I haven’t actually had my baby yet (due in about 9 weeks), so I’m not qualified by actual experience, but I agree based on what I’ve learned so far. The birthing center in which we plan to have our baby is actually on a floor of the hospital. I am not very “hippy dippy” either, but what I love about the midwife philosophy is that they are able to provide a WAY more pleasant experience (I don’t mean aromatherapy, either) without compromising health of the mother or baby, in the following ways: you can move around freely, walk around, get in the shower, labor in a tub (at our birth center you can’t birth the baby in the tub, but you can labor in it), eat or drink, use birth balls, or hang out on the big, regular queen size bed, and generally do the things that keep labor happening and ease your pain naturally. The reason you can do this in the birth center is that they do not do continuous electronic fetal monitoring* unless you are high risk (they do intermittent monitoring – auscultation – instead), require you to have an IV, unless there’s some real need for it (antibiotics for strep B, for instance) or require you to keep a blood pressure monitor on. They do intermittent blood pressure checks – more work for them, but makes life better for the patient.
In hospitals, most of the time you have the aforementioned trappings, which keep you close to or on the bed, so you can’t do the water/moving around/birth ball/trying all kinds of different positions stuff that eases pain and keeps labor going. Also, the midwives I’m with have about a 1% episiotomy rate. They do perineal massage/hot cloths/oil – which is a lot more work for them, again – but keeps you from tearing or needing to be cut.
I have nothing against hospitals, doctors, and drugs personally (heck, I love drugs. But I would like to avoid giving them to my baby if possible). And who likes pain? That’s why I want to labor in a tub…apparently the warmth, water, and feeling of weightlessness really helps. Also, one medical intervention can tend to lead to another, so if your labor isn’t progressing, they induce you…which usually leads to stronger, more intense contractions…which often leads to increased need for epidural…which can slow down labor and also make it harder for you to push because you can’t feel anything…and can lower the baby’s heartrate and hinder respiration…et cetera. (I’m not saying that any of those things are the end of the world. I’d just like to avoid them if possible.) All the while you’re prisoner to the bed because of the monitoring. So…THAT’S why I’m using a birth center with midwives. Not because doctors are evil and not because I am against pharmaceuticals or hospitals. But because I see this as the best of both worlds, I am low-risk, and I think that my birth experience will be so much better this way. And I’m not talking about having “an Experience.” I’m talking about it sucking less. 
*apparently outcomes in low-risk pregnancies are not statistically any better with continuous electronic fetal monitoring. The following is from a journal published by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology: I didn’t link to it because it’s either on a paid site or you’d have to scroll too much on the unpaid site where I found it…there are several other journal articles saying the same thing, though.
Sandmire, H. F. 1990. “Whither electronic fetal monitoring?” Obst Gyn 76:1130-4.
Largely based on promising animal studies, continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) was introduced into clinical practice in the early 1970s. After almost 20 years of experience, it is now apparent hat the anticipated benefits of this technology have not materialized. Undesirable side effects of EFM include inappropriate operative intervention for some patients and increased liability for physicians and hospitals, resulting in an increase in the costs of obstetric services. After reviewing several research studies, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that EFM and intermittent auscultation are equivalent methods for intrapartum assessment. We have developed a protocol for the performance of intermittent auscultation, including indicated responses to different levels of bradycardia. This protocol has allowed us to substitute auscultation for EFM in a high percentage of patients using existing nursing personnel. Laboring patients should, at a minimum, receive information on both intermittent auscultation and EFM to enable them to make an informed choice of method for intrapartum fetal assessment. Author-abstract. 30 Refs.