line
Would she have survived if the accident happened in the US?
And it was on FOX News? TV Channel 205
Then the 2 talking heads talked about having access to helicopters in the US, the fact that "cost benefit analysis' is used in Canada when giving a MRI. They didn't say it was used in THIS case...Just that it is used.
Then the real point/purpose of the story came out.
Cost Benefit analysis is also going to implemented in the US if Obama gets his way.
They did not mention how long Richardson waited until she went to the hospital or the fact she refused the ambulance that was sent.
Both IMPORTANT factors that influenced the outcome.
They just wanted to get a shot in about "Cost Benefit Analysis".
It was geared to...
...... help raise fear by those who watch that channel that the US will soon have "Canadian-style" medical care (in other words, socialized medicine).
It's the old scare tactic used to convince enough people that the "government will get into your medicine cabinets" in the Clinton years. But it was OK to get into them with Medicare Part D.
In case you haven't noticed it, JP, some Americans don't think much of anything abut your country, and your health system is a favorite target. I guess it's because you are closer to us than European countries.
So be prepared ---- this stuff will go on and on, especially while the government is trying to do something about our health care. Believe me, whatever ideas are presented, those ideas will be labeled "Canadian-style care".
What I notice, Angeline...
What I notice, Angeline, is that some people don't like "that channel" and wish to discredit it. I guess you could say that dislike results in a scare tactic used to convince enough people that they are not a valid source of news.
Take this thread. First we see a reference to an article, and that changes to something somebody said in a live TV show. Later we see a reference to the New York Post ownership, but the original story was published by the Chicago Tribune.
I bet EVERYONE in Canada dies!
That's the plan..........................Eventually.
That just PROVES FOX's point! So there!
Yes, but not everyone in Canada, dies in Canada. ;-) Rob
That's what I suspected...
You said "Because that is where(the only place) I saw the article". Now you say that it was not an article, but something you saw on TV. I suspected that it was something you watched on TV, and that raises a question. If you so dislike Fox, why do you watch their news discussion shows? Could it be that you are looking for things to object to and post about?
RE: Could it be
Could it be that you are looking for things to object to and post about?
Now WHY would anyone do that?
Haven't you read any of my other posts about the guys saving the dolphins, or the stupid crooks?
I suspected that it was something you watched on TV,
Yep...that's one of the places to find FOX News...NOT in the newspaper.
I called it a story...you went looking for an article...I was just humouring you, by referring to it as an article, after you did it first.
No, when you said "story" I went to the web site of Fox News and looked for it. I went there because your story was slugged "FOX news railing on about health care Canada US". When I couldn't find it there, I went to Google for a news search and came up with the stories mentioned. On your other posts, with news reports from other news sources, how many of them have you described as "railing"?
Because there are already so many MRI machines in the US
Cost Benefit analysis is unlikely to make much difference. There's a culture of lawsuits in the US that makes MRI's a virtual certainty. I still don't understand why she didn't have an MRI. It was available at the Hospital she first visited. Perhaps the initial absence of symptoms, perhaps they refused.
The New York Post doesn't really count as "elsewhere"....
....since it and Fox News are under the same ownership.
Does the Chicago Tribune?
Where the article originally appeared?
I may be wrong but didn't the Trib call for Thomas E, Dewey.
as the victor in the 1948 election. Does Rupert Murdoch own that one too, I know he owns the NY Post? Perhaps we should call it Rupert's World and dismiss all news items emanating from there.
Surely somebody has done a computer projection of adopting
the Canadian Health Care system in the United States.
All the bureaucracy is vastly reduced, and the Insurance Industry gets a smaller take with Long Term Benefits, Drug Coverage, DentalCoverage, Physio-Therapy, and a lot of other things which are not necessarily covered.
Perhaps the Health Care folks from the Insurance companies can join the DHSS and audit doctor's billing.