Healthcare models

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Shortfall

New Member
I know this is brutal, but... if Darwin is to be believed, I do sometimes wonder if advanced healthcare (from birth) is actually producing a less healthy population, rather than a healthier one.

I think there might be an element of people absolving themselves of responsibility for their own health because they think the NHS should/will pick up the pieces for their poor lifestyle choices
 

Stevo 666

Über Member
I think there might be an element of people absolving themselves of responsibility for their own health because they think the NHS should/will pick up the pieces for their poor lifestyle choices

Especially given that it is free at the point of use.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Veteran
Obviously people who earn a lot and get taxed accordingly would prefer a system where everyone pays the same amount regardless of the ability to pay. Poll tax, anyone?

What the wealthy overlook is that it's all those 'little people' who can't afford private health insurance who keep big businesses profitable with their low wages, and who can only do that if they aren't ill. So even if the rich are so inhumane that they don't care if the poor are ill and die young, sooner or later the model that has made them rich will suffer.

Maybe a social model of healthcare is actually good for big business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

First Aspect

Senior Member
No, that's not how evolution works. Most medical conditions are somatic, i.e. not inheritable. Of the chronic health conditions that have a hereditary component like coronary conditions, certain forms of high cholesterol resistant to diet management and others, many of them will only manifest after the patient already has progeny, so no evolutionary pressure to weed them out.

True. Advanced health care is, if anything, slowly irradiating genetic conditions. This is about to accelerate dramatically, via gene editing. There are bound to be unintended consequences to this, given the ethnic biases in healthcare research, and the complex and poorly mapped interrelationships between traits seen as undesirable and those that are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

First Aspect

Senior Member
True. Advanced health care is, if anything, slowly irradiating genetic conditions. This is about to accelerate dramatically, via gene editing. There are bound to be unintended consequences to this, given the ethnic biases in healthcare research, and the complex and poorly mapped interrelationships between traits seen as undesirable and those that are not.

Which isn't evolution either, of course.
 

presta

Regular

What's striking is just how little the expenditure has to do with outcomes (UK data points enlarged):

1753458404205.png


.....and how low down the rankings the UK comes:

?hash=142e99513b5ee50187b6dfd83105cce6.png


1753458971136.png


1753459034254.png


1753459095078.png


1753459163384.png
 

Attachments

  • 1753459462175.png
    1753459462175.png
    25.2 KB · Views: 0

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
No, that's not how evolution works. Most medical conditions are somatic, i.e. not inheritable. Of the chronic health conditions that have a hereditary component like coronary conditions, certain forms of high cholesterol resistant to diet management and others, many of them will only manifest after the patient already has progeny, so no evolutionary pressure to weed them out.

Not making a judgement here, but..

What about those who struggle to procreate, without IVF, or, those infants who only survive due to advanced medical intervention? "in nature" such individuals wouldn't not get to pass on their genes, but, now they did.

I hasten to add, I am not advocating we stop such interventions, but, they may be having the famous "unintended consequences".

I would add, do we REALLY know how evolution works?
 
Top Bottom