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

81–90 of 149 posts

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

#81

Post by paletoy »

micro_cam wrote: post #55
dontmindifido wrote: post #46

I'd love to see them take an altruistic approach and shift the focus to countries like Africa where health projects would provide a lot more utility and have a lot less regulatory burden. Once a product is visibly working in one country it's more difficult to make cases against it elsewhere.

I've heard Bill Gates state this as one of his philanthropic goals; to fund things with a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't make sense in the developed world but does elsewhere. I've worked with people involved in HIV vaccine trials overseas and, in fact, things really don't change as much as you might think. The basic tenant "first do no harm" is ingrained at an many different ethical, institutional and legal level…

> to fund things with a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't make sense in the developed world but does elsewhere.

While it seems to go against "do no harm" ,in reality many low cost products can start at low quality, but with time and experience improve while still offering much lower costs. So the logic can make sense.

Not sure it works for vaccines thought.

Also i wonder: what were the benefits of the vaccine you described ? were they weighted against the slight harm ?

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

#82

Post by kgarten »

muzz wrote: post #49
kgarten wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure who downvoted you, but this is indeed the essence of one of the counterpoints against regulation-- that if we regulate an industry, the innovation in that industry will simply occur elsewhere in the world, outside of US regulation.

I also don't really understand ... especially Larry Page suggested this. I also don't get the other comment why it would not work. Imagine Google buys couple of Islands and founds it's own state, they could do whatever they wanted in the boarders. It's a bit scary yet not so far fetched.

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

#83

Post by dan_bk »

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…

This may very well be the usual "we currently have no plans to enter the market of...", stated a few months or a year before some product/service is launched, in precisely that market.

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

#84

Post by kgarten »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66
muzz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure who downvoted you, but this is indeed the essence of one of the counterpoints against regulation-- that if we regulate an industry, the innovation in that industry will simply occur elsewhere in the world, outside of US regulation.

That is generally true for things like minimum wage laws or regulations on manufacturing. If it is expensive to manufacture in the US then companies can easily manufacture in China. It doesn't really work for healthcare because you can't remove it from the jurisdiction. It isn't practical to fly to another country to receive emergency medical services or if all you need is to fill a prescription. Meanwhile the custom…

Actually a lot of people do ... I know people who get their eyes lasered in Turkey for example (in this case it's because the treatment is cheap). Larry Page suggested the Island idea in last year's google IO.

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

#85

Post by vidarh »

kgarten wrote: post #82
muzz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure who downvoted you, but this is indeed the essence of one of the counterpoints against regulation-- that if we regulate an industry, the innovation in that industry will simply occur elsewhere in the world, outside of US regulation.

I also don't really understand ... especially Larry Page suggested this. I also don't get the other comment why it would not work. Imagine Google buys couple of Islands and founds it's own state, they could do whatever they wanted in the boarders. It's a bit scary yet not so far fetched.

There's a whole lot of complicated issues of international law around gaining sovereignty, which is highly biased against the creation of new states. And beyond that there is the issue of gaining recognition from other states. Getting the recognition of even a number of the "micro states" that likes to recognise other small states because it helps validate their own existence would be hard enough. Getting the recognition of larger countries, which with corporate involvement would instantly be suspicious this was a tax avoidance scheme or otherwise something that would not be beneficial to them would be much harder. (E.g. many countries would start looking at their maps and worrying about what companies that is important to them could be coaxed by a poorer neighbouring country to buy territory)

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

#86

Post by rayiner »

laurenstill wrote: post #57
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…

Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc. The P in HIPAA stands for Portability. At it's heart, the act was supposed to guarantee patients have access to their health information, not bring health data liquidity to it's knees. This is Jonathan Bush, of Athena, testifying (read: ranting) a couple weeks ago about regulations and innovation in hea…

Frankly I'm okay with health data being illiquid. Everyone should be absolutely terrified of this data getting into the hands of the same people that try to predict if you are pregnant to sell you crap, or use your credit history or Facebook posts to deny you a job. The future in that direction is "Google Gattaca."

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

#87

Post by netcan »

Multics wrote: post #80
netcan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this? This is a forum for/about startups. He made a statement relevant to startups. What exactly are you mad at?

What is this? Or, what is 'this'? The answer being. 1) Quite an abstract question 2) A pronoun It's relevant. It's the conclusion that's concerning! Again. 'Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.'

- deleted -

I apologize about this thread.

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

#88

Post by rmc »

kgarten wrote: post #34
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?? ;)

To answer your question seriously, what makes you think your new country will be able to trade freely with every other country (e.g. USA & EU)? There's no point having an island with your own rules, if the only people you can get as customers are the inhabitants of your island.

Also, all land (more or less) is already in one country. Turning to split off a piece of one country into a new country is often quite deadly. Literally.

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

#89

Post by Multics »

netcan wrote: post #87
Multics wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this? Or, what is 'this'? The answer being. 1) Quite an abstract question 2) A pronoun It's relevant. It's the conclusion that's concerning! Again. 'Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.'

- deleted - I apologize about this thread.

> Maybe: 'One way of misrepresenting what you said..'

Then.

> Allow me to put words in your mouth... I don't want you people talking about other ideas related to this article.

Consistency?

> I (Multics) would like to talk about how regulating industries like medicine prevents Google and others from investing in them and potentially benefiting society.

I think you understand my position. Except, what I said was framed in the context of the parent comment. And it was an assertion, not a request.

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

#90

Post by mcculley »

rayiner wrote: post #86
laurenstill wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't worry about their data privacy, or else they wouldn't be on FB, take those buzzfeed quizzes, etc. The P in HIPAA stands for Portability. At it's heart, the act was supposed to guarantee patients have access to their health information, not bring health data liquidity to it's knees. This is Jonathan Bush, of Athena, testifying (read: ranting) a couple weeks ago about regulations and innovation in hea…

Frankly I'm okay with health data being illiquid. Everyone should be absolutely terrified of this data getting into the hands of the same people that try to predict if you are pregnant to sell you crap, or use your credit history or Facebook posts to deny you a job. The future in that direction is "Google Gattaca."

I'm not. The illiquidity is why different healthcare specialists can't share data about me without resorting to a ten finger interface that leads to transcription errors. I want my general practitioner and my spine specialist to be using the same database for records, test, and scans. I'm okay with being embarrassed if it means living longer and better.
Post reply on HN