>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?
>
>This report does make me question the media though. We typically see the extreme and unusual media reports from overseas and the same happens in other countries. What makes the news is the stuff that they think will grab people's attention. The end result is a very unrealistic view of that country. I noticed it in other countries myself (too many to mention)- the public gets a very skewed impression of this country and it happens here with medical care media reports of other countries - the public sees a story as the norm when it isn't.
>
>Another example: Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver, leaked paper reveals
>http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
>
>I'm not saying the reports are innacurate - just that when the media always focuses on the extreme or unusual (it happens here for local stuff as well), it builds a distorted view.

Hows this for a view of the USA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6046721/Group-armed-with-rifles-seen-among-protesters-at-Barack-Obama-speech.html