Posted on 03/04/2007 5:36:45 PM PST by nypokerface
LONDON, March 4 (UPI) -- Record numbers of women are dying or being harmed in childbirth in Britain, in what doctors call a crisis in maternity care.
There has been a 21 percent rise in the deaths of pregnant women in the care of National Health Services maternity services, The Independent reported, with 391 such deaths over the past three years.
The numbers are leading to a proliferation of medical negligence claims, the newspaper said.
Experts warn that 10,000 more midwives are needed to curb the number of deaths and injuries during childbirth.
Britain has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in Europe, with an estimated 13 deaths for every 100,000 births, the newspaper said.
Proof that you get what you pay for.
This is the model of "Universal Healthcare" Hillary, Barack, and Silky Pony want to inflict on the American public.
Is it lack of vitamins?
Lack of vitamin rich food(s)?
Are British women 'broken'?
Seems to me that the act of conception is pretty much routine and the growth of a baby in the womb would be again, I assume, routine ... so that takes care of the preliminary production.
What happens at birth that causes a death ... or shortly after the birth?
Red and blue make purple, always ... without fail ... variations, but purple none-the-less.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many of the fatalities also received in vitro services or other means to "force" the pregnancy?
But hey, it's "free".
Silky Pony doesn't really want socialized medicine. There are more doctors and hospitals to sue under the present system, and with bigger payouts, than there would be under socialized medicine.
Ah, but Silky Pony already has a plan to get the money, namely by raising taxes on the "rich" to pay for Socialized Medicine. It won't be about "Edwards the trial lawyer and channeler of dead babies" anymore, it will about "Edwards the President and Herald of the Great Society Redux."
Please feel free to cite a study that disproves this. I'm not a medical economist, and would really like to be proved wrong on this.
Also, before we crow, Britain still has a lower infant mortality rate than the US at 6.25 vs 7.00 per thousand. (If you believe the OECD stats)
sorry, 6.05, based on 5.0 last year times 1.21 for 21% growth. I thought it was 25%.
I thought that Europeans weren't having kids any more. Must be all those enlightened Muslims popping out a kid and a half per year. Hmmm... Comforting thought eh?
Pray God it's not puerperal (child-birth fever) that killed so many post-delivery women in the past. If it were so than socialized medicine has taken a giant leap back into the 17th century.
We do outspend them massively, for the same reason that a Mercedes costs more than a Yugo. With medical care, as with everything else, you get what you pay for. The solution is to get the government further OUT of healthcare, not further in. Too much government increases the cost of everything. How much is a toilet seat on a military aircraft versus a toilet seat from Home Depot?
Also, statistically despite the queues and waiting for treatment, they are getting better results on infant mortality, and a host of other medical issues. This is not a condemnation of our own system, but it's certainly not going to further efforts here politically to decouple government from healthcare.
"...they are getting better results on infant mortality..."
I think you have to be careful to compare apples to apples. We have a LOT of uninsured, illegal alien women accessing our system to deliver babies without prenatal care. That affects infant mortality rates. Level that playing field and I bet our numbers look pretty good. And, as the article states, mother mortality is on the rise under the British health care system. I haven't seen any indication that's happening over here.
Also, another thing that is never counted in US-European healthcare comparisons is that our huge monetary investment includes the vast majority of the medical research and development done worldwide, the benefits of which are shared with the rest of the world at very little cost.
Britain is catching up to us at a maternal mortality of 13/100,000 (2006) up from 11/100000 (2000). We have 20/100,000 (2000). I do not have data for 2006, so I do not know if we are trending up or down.
As for medical research, our federal drug funding is 6 cents per capita. Our total NIH funding is about $104 per capita. I'm not sure totals like that are that large compared to our spending levels on services. Do not forget also that foreign countries contribute to medical research in the US in the form of prescription drug costs.
I think most of the medical economists are thinking now that medical expenditures are rising because demand is so high it is pushing us into huge marginal costs. The emphasis and expectation on responsiveness with our medical system is part of that.
My wife pointed out last night that our healthcare policies are a drive towards fiscal conservatives adopting nanny-state ideas. The specific example was the trans-fat ban. By covering obesity related medical expenses we are not punishing people fiscally for their bad choices, but instead having government step in to legislate against those choices. This has the effect of splitting libertarians and fiscal conservatives on some issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.