Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by Stratoscope » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #229

Stratoscope wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, we had an anti-circumcision pitch. They showed a video of the process. It was horrible and makes me queasy just remembering it.

If they were trying to convince you against it, I'm guessing they weren't giving you a video of the average procedure. Kind of like how peta videos aren't exactly representative of how most of the farming industry operates. I watched the one on my son, and while it wasn't nothing, it was a tiny amount of skin and it was healed up very nicely before even his umbilical cord had fully dried and fell off.

I should have been more clear in my comment. I don't think they were trying to convince people against it, just that it had that effect on me personally.

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

#232

Post by jschwartzi » Wed, Jun 02, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

johncessna wrote: post #163

jschwartzi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But when you change employers you risk losing access to your healthcare. Whereas if government pays for the health system you can maintain continuity of care, which can be essential to treat various psychiatric and medical conditions. Imagine if, because you got a new job, your lease on an apartment were canceled and you had to go find a new place to live? That's what our healthcare system is like and it's maddening.

I'm not defending the system, I was trying to point out the absurdity of the parent's statement. To your point, the affordable health care act addressed the issue with not being able to get insurance due to preexisting conditions. In the US you're required to have healthcare insurance. You can buy it yourself, get it through your employer, or, assuming you qualify, get it from the government.

The point I'm making isn't that you can't get insurance, it's that the insurance you have changes every time you change jobs. At one employer you might be on an HMO plan like Kaiser Permanente and be limited to their providers. But then your next employer uses Blue Cross / Blue Shield or United Healthcare and you can no longer use your Kaiser Permanente doctors. So you're not guaranteed continuity of care, and you might lose coverage for certain optional things if you change jobs. And your costs, which are nebulous to begin with, might change substantially depending on who your employer is. It's a crap shoot.

Also you're not required to have insurance. The individual mandate was repealed a couple of years ago.

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

#233

Post by pmiller2 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

souprock wrote: post #220

pmiller2 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging for things just because you can is a capitalist mindset, however. Besides, hospitals will never be more competitive than an oligopoly in most cases, simply because only so many are built in any given geographic area, and most people can only travel so far for medical care. There are some services the “free market” simply can’t deliver efficiently.

The reason why "only so many are built in any given geographic area" is because we aren't being very capitalist or free market. One must obtain a "certificate of need" before opening a new facility, and that will be opposed in court by all possible competitors. We could give capitalism and free market a try.

Why do people always want to fix problems arising from capitalism by doing more capitalism?

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

#234

Post by minusf » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

NateEag wrote: post #192

Fomite wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "U.S. experience" because of the absolute mess of our healthcare system. There are birthing centers that work very much like the process described above.

Indeed - I have to give a plug for UPMC Harrisburg in Pennsylvania. My wife gave birth to all three of our kids there, and while it was more institutional than what's described above, they were big on skin-to-skin contact and leaving it to the parents to parent while the nurses and docs took care of medical needs. Staff was uniformly great throughout all of our births.

how much did it cost if you dont mind me asking?

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

#235

Post by minusf » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

spockz wrote: post #153

ezekg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midwives are the way. My first child's prenatal and birth was < $5k, born at home.

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…

> We get 4-6 weeks paid leave as a father

this is technically true, but for context: it started in 2021. Before it was 2 paid days and 3 unpaid days _in total_.

Also the last 5 weeks are 70% paid (at least for me)

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

#236

Post by souprock » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

pmiller2 wrote: post #233

souprock wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why "only so many are built in any given geographic area" is because we aren't being very capitalist or free market. One must obtain a "certificate of need" before opening a new facility, and that will be opposed in court by all possible competitors. We could give capitalism and free market a try.

Why do people always want to fix problems arising from capitalism by doing more capitalism?

The error here: it's not problems arising from capitalism

You complained that "only so many are built in any given geographic area", and I pointed out that this is for a very non-capitalist reason. Regulation prohibits opening new hospitals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need