Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

medlifestyle.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 236 posts

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#201

Post by gambiting »

pedroma wrote: post #174
gambiting wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you have to pay to have a baby in the US? The wealthiest country in the world cannot even pay for the birth of its own citizens? I can understand arguments for private healthcare etc....but making people pay to give birth is insane.

Why should I pay for other people's kids if I'm never going to have kids? The only people that should have to pay for those services are the people who actually use those services. For things that are unplanned like injuries (or even unplanned pregnancies), payment can be deferred if necessary and wages deducted straight from the paycheck to pay back for those services. Ideally, roads are that way too. People license…

>>Why should I pay for other people's kids if I'm never going to have kids?

Hmmmm. I think the issue here is that you're looking at it from an individualism perspective. Why should I be paying for something that I'm not using. You're obviously completely entitled to such an opinion, and I'm not going to change it with one HN comment, but imho that's the wrong way to build a society. Society should be paying to support new births, because those people will eventually grow up to be the workforce of your country, they will be paying taxes, and supporting you in retirement. The individualist approach that I see so often in Americans just seems so short sighted to me - why should I pay for any of this. I don't care about any of those things, if people want workforce/taxes/retirement they should just work for it goddamit!

Like, ok. I just want to point out that societies, including American one, pay for things just because they want to have them, regardless of whether it benefits every individual or not. You pay for roads just so they are there and so that every American can use them, regardless of whether you personally are going to drive every mile of every road ever built. Most Americans want to pay for agencies that make sure you have clean water or air, even though personally you probably aren't going to live in Flint or next to a coal power station. And obviously all Americans pay for the biggest military in the world just to keep a certain level of control and place in the world, even though many people could say well, how does paying for the 20th aircraft carrier benefit ME?

Paying for people to give birth so that they don't end up in medical debt straight away when starting a family has benefits to the society. But you will never see it if you just try to see what's in it for you personally.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#202

Post by gambiting »

pedroma wrote: post #198
acuozzo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should I pay for other people's kids if I'm never going to have kids? Medical Debt Up => Poverty Up => Crime Up => Incarceration Up => Paying for their imprisonment instead. You're protected by prisons, so you are a user of the service provided by them and must therefore pay under your model. > Ideally, roads are that way too. How would this work for e.g. Montana with seemingly-endless lengths of highway and a…

>How would this work for e.g. Montana with seemingly-endless lengths of highway and a very low population density? Why would they need nice roads then? Seems like a waste of money to build a bunch of expensive roads for the 5,000 people who use them. They can manage with cheap roads and dirt roads that don't need much maintenance. The Chinese rural areas manage just fine with dirt roads, and those areas have way high…

>>Why should I pay for someone's crimes? It's such a stupid system. If they are murderers they should just receive the capital punishment. And if the crime is not murder, they can be put into factories where they are able produce something of value -- farming or whatever. If their business is not profitable it should at least reduce the taxpayer burden.

God, I would hate to live in the system you're describing.

And again, it's all me me me. Society wants to punish people with prison, so society should pay for it. Whether you personally want to is fortunately irrelevant.

As for forcing people to work so they are not a burden on society - that's just slavery with extra steps. But oh wait, I forgot that US still does that. Nevermind then.

>>if training them with skills will help the prison make money, why not?

Because prisons should never ever ever be money making institutions in a functional society. I can't believe I actually have to say this.

>>Let me ask you this first - do you think public schools are doing poor kids any good? Especially in the inner cities where many poor black families live?

Of course they do, what are you on about.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#203

Post by mjbeswick »

pedroma wrote: post #174
gambiting wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you have to pay to have a baby in the US? The wealthiest country in the world cannot even pay for the birth of its own citizens? I can understand arguments for private healthcare etc....but making people pay to give birth is insane.

Why should I pay for other people's kids if I'm never going to have kids? The only people that should have to pay for those services are the people who actually use those services. For things that are unplanned like injuries (or even unplanned pregnancies), payment can be deferred if necessary and wages deducted straight from the paycheck to pay back for those services. Ideally, roads are that way too. People license…

I can only guess you are against universal healthcare also? In countries that have universal healthcare, that care is substantially cheaper; so you pay much less overall.

I live in the UK, which has quite a generous benefits system. Although such a system is open to abuse, it's much cheaper than imprisoning people that have resorted to crime to get by (they they do in the US).

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#204

Post by hahahasure »

jac241 wrote: post #189
hahahasure wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The epidural costs $6000. A 10 minute procedure. I saw my wife before and after an Epidural so I could not dispute it's effectiveness. But I generally can't see a reason why we need to spend 12 years in school to learn how various needles and rules of thumbs work. Only the US has such an education burden, and only does the US have such a strong physician cartel to mandate it.. Edit, and even with midwives you will be…

The training length for physicians is pretty much the same in all countries. In the US to become an anesthesiologist: 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, 4 years residency. Total: 12 years. In the UK to become an anesthesiologist: 6 years medical school, 2-3 years of general postgraduate training, 5 years specialty training. Total 13-14 years. Why did you not look this simple fact up before saying it authorita…

Yikes, n=1?

How about Germany or India? Why didn't you look up this simple fact?

And yes, The American Medical Association has spent 400M dollars to create a monopoly.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#205

Post by acuozzo »

gambiting wrote: post #202
pedroma wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How would this work for e.g. Montana with seemingly-endless lengths of highway and a very low population density? Why would they need nice roads then? Seems like a waste of money to build a bunch of expensive roads for the 5,000 people who use them. They can manage with cheap roads and dirt roads that don't need much maintenance. The Chinese rural areas manage just fine with dirt roads, and those areas have way high…

>>Why should I pay for someone's crimes? It's such a stupid system. If they are murderers they should just receive the capital punishment. And if the crime is not murder, they can be put into factories where they are able produce something of value -- farming or whatever. If their business is not profitable it should at least reduce the taxpayer burden. God, I would hate to live in the system you're describing. And a…

People like this always imagine that they'll be on the "good" side of such a system—

That the private prisons wouldn't lobby to make all speeding illegal in order to increase the labor pool for profit.

That they'll hear about the law change in time.

That they'll never have to drive 5mph above the speed limit because they're running late.

That they'll never be one of the slaves in the cyberpunk dystopia they're longing for.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#206

Post by Broken_Hippo »

kritiko wrote: post #108
philsnow wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks Obama) I don't know the particulars of what law enabled this, but I used my dad's health insurance until I was 26 as well, before Obama's first term.

Are you from Massachusetts? In that case it was Mitt Romney's healthcare reform.

Could have been the loophole for college students, too: I know back in the 90's, you could stay on your parents insurance until 24 or 25 if you were in college. If not, you were dropped at 19.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#207

Post by spockz »

mpercy wrote: post #200
spockz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing. In the Netherlands it is free. You get a midwife, hospital and medical staff when required. You get a box of goods for the first days of baby care. We get 4-6 weeks paid leave as a father and 16 as a mother. There is help in the house for about a week to take care of baby and mother and do checkups. The only thing you pay a symbolic amount of money for is some to borrow tools like bath chairs. Probably some…

Most people have good health care plans through their employer that pays for most of this stuff. I paid a few hundred dollars to the hospital when my child was born and we were there for several days. There are just a lot of people who for one reason or another do not have those benefits. It’s a very multimodal experience here unfortunately.

But if your employer is holding your insurance they can do all kinds of things. You are afraid to quit because you will lose insurance.

I have also read here on HN someone from SF paying a $4000 fee per month and still having to pay for a large part of hospitalisation. So it appears to be not so rosy even for the well off.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#208

Post by spockz »

brnt wrote: post #159
spockz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing. In the Netherlands it is free. You get a midwife, hospital and medical staff when required. You get a box of goods for the first days of baby care. We get 4-6 weeks paid leave as a father and 16 as a mother. There is help in the house for about a week to take care of baby and mother and do checkups. The only thing you pay a symbolic amount of money for is some to borrow tools like bath chairs. Probably some…

Parental leave in the Netherlands, both for women and man, is the lowest in the EU. By a wide margin. So, while we get some things right, leave and the conseqences that implies for the carreer of the mother is not something we can boast about.

In 2018 we were indeed among the lowest but not the lowest: https://www.capital-ges.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1.png from https://www.capital-ges.com/maternity-paternity-and-parental...

I am not sure the career consequences are better elsewhere. What makes you say that pregnancy/motherhood has less effect on careers in different countries?

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#209

Post by spockz »

setBoolean wrote: post #178
spockz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing. In the Netherlands it is free. You get a midwife, hospital and medical staff when required. You get a box of goods for the first days of baby care. We get 4-6 weeks paid leave as a father and 16 as a mother. There is help in the house for about a week to take care of baby and mother and do checkups. The only thing you pay a symbolic amount of money for is some to borrow tools like bath chairs. Probably some…

I really don't get that sentiment though, as a German citizen for example health care insurance is mandatory as in you pay a certain percentage of your salary each month towards health care insurance. So by any means it isn't the land of free healthcare some people made it to be. Also in the US there is the Charity Care Policy that applies when you make under a certain yearly salary.

In essence if everyone pays it through their income it is free as it will effect the buying power of everyone. Also because everyone chips in the individual contribution is lower.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#210

Post by pedroma »

gambiting wrote: post #202
pedroma wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How would this work for e.g. Montana with seemingly-endless lengths of highway and a very low population density? Why would they need nice roads then? Seems like a waste of money to build a bunch of expensive roads for the 5,000 people who use them. They can manage with cheap roads and dirt roads that don't need much maintenance. The Chinese rural areas manage just fine with dirt roads, and those areas have way high…

>>Why should I pay for someone's crimes? It's such a stupid system. If they are murderers they should just receive the capital punishment. And if the crime is not murder, they can be put into factories where they are able produce something of value -- farming or whatever. If their business is not profitable it should at least reduce the taxpayer burden. God, I would hate to live in the system you're describing. And a…

>As for forcing people to work so they are not a burden on society - that's just slavery with extra steps. But oh wait, I forgot that US still does that. Nevermind then.

This is just a difference in our morality I guess. I don't think prison should be a great place to live. They should be incentivized to leave prison. And they aren't treated as slaves, they are learning a trade and applying those skills. They should be paid a lower wage, have the option to send money to their families, and fund the prisons themselves to some degree. We already this to a lesser degree. Prisons just aren't doing this enough.

>Because prisons should never ever ever be money making institutions in a functional society. I can't believe I actually have to say this.

I don't understand why prisons should not make money. Why does there be distinctions for things that should or shouldn't make money? For things to function well, they need to be decently funded. Whether that's from you and me or them funding themselves.

>Of course they do, what are you on about.

Okay, then I guess we live in different realities if you think black kids are doing well in inner city public schools.

Post reply on HN