CanadaCare Did Not Killed Natasha Richardson
- 5 Comment
Enter your name and email only to get information
Yes, I will say it again: CanadaCare did not killed Natasha Richardson.
Maybe because I'm an Internet Marketer, but when I see something like the contrary on US sites/newspapers, I always wonder the reason behind of such statement.
Of course, it's sad that Natasha Richardson died but she made 2 mistakes on her own.
First, Natasha Richardson did not have an helmet. It was her first mistake and she is not alone to do so.
Second, she refused to be treated. Again, it's not because of our CanadaCare. She did what people would do in her case.
What are the ulterior motives of "prosecuting" CanadaCare?
I'm the first to say that our system is not perfect.
But, part of me wonder the reasons of "prosecuting" CanadaCare. We know that US doctors earn a lot more money than their Canadian counter part. So, I have 3 questions that come to mind:
Would it be that the Obama plan to "reform" the US health system scare doctors and insurance companies?
Are those news media more on the right than left of the political spectrum?
Do they want to sell more by making cheap news?
I don't know the answers to those questions but people should question if someone will profit from that directly or indirectly.
I could say that the US health system kills 1000s each year too. I don't have any hard facts but how many can't afford health insurance. And for those that are lucky to have heal insurance, how many died because their insurance company refused to pay for treatment?
Conclusion
In the end, CanadaCare did not killed Natasha Richardson.
The idea US health system would be a mix of the 2 systems where doctors and insurance companies earn a reasonable profit but also where everyone are treated independently if they have insurance or not.
At least, I like the CanadaCare word. Is USACare next? 
Related post:
5 Comments on this post
Trackbacks
-
Frank Carr said:
Emergency care, such as in her case, is about the same in both countries. If you’re injured in an accident and go to the hospital in the US you’ll get treatment, insurance or no insurance. That’s the law here. Where I think nationalized health care and privately insured health care break down are on chronic conditions, especially rarer ones where the cost of treatment is expensive.
There is also a network of government provided medical services at both the federal an state levels for the uninsured although this is a bureaucratic mess. Since I deal with this mess from the IT side on a daily basis I’m very skeptical of the government providing proper health care on a larger scale. We’re talking about a system that still only takes data input via dial-up modem because improvements are stuck in committees and such.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am -
Steve McGrath said:
Okay, they must help you by law but do they still send you the bill after?
If I break a leg in Canada, I don’t pay/see any bills. Maybe they should send a bill to show the real cost to the system.“chronic conditions, especially rarer ones where the cost of treatment is expensive.”
They will treat you IF they can. Sometimes, the untested research is only available in the US and people must go there and it’s not cheap. Last year, a little girl’s family had to raise 200K to be treated.“uninsured although this is a bureaucratic mess”
I guest it’s an international symptoms on the planet “very skeptical of the government providing proper health care on a larger scale”
They can’t do worst than private since 30-40 millions Americans are uninsured. Btw, that’s the population of Canada(33M).I’m pro-business but when they can’t offer the services required for public safety, then the gov should step in UNTIL business can clean their act.
From what I heard, Obama’s plan to force insurance companies to take everyone independent of pre-existing conditions at a reasonable price seemed to be welcome from insurance companies.
” dial-up modem because improvements are stuck in committees and such.”
That’s so early 1990s if they support 56K modem lolI should mentioned that we have a few doctors outside the health care system in Quebec. If someone waited more than 6 months in the public system for a few minor surgery(not life-threatening), the gov will pay the cost.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am -
Frank Carr said:
On the billing, it depends on the paperwork filed during treatment. Truly poor people rarely see the bill if they follow the system and most know how to do this It’s unfortunately middle class saps who run into medical problems when they’re uninsured between jobs that really get stung by this.
The insurance system pretty much works that way now although if someone slips through the cracks from being unemployed they can end up without insurance and unable to get it again. I guess they’re talking about closing some of these cracks.
IMO, what is needed is a way for small business owners to get insurance for themselves and their employees (if any) at a reasonable cost. Right now, this is quite difficult/expensive and isn’t fully deductible as a business expense. Of course, small business owners aren’t known as being too supportive of Obama and the Democrats in Congress so you can guess where the chips will fall there.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:23 pm -
Passive Income said:
Interesting post – BTW I never heard of the requirement to wear a helmet skiing -only kids and extreme off piste skiers do that in New Zealand – I’ve never worn nor seen adult wear them on the beginners slopes.
I would have done exactly what she did – she wasn’t even knocked out – I certainly would have refused medical care even in NZ where its free. According to one dr I saw in the paper you apparently have to be kept for talking for up to an hour before the symptoms of internal bleeding on the brain starts to show up with confusion etc.
The issue I have with the US style system- and Australia has something along the same line with effectively compuslory insurance for higher income earners – is that it puts the costs up so much.
In NZ dental care is not free but also most people don’t have medical insurance – the cost for a crown is around US$400 – in Australia where dental care is not free and most people do have insurance – the cost is three times that. The only difference is really the insurance companies – in fact I was told I was quoted a cheaper price because I wasn’t insured – how does that make sense. The insurance companies seem to inflate the costs all thru the system. I’ll get the crown down in Asia – where it will cost around US$200 – for an Australian or NZ trained dentist – go figure!March 31st, 2009 at 2:52 am -
Steve McGrath said:
Frank:
Thanks for the info.I saw a guy(US politician or financial expert(?)) on TV last year. He recommended to people to get private insurance. This way, if the person lost their job(cracks), they would still be insured.
The person would have part or all the cost be paid by the employer of the time. The employer would not have to pay higher rates since it’s independent of his business and the person has to do the research.
I think he mentioned that the system would work if everybody was in the system thus lower the overall cost to every parties involved. It’s not a public system.
Lis:
It’s not an obligation here to wear an helmet. But local resorts owners told a reporter that 90% of people have them now(kids and adults alike). I think it’s a mentality thing since we are a winter country and saw many get hurt. Plus, parents might want to show a good example to their kids.The gov even think of making it a law for next year because of this recent accident.
Btw, dental car if not free for adults here and do cost more. I think small children are covered.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:51 am
