>I suspect the higher rate of American c-sections on women who haven't
>had c-sections before is for the same reason: Doctors are afraid of
>being sued if the baby ends up developing cerebral palsy, which can
>happen if you botch a vaginal delivery.
>
>Of course, such lawsuits are only necessary because the U.S. doesn't
>have universal healthcare and the risk of these kinds of medical
>complications is borne privately.
>
>I swear, nothing gets me in a bloody, put 'em against the wall mindset
>like reading articles about private health insurance. :-)
I vaguely recall seeing that the rate of Caesarean sections is high in this country too. In which case it wouldn't be the lack of universal medical insurance that is the problem. However malpractice is still an issue.
I'm old-fashioned myself, I've always been against the notion of allowing people to insure against (their own) professional incompetence. This kind of insurance, including public liability, has spread like the black death through modern society, subtly changing the very laws. Effectively forcing more and more sectors of society to pay what amounts to protection money to insurance companies.
Even tiny little charities and voluntary community groups now find themselves forced to pay into this protection racket. You can't even hire a council hall for a public meeting without being forced to pay for public liability insurance these days. Voluntary groups have to take out insurance against against the possibility they might be liable for injury suffered by their volunteer workers. And I mean literally forced, the government in in league with the insurance companies to literally require such protection payments.
Tony Soprano type gangsters are utter amateurs by comparison.
So it isn't the lack of universal medical insurance so much, though that is a complication in the US. The problem is more basic, the insecurity of modern capitalist society. There are risks involved in everything, having a baby, walking down the street, whatever. Our society encourages people to find someone to blame, the courts are inevitably sympathetic to a victim who has suffered a devastating injury, especially if there is someone handy who can be made to bear the awful financial consequences. Someone who can conceivably be held responsible.
This puts the pressure on anyone who can conceivably be held responsible for any such injury, to insure against everything. The problem is not that such insurance is available, but that it is even necessary. It is a complete racket to allow such insurance to be run for private profit. It is ridiculous that an injured person has to find someone to blame, to avoid financial ruin or just to be able to keep eating.
That's a social problem. It begs a universal social insurance. Its another problem that can only be addressed by socialism.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas