Cheap Incubator Backpack Could Reduce Infant Deaths 76
Boy Wunda writes "In just one six-month period in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2006, 96 newborn babies who were in need of medical care died before they could get help. In many developing nations, these deaths could be prevented simply by providing better ways for medical responders to transport infants properly over rough terrain and keep them alive until they can reach hospitals and clinics. Now, a group of Colorado State University seniors has designed and filed a patent for a medically equipped incubator backpack unit that they believe can reduce baby deaths in medical emergencies both in the United States and in newly industrialized nations."
Re:Natural Selection (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, if don't get over-run by the Idiocracy first.. I would say the best evolved "class" of humans for the current environment on Earth (with welfare, etc), is one that can reproduce rapidly and live off of the productivity of others. Maybe somebody needs to set up a "Foundation" somewhere in Antarctica, to protect our advances/knowledge throughout a possible idoicracy/dark-ages (also useful as a refuge against Tripod attacks..)
Re:What bothers me is the 'and filed a patent for' (Score:4, Interesting)
People are willing to pay more dollars more often to have the health or life of a loved one saved than they are to listen to some boring self important blowhard dipshit.
_I_ don't need to do anything. There are already lots of ways _you_ can provide scholarships for qualified students to become doctors. Why aren't you?
There are several things that make health care very expensive in this country:
1) nobody knows what it costs, so they never comparison shop on price; they rarely refuse service because of costs. Thus, there is no incentive to control costs. There is no market, so to speak.
2) not everybody pays, but everybody receives. That uncompensated care is paid for _somehow_
3) Doctors have their labor union legally protected by law everywhere in the US. Want to be a doctor? All the other doctors in the US get to decide that they're willing to tolerate some competition before you're allowed to practice medicine here.
Breaking the union stranglehold on who can practice medicine, and not requiring care providers to render care regardless of ability to pay would make medicine very affordable. The first would probably allow some people to receive lower quality care some of the time. It would also allow some people to receive higher quality care some of the time. I bet it's a net positive for both care and affordability [since providers would compete on reputation instead of on union membership].
You would think that the latter -- removing the legal obligation to provide care -- would mean that many people would immediately start going without care, but I don't think this is the case. In the not-so-distant past, people and doctors managed to work out payment plans and there weren't epidemic die-offs due to inability to acquire "insurance".
Essentially, the high cost of care is due to collusion between government and insurers. Remove the government involvement, and things get better.
Of course, that's not the direction people are trying to take things...
Re:Not quite correct (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if the difference is a matter of reporting bias/standards, that's very good news. I'm guessing you don't have that data up on a public facing wiki or anything, so I won't say [citation needed]. I'm curious though that if only 40% of fetal deaths in Norway would be counted as infant mortality in the U.S., that means some deaths aren't counted as such, and I'm wondering what the difference is and what the criterion is.