Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

thehealthcareblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#31

Post by Scoundreller »

balls187 wrote: post #16
taeric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulations more exist to keep you from getting people discriminated against. I mean, yes, we don't want folks to die. Nor do we want folks making bad decisions based on information they don't understand. However, to say that it is just "people could die" ignores the fact that they have technology entering in vehicles and whatnot.

The first time a Google car crashes and Google lawyers have to sit across from a now paralyzed child on the witness stand, Google will quickly think twice about the Vehicle market. This was a huge problem we faced in Automotive. All big automotive companies are VERY cautious about safety, to what would seem like absurd levels.

The rest of the world will welcome the Google car with open arms.

The US will have to make do with their automobile deathtraps and continue to live suboptimal lifespans (35th worldwide) for a country with such a high GDP per capita (6th).

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#32

Post by gus_massa »

_croz wrote: post #19
duaneb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt any data about my health could give me enough benefit to warrant such an intimate invasion of my privacy.

Would you consider it an invasion of your privacy if the data was anonymized?

It’s very difficult to anonymize data, and prevent that someone deanonymize it. The bigger cases that I remember are the AOL searchs and Netfix data. More info: http://www.cnet.com/news/aol-netflix-and-the-end-of-open-acc...

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#33

Post by Scoundreller »

totoroisalive wrote: post #7
ericd wrote: post #4

Basically, he's saying that it's too heavily regulated for them to want to dip their toe in. Seems reasonable, it's the same reason I never bothered with the healthcare ideas I've been interested in. Too many landmines, and not enough latitude to try creative things.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

Although your health records may have some legal protections, health care is only one determinant of health.

Other determinants of health, like your gender, food choices, lifestyle, income, driving history, family history, physical environment, education, social network, etc. have all been heavily mined.

Much legally protected stuff can largely be inferred anyway. There aren't too many people without peanut allergies that haven't bought anything containing peanuts for the past 5 years.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#34

Post by kgarten »

gph wrote: post #6

Healthcare is heavily regulated, and I understand why some companies would be reluctant to branch out into it. But that doesn't mean the privacy and legal concerns surrounding HIPAA regulations are unwarranted. Yea, it would be nice if we lived in an ethical utopia where we wouldn't have to feel worried about people looking through our health records. But we don't. I would not feel comfortable with my health records…

Why don't they just buy an island make their own country with their own rules?? ;)

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#35

Post by zmmmmm »

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small startup can be much more nimble and targeted and address a very specific niche in a clever way and be very successful.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#38

Post by Goladus »

yawaramin wrote: post #21
totoroisalive wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole mining data on health has so many wonderful possibilities, but giving so much of my privacy it's a big no for me.

The data would be anonymised. No one would be connecting your records to _you._

It's a lot trickier than this. Suppose you have a rare genetic condition that affects 0.005% of the population. It takes very little additional information to single out a person when the first thing you do is rule out 99.995% of the possibilities.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#39

Post by wyager »

zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

>It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Large companies are either A) already past any barriers to entry or B) have enough money to bust through any barriers to entry. There are probably very few real world situations where being "nimble" is enough to overcome onerous regulations. The reality of the matter is that you just need a lot of money to pay lawyers.

Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”

#40

Post by tn13 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #35

It's worth noting that highly regulated industries are not necessarily bad for startups to enter, exactly because they throw up particularly high barriers to large companies. Google can't enter health without accepting the full baggage that comes with that - people worried about their privacy, every random nutter looking to sue them and get a payday, FDA breathing down their neck every step of the way, etc. A small s…

It sounds very contradictory. In most of the heavily regulated industries such as healthcare or insurance, one of the economic efficiencies are a better understanding of the complex law, startups can not solve this inefficiency in their favor.
Post reply on HN