>>>>Clearly, they are still up to it (the right providing talking points):
>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html
>>>>
>>>>Although, I'm not sure how they can refuse an ambulance. Here, the ambulance must go if called by a patient. The patient may have to pay for the ambulance ride if it was deemed 'rivolous' but in most states they must be dispatched. That story is a little confusing. Does the distance to the hospital have anything to do with it? Is there some standard of distance required for non life-threatening situations?
>>>
>>>A Brit that I know responded to this elsewhere (private, so I can't link it or quote it). He explained that hospitals don't send ambulances for emergencies in the UK; there's a separate service for that, for which you call 999 (the equivalent of our 911).
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>So, the patient should have called 999, not the hospital? or should the hospital have called 999 on her behalf (after she called them)? Is the patient a foreign national do you think (and unaware of the procedure)?
>
>The guy I know says she should have called 999, not the hospital. That's all I know.
>
>Tamar

In my area of Canada, ambulance services are private and are accessed by calling 911. If you are younger than 65, you pay. It cost us $340.00 for a two mile trip to the hospital.

As for media distortion: From the outside looking in, when reporting politics, the American news services seem more like the propaganda arms of the political parties than reliable sources of information. And of course the world view is America this and America that and there isn't much information about outside of that sphere.