To Cut Costs the NHS encourages Women to just Take the Pain of Natural Childbirth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left says the Republicans hate women.  The so-called war on women.  They want to force women back into dangerous back-alleys for abortions.  And take away their birth control.  But imagine the tune the Left will be singing when Obamacare catches up to the NHS.  And scrambles to find cost savings via rationing.  And asks women to ‘man-up’ and just take the pain of natural childbirth.  When their liberal Democrat-passed Obamacare has no choice but to do what the NHS is doing (see Caesareans and pain relief for mothers giving birth ‘should be cut to save the NHS money’ by Sophie Borland posted 8/30/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Family doctors are being told to try to talk women out of having Caesareans and very strong painkillers during birth to save the NHS money.

New guidelines drawn up for GPs urge them to encourage women to have natural labours with as little medical help as possible…

The guidelines also remind doctors to tell women to consider having their babies outside hospital in midwife-run units or in their own homes.

Caesareans cost the NHS around £1,200 a time while epidurals – anaesthetic injections into the spine – are around £200.

Giving birth is the most painful thing a human body can endure.  While being one of the most natural things as well.  For millennia women gave birth without Caesarean sections or epidurals.  So on the one hand you can see the cost-accounting logic of the NHS.  While on the other hand about half of the world’s population doesn’t give birth.  Making it easy for them to say, “Gee, honey.  It’s just childbirth.  What’s the big deal?  Just suck it up and take the pain.”  Of course those who say something like this aloud may experience some physical pain themselves.  And may end up walking funny for awhile.

Just to show you how bad it is in the NHS lets crunch some numbers.  The UK has about 800,000 births per year as of late.  Approximately 25% of these births are by Caesareans section.  So if you crunch the numbers using current exchange rates the savings come out to approximately $379 million annually for Caesareans.  And about $253 million for epidurals.  Bringing the approximate annual savings to $632 million total.  Considering the annual NHS budget is roughly $166.6 billion these savings come to approximately 0.38% of total NHS annual expenditures.  Less than one half of one percent.  Small.  But when you add a lot of these up (and there are a lot of them because the NHS pays for everything for everyone) it makes a significant savings in the aggregate.  Which is why they’re asking British women to take the pain.

Now some can make the argument that making a woman give birth naturally is actually more painful that requiring a woman to buy her own birth control.  Or pay for her own abortion.  But the Left attacks Republicans on these issues as if the affect on women is as traumatic as live childbirth without any pain medication.  Makes one wonder what the attacks will be like when they urge women to endure more pain to help balance the Obamacare budget.  Especially considering that based on population there will be five times as many US women giving birth than in the UK.  So there will be larger cost savings available.  And probably a louder screaming will be heard.  Both figuratively.  And literally.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS works to Reduce Post-Caesarean Infections because they’re not Cost-Effective

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2012

Week in Review

Birth by caesarean section is now 25% of all births in the UK.  Reasons being obesity and women waiting until later in life to have their babies.  And now infections from caesareans are on the rise.  And they’re making these women costly patients.  First the childbirth.  Then the infection.  Consuming two rounds of medical treatments for one childbirth.  And that’s just not good for the business of health care (see Caesarean sections result in infections for one in ten patients, study finds by Denis Campbell posted 7/31/2012 on The Guardian).

One in 10 women who have a baby by caesarean section go on to develop an infection around their scar, which causes them pain and discomfort and forces some to go back into hospital to be treated…

While many of the infections following a caesarean are minor, some are so serious that they affect deep tissues or internal organs, including the lining of the womb…

The number of women giving birth by caesarean section has risen sharply, from 9% in 1980 to 25% in 2009-10, partly as a result of increasing maternal obesity and the trend towards later motherhood…

Dr Elizabeth Sheridan, head of healthcare associated infections at the Health Protection Agency, said the study showed that the NHS should make reducing post-caesarean infections a priority. “Given that one in four women deliver their baby by caesarean section, these infections represent a substantial burden. They will impact not only directly on the mother and her family but also are a significant cost in terms of antibiotic use, GP time and midwife care, and every effort should be made to avoid them”, she said.

In America the proponents of a national health care system like to point to people using the emergency room for their health care.  Because emergency rooms can’t deny treatment.  And when these people don’t pay we all end up paying for it.  So we need a national health care system to fix that.  They also like to pick on the ‘greedy’ pharmaceutical companies who make those life saving drugs no one else but them can make.  But they don’t talk about people exceeding their quota of health care services.

In a national health care system funded by the taxpayer medical care transforms into cost management.  For the usual reasons.  An aging population has more people leaving the workforce than entering the workforce.  And those leaving the workforce consume the majority of the health care services.  So you have the demand for health care services increasing (retirees suffering the effects of aging) while the supply is decreasing (fewer people paying taxes to fund health care services).   So there’s rationing.  Doctors talk about excessive antibiotics consumed by patients.  And the need to reduce the amount of time a patient takes up with doctors and midwives (people who provide care during pregnancies and deliver babies).  Because post-caesarean infections are simply not cost-effective.

Obamacare, too, will transform medical care into cost management.  By using mandates to get more people to pay into the system.  And then having medical boards to ration treatment.  Which they will have to do because America has an aging population, too.  And its population is greater than the UK’s population.  About five times greater.  So if the NHS is rationing care Obamacare will ration care.  And they’ll start tracking the amount of antibiotics a patient gets.  As well as how much time they get to spend with doctors and other health care providers.  Because health care is money.  And when you’ve had your fair share that’s it.  No more health care for you.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS prefers Midwives delivering Babies at Home while Hillary Clinton prefers Expensive Hospital Stays for Childbirth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

The Clinton administration tried to nationalize health care with Hillary Clinton designing the system.  In secret.  Which didn’t go over well with the people.  They didn’t trust her or what she was going to do to their quality health care.  And rejected her and her health care plans within a year.  Before anything was ever passed into law.

The Obama administration was able to do what the Clintons could not.  Buy off enough Congress people to pass Obamacare.  All the while during this process to nationalize health care both Clinton and Obama attacked the private system.  The greed of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies.  President Obama even saying perhaps Granny should take a pill to manage her pain while she dies instead of wasting money to try and save her life.  And despite this hatred towards the health care industry here’s Secretary Clinton in the Obama administration pledging aid for maternal health everywhere.  To allow them to have the same kind of expensive hospital stay Secretary Clinton enjoyed when she had her baby (see U.S., Norway pledge $150 million for maternal health by Arshad Mohammed posted 6/2/2012 on Reuters).

Recalling the 1980 birth of her daughter, Chelsea, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mused about how she would have felt had she not had a healthcare facility with skilled doctors and nurses and the equipment and expertise to handle emergencies.

Interesting.  How she wants everyone to have an expensive hospital birth just like she had.  While in perhaps the best know national health care system in the world, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), a health care system they would so love to see Obamacare evolve into, encourages women to give birth at home with a midwife.  Because child birth is not a life threatening disease and rarely requires hospitalization (see Midwives in push for more homebirths by Cathy O’Leary posted 6/2/2012 on The West Australian).

Homebirth supporters want to convince WA women and GPs that most pregnancies do not need a doctor to manage them, let alone an obstetrician.

They say WA women have among the highest rates of caesareans and medical interventions in the world and women are conditioned to see childbirth as an operation before a stay in a hotel-type hospital…

Childbirth educator Pip Wynn Owen said WA was way behind Britain where midwives handled most births and doctors took only risky cases.

“Doctors have done a good job of selling caesareans as normal and they like doing low-risk births, because that’s their bread and butter, when they should be concentrating on abnormal pregnancies,” she said.

“In WA, many women have private health insurance so they’re encouraged to choose a hotel-type hospital with their own doctor and private room…”

Private practice midwife Liza Kennedy said she was gobsmacked at the medicalisation of birth in WA when she moved from Britain five years ago. “There is a lot of sinister fear around birth perpetuated by the medical profession so women give away their power very readily,” she said. “Homebirth is made out to be odd when it’s the gold standard in terms of continuity of care and gives huge satisfaction.”

Pam Hogarth-Gray, 32, chose a homebirth for Sequoia five months ago after having her older children in hospital.

“It was amazing. I recovered in five minutes and felt like Wonder Woman,” she said. “I was glowing on a natural high and still am.

It would appear that childbirth in a hospital is more about the revenue than the birthing.  And yet the cost-conscious architects of Obamacare not only want American women to have their babies during expensive hospital stays.  They want to pay for women everywhere in the world to have their babies during expensive hospital stays. 

Giving birth isn’t a disease.  It’s painful.  And rather unpleasant.  And often is accompanied by an inadvertent bowel movement.  But it is a natural thing.  Much like breastfeeding.  Which liberals want to have mothers everywhere to do as much in public as possible instead of using high-tech formula.  But they draw the line on childbirth.  Because that is too complex not to do surrounded by machines and doctors and nurses.  Which I find amusing.  For one of my grandfathers delivered a child or two while my grandmother was sitting on the toilet at home.  Go back a couple of hundred years and all children were born at home.  Because there were no hospitals.  Which was the norm for some 200,000 years of our existence on this planet.  And here we are.  Our forefathers having successfully delivered babies at home for all those years to propagate the species.  To give us time to invent the expensive hospital stay.  After fire, farming and irrigation.  And a few other things more critical for our survival.

Perhaps the reason why Secretary Clinton wants women to have babies in hospitals is because she tends to look at pregnancy as a disease.  It would explain their aggressive policies on abortions and birth control.  To minimize the suffering from this unfortunate disease that can be brought about from having a good time.  For as those on the Left say these are women’s health issues.  And interfering with them is tantamount to resurrecting the plague.   Of course some 200,000 years of history would disagree with that.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,