• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK Health Care: Babies Born in Corridors

Did you even read the Chapman article?

My guess is that you did not, otherwise you would not be asking "So are you denying that..."

Did I read the article that I myself posted?

Believe it or not I did!

What's your point?
 
some more stats

Healthcare spending in 2004 as a % of GDP per capita US 16% UK 8.3%



Life expectancy in 2000 US 77 UK 78


Average annual rate ofgrowth in real healthcare
spending per capita 1994-2004 US 3.7% UK 4.2%


Number of acute hospital beds per 1000
people in 2004 US 2.8 UK 3.6


Average length of stay for acute care in 2004 US 5.6 UK 3.6


Under 5 mortality rate (probability of dying
by age 5 per 1000 live births) US 9 UK 6
 
The World Health Organization ranks Cuba's Health Care system right up with the USA's despite it spending a small fraction of what the US spends. You have no idea why their infant mortality rates are so low. Other than your ideology which guides you to believe brown people can't have good healthcare.

Image - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting
I think you have just lost all credibility. If you feel you have to make random allegations of racism so quickly I pity you. I see you are a new poster and very much hope you change your behaviour so you actually contribute positively to the forum.

I believe I also stated I support the NHS in this very thread.

We have been through those dodgy WHO stats here before. The WHO itself does not even stand by them today.
 
Last edited:
Life expectancy in 2000 US 77 UK 78
Life expectancy is a very hard one to pin the quality of health services on. It includes so many factors.

Under 5 mortality rate (probability of dying
by age 5 per 1000 live births) US 9 UK 6
This obviously suffers from the comparison problems already shown.
 
Life expectancy is a very hard one to pin the quality of health services on. It includes so many factors.

The quality of the health services is a key factor in life expectancy numbers. It aint perfect, but it is one of the better ways of measurement out there.

This obviously suffers from the comparison problems already shown.

Sure..a dead child is a dead child is it not?
 
1. Bed shortages in Britain force 4000 moms to give birth in elevators, offices, hallways and hospital toilets

2. Another body blow to Obamacare --

Strange, as Laila pointed out early on in the thread: the only source of this story is the Daily Mail. None of the other news outlets cover it and more interestingly Andrew Langley - supposed instigator of this story itself is on record in a BBC radio interview here defending the NHS from the "negative and distorted" views which usually seem to emanate from the US and actually have US political maneuvering behind them..

Anyway - in an organisation as large as the NHS you will have horror stories and you will also have good news stories. I'm not surprised that mothers give birth in ambulances / fields / tents or lifts - babies don't come when they're supposed to.

That's basic nature - however it's twisted to suit US politics.

Now, when patient support groups which include ordinary members of the public and NHS staff say "there are fundamental problems with provision of basic care in the NHS" that's the thing to worry about.
 
The quality of the health services is a key factor in life expectancy numbers. It aint perfect, but it is one of the better ways of measurement out there.
Rubbish. When you are talking about the modern western world with a few years difference between nations life expectancy shows little. Bolshie Zeebub's stats showed a years difference, you can tell next to nothing about healthcare quality from this.

Sure..a dead child is a dead child is it not?
Nope, we have already been through this. Go back in the thread a few pages.
 
Bolshie Zeebub, that was a low blow Anal Wessex:lol:
 
Bolshie Zeebub, that was a low blow Anal Wessex:lol:

vader-fail.jpg
 
Rubbish. When you are talking about the modern western world with a few years difference between nations life expectancy shows little. Bolshie Zeebub's stats showed a years difference, you can tell next to nothing about healthcare quality from this.

Of course you can. As I said it aint perfect, but it shows plenty about the quality and scope of healthcare in said country. Healthcare is many things that all effect life expectancy. It is how well the system cares for people when they do get sick, but it is also very much how well the system is in preventive medicine. One thing that effects life expectancy a bit is the eating habits (and drinking) of said country, but it is for the most part not a key factor when we are talking about the west. The only place I would point it out is Russia, where drinking is a very serious problem in the adult population and has cut the life expectancy dramatically. But then on the flip side, it shows also a lacking of preventive care and when they do get sick, a lack of quality care does it not?

Nope, we have already been through this. Go back in the thread a few pages.

Oh I have, and I disagree fully.

Your article has no links to prove anything he states in the article. He makes a lot of claims about other countries without providing any evidence of said claims. As long as the differences in reporting is not hugely different then I see no reason not to use the infant mortality rates as a method of comparison.
 
Of course you can. As I said it aint perfect, but it shows plenty about the quality and scope of healthcare in said country. Healthcare is many things that all effect life expectancy. It is how well the system cares for people when they do get sick, but it is also very much how well the system is in preventive medicine. One thing that effects life expectancy a bit is the eating habits (and drinking) of said country, but it is for the most part not a key factor when we are talking about the west. The only place I would point it out is Russia, where drinking is a very serious problem in the adult population and has cut the life expectancy dramatically. But then on the flip side, it shows also a lacking of preventive care and when they do get sick, a lack of quality care does it not?
So what you are saying is that the one year difference between Britain and America could have nothing to do with lifestyle choices? It must because of the healthcare quality? That is absolute rubbish and you know it. I see absolutely no proof to show that year's difference somehow means America has worse healthcare, care to back it up.

Oh I have, and I disagree fully.

Your article has no links to prove anything he states in the article. He makes a lot of claims about other countries without providing any evidence of said claims.
It is common knowledge.

International infant mortality rates: bias from reporting differences. -- Howell and Blondel 84 (5): 850 -- American Journal of Public Health

As long as the differences in reporting is not hugely different then I see no reason not to use the infant mortality rates as a method of comparison.
Good to know you are willing to use skewed data but organisations that actually compile these stats disagree such as the OEEC as previously quoted.
 
So what you are saying is that the one year difference between Britain and America could have nothing to do with lifestyle choices? It must because of the healthcare quality? That is absolute rubbish and you know it. I see absolutely no proof to show that year's difference somehow means America has worse healthcare, care to back it up.

It is common knowledge.

International infant mortality rates: bias from reporting differences. -- Howell and Blondel 84 (5): 850 -- American Journal of Public Health


Good to know you are willing to use skewed data but organisations that actually compile these stats disagree such as the OEEC as previously quoted.

Thank you.

I'm willing to give you that differences in reporting methods may explain such a low US score for infant mortality to some extent, but not to make it as low as it is.

In any case the OP subject is a fabrication. Mothers are not giving birth in hospital corridors in the UK. They are in fact receiving excellent care. This is evidenced by the simple fact that UK residents are not actually up in arms about this story. Remember, bad news sells.

As for centralisation and bureaucracy. The NHS is divided into numerous different Health trusts each with their own budget to manage.
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to give you that differences in reporting methods may explain such a low US score for infant mortality to some extent, but not to make it as low as it is.
How low is it relatively speaking?

As for centralisation and bureaucracy. The NHS is divided into numerous different Health trusts each with their own budget to manage.
So? So is local gov't but it is still an extremely centralised system due to the central gov't intervention on how the money is used and other factors.
 
So what you are saying is that the one year difference between Britain and America could have nothing to do with lifestyle choices? It must because of the healthcare quality? That is absolute rubbish and you know it. I see absolutely no proof to show that year's difference somehow means America has worse healthcare, care to back it up.

No I am not saying that. I am saying that regardless of lifestyle choice, it is the job of the healthcare system to keep these people alive but more importantly to prevent the issues with whatever lifestyle choice people make.

On top of that lifestyle choices between countries in the industrialized western world is not that different. They all have "Americanised food" choices that are very popular and obesity rates are rising in all. But lets test your theory. Germany, is by far the fattest country in Europe. Its obesity rates are the closest to the US possible and I have even heard right wingers claim it was worse.. and yet German's live on average a year longer than Americans...why is that? Have you ever seen a traditional German diet? So what will your excuse be now? That American's have more accidental deaths?

I have never claimed that life expectancy numbers are some sort of grading card on the quality of a countries healthcare system, but what it is, is part of the overall picture. What I, and others, have noted that despite spending almost double as much on healthcare, the US system has not give a life expectancy to match. Now you can come with claims of bias in the numbers or what not, blame the blacks or other minorities like some right wingers, or just ignore the numbers, but you have to question why a country spending so much on healthcare does give better results on so so so many statistics.. and no it is not solely because of life style choices..


And yet when UNICEF uses statistical analysis to make up for the supposed differences, the results are similar..

Good to know you are willing to use skewed data but organisations that actually compile these stats disagree such as the OEEC as previously quoted.

I am not willing to use anything. All I am stating is that it is the best number we have and that we have to use said number as part of the over all picture. I somehow doubt that the huge difference between say Norway or Spain vs the US is all down to "how the definition of a live birth" is.
 
How low is it relatively speaking?

Im sure you can answer that question.

So? So is local gov't but it is still an extremely centralised system due to the central gov't intervention on how the money is used and other factors.

Indeed, local gov too. If you think its too centralised then please tell us, what would you like Health boards to do for themselves?

Im sure the British government would love to get rid of the responsibility and this the blame.
 
Personally I support healthcare being available for all. I'm not a fan of bureaucratic and centralised nation of the NHS however.

I think we all are of the same opinion; the main difference between Conservatives and many of the Liberals who think MORE money and Government is the end all to our societal ills is that we think there is a better solution that does not involve Government bureaucrats messing things up even more.

Modern Liberal thinking makes things much easier to grasp; all societies problems are due to Conservatives, and we can solve all problems with highly placed modern Liberal Government officials and confiscatory tax rates. :cool:
 
Don't we here in the USA have a law that states a person can drop off a baby at fire stations or police stations no questions asked.....I wonder how many can get dropped off per year?

We do? Where would that be? And even if that is the case in some instances, is it really the result of a shortage of hospital beds or healthcare, or more a lifestyle issue?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Another pertinent part of the picture would be the cause of these births and lifestyles of the mothers.

Yea, somehow I have the feeling those mothers have been sexually active:2razz:
 
Yea, somehow I have the feeling those mothers have been sexually active:2razz:

I think there is much more to it than just being sexually active; things like drug use, social mores, peer acceptance and community.
 
No I am not saying that. I am saying that regardless of lifestyle choice, it is the job of the healthcare system to keep these people alive but more importantly to prevent the issues with whatever lifestyle choice people make.
Oh come on it is not the gov'ts job to make you thin.
On top of that lifestyle choices between countries in the industrialized western world is not that different. They all have "Americanised food" choices that are very popular and obesity rates are rising in all. But lets test your theory. Germany, is by far the fattest country in Europe. Its obesity rates are the closest to the US possible and I have even heard right wingers claim it was worse.. and yet German's live on average a year longer than Americans...why is that? Have you ever seen a traditional German diet? So what will your excuse be now? That American's have more accidental deaths?
You are grading their healthcare system by a year's difference. This is meaningless. Statistically it is meaningless. Anyway not all nations are the same in the West. America does have a higher murder rate, as lefties often bring up, it also has worse health stats. These things make a difference.

I have never claimed that life expectancy numbers are some sort of grading card on the quality of a countries healthcare system, but what it is, is part of the overall picture. What I, and others, have noted that despite spending almost double as much on healthcare, the US system has not give a life expectancy to match. Now you can come with claims of bias in the numbers or what not, blame the blacks or other minorities like some right wingers, or just ignore the numbers, but you have to question why a country spending so much on healthcare does give better results on so so so many statistics.. and no it is not solely because of life style choices.
You seemed to say exactly that.

And yet when UNICEF uses statistical analysis to make up for the supposed differences, the results are similar..
Proof?


I am not willing to use anything. All I am stating is that it is the best number we have and that we have to use said number as part of the over all picture. I somehow doubt that the huge difference between say Norway or Spain vs the US is all down to "how the definition of a live birth" is.[/QUOTE]
 
Well I saw this run through of that article elsewhere and it sums up about what I think, so I'll share it here.

On a different note though, I'm not that aware of how exactly the NHS works in the UK. I found this fairly good pdf which describes the system here. The system here has it that local authorities are always primary responsible for healthcare in their area (the municipalities... I think there are about 450 of them). I think that's the main difference. NHS is more government organized, isn't it?


The article raises valid points, but unfortunately serves more to highlight media strain theory than anything objective regarding the NHS. Just look at the ambiguous language.

Quote:
63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

Naughty Mum, couldn't she just hold it? Women

Quote:
117 births in A&E departments
What proportion of these were direct admittances to A&E? How many of these mothers were hurt in an accident? Did this induce on Labour? How many of these were emergency c-sections?

Quote:
399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds
How many of these were birthing pool deliveries, etc.? Where where they delivered then? I'm going to assume it was the floor (which is what they want you to think), as if that was the case the Mary Whitehouse brigade at the Mail would have postered it all over the story.

Quote:
115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;
What other wards? Was mother in intensive care when the infant was delivered?

Total, unspecific drivel aimed at the type of idiot who buys newpapers (particularly but not limited to tabloids) and who has no analytical skills what so ever.

There are in excess of 700,000 births per annum in the UK. It stands to good reason, that as all of these involve humans, there will be errors. 4000 already sounds fairly low; as I have demonstrated, the real figure will be a good way below 4000. But then the Mail know this, which is why they are so non-committal with their figures. Insinuation and inference are far effective at shifting **** to the chattering classes than actual, credible intelligence.

There is only one important part of the entire article:

Quote:
The rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to look at why this is happening.

'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care. However, we know the Government is putting more money into the service.

'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people controlling the purse strings at a local level.'

That's it. That's the relevant public service information. But hell, that ain't going to sell newspapers.
 
Back
Top Bottom