The American Spectator

Roy| 4.10.09 @ 1:37PM

That's a good spin on it. The problem is when that all in mentality gets used under circumstances where it is not needed - which don't include life and death circumstances.

Bob| 4.10.09 @ 1:40PM

Philip, before you make a post, please tell the whole story. It was not seen as economical for this resort to maintain a helicopter. Arranging for a helicopter to come and then completing the transport would have taken well over an hour. Natasha Richardson REFUSED further testing. You could have driven to a trauma facility in about 2 hours. According to Gupta, only a trained neurosurgeon would have known that she might of had more than simply a bump on the head.

Besides, you cannot have a system where people don't pay money directly that doesn't have some level of rationing. $6000 would buy an awful lot of immunizations for children, you know.

If you were really interested in saving lives, wouldn't you make a list of how you could spend money to save the most lives even if that meant not having a helicopter for Natasha Richardson? What about spending a dollar on a terminal patient versus spending a dollar on a trauma patient? What about saving an extremely premature baby at a cost of a couple of million dollars? Is there any limit for which you would not pay medical expenses? How about the fact that foreign companies will not locate jobs here because of the employer cost of health care? Would letting people starve because they don't have a job be worth that cost?

We can ration health care in several ways. The way we do it now is that people who can afford the best get the best. If you are proud of that, you can certainly support it.

For me, I don't want either extreme. I want everyone to get basic care and if you want something more, you can pay for it either directly or through supplemental insurance.

The problem with medicare is that people are getting older. I would have no problem indexing the age of availability of both medicare and social security to the average length of life. When these things were formed, most people didn't live beyond 70 years old. The average social security recipient now lives to 83 years old.

The fact is that rationing here will happen because we won't have the money to pay for everything for everyone.

Isn't it

JohnMc| 4.11.09 @ 2:55AM

It sad that some people use this tragic death to push their own agendas. Dr. Smith seeks to have specialized helicopter ambulance services; journalists like Philip Klein and CNN's Dr. Gupta, seek to sensationalize just another topic of the day before moving on to the next subject or show.

A few years ago, our son was skiing in the Laurentians and unfortunately had a head injury. He was skiing with his coach and the coach's emergency doctor friend when my son's ski hit a rut and he slid off trail into a tree. The doctor was there almost immediately and checked him out, saying he is 'shaken up but ok'. We were not too far away when we got a cellphone call from his ski coach, who was right on the trail beide the doctor. He told us about the injury and said to come to nearest road access to pick him up. Even though the doctor said he was ok, we took no chances and rushed him to our local hospital. They took many xrays and watched him carefully for many hours. He was fortunate that he had only a severe concussion and that we took him to the hospital so soon after the head injury.

Yes, an ambulatory heli-service would be nice but how about better trauma service at the hospital in Ste-Agathe (less than 1 hour from Tremblant)? How about mandatory helmets, better head injury awareness programs for skiers, staff and how about on-site medical staffing trained to recognize head injuries. Wouldn't that make more sense?
To suggest that the Canadian socialized medicine contributed to this tragedy is ignorant reporting. This same tragedy is seen throughout the US and in Europe and if adult skiers are more aware of the risks, they will make better decisions.

In our sons case, you would think an emergency doctor, who was there just moments after our son hit the tree, would have known what to look for - but he did not. It was our decision to take our son to the hospital and we were right.

BTW: There is a helicopter service available at Mont Tremblant, Heli-Tremblant. It is available all-year round but no one mentioned this.
It may not be an ambulance service but if needed, I'm sure they could have used it for Natasha Richardson. Sadly, Ms. Richardson refused medical treatment and even signed a waiver to that affect. When she did need medical treatment, crucial time had passed before she was taken to the Ste-Agathe hospital. By the time she arrived at the local hospial, her injury was more serious. From that moment on, she was in God's hands. My sympathy goes out to her family.

ann burke| 4.11.09 @ 7:39AM

We do not know if she knew what she was doing when she signed the waiver. Quit blaming her. Her children will readthis one day.
Many things we have heard are hearsay.

James Healey | 4.11.09 @ 4:25PM

Natasha Richardson refused treatment that decision alone caused her death, not the lack of services not the Canadian heath care system or the lack of health services. No matter how anyone spin's this story it will never change these facts period. All Canadians thoughts and Prayers are with Natasha Richardson family.

MT| 4.12.09 @ 12:02AM

Any decent medical professional would have understood that Natasha had a head injury and wasn't in her right mind. The Canadian personnel were weak and unprofessional, and their lack of proper medical treatment killed her. Stop blaming the victim--it's disgusting. We don't want your crappy heathcare system down here!

CH| 4.12.09 @ 12:04AM

It's so unseemly to see so many people blame Natasha for her own death, when it was the Canadian health care professionals who were derelict in their duty. Shame on you!