When you fuck up in health, people can die. Regulation exists for a reason.
Less regulation with respect to healthcare data would probably save lives, but increase discrimination.
Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
11–20 of 149 posts
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#12When you fuck up in health, people can die. Regulation exists for a reason.
Less regulation with respect to healthcare data would probably save lives, but increase discrimination.
As long as the laws continue to adapt in order to protect people from discrimination, we are on the right track.
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#13Healthcare 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…
"Heavy regulation" doesn't just include HIPAA.
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#14Basically, 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.
Interesting. Is that an absolute position, or would you be more willing if the benefits (longevity, better health) were more apparent?
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#15When you fuck up in health, people can die. Regulation exists for a reason.
Yes, because we all know heavily regulated VA hospitals haven't killed anyone.
Oh wait.
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#16When you fuck up in health, people can die. Regulation exists for a reason.
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.
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#17Earlier 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.
Interesting. Is that an absolute position, or would you be more willing if the benefits (longevity, better health) were more apparent?
I highly doubt any data about my health could give me enough benefit to warrant such an intimate invasion of my privacy.
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#18Healthcare 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…
"Heavy regulation" doesn't just include HIPAA.
True, but that was the one specifically mentioned in the article so I figured I'd address it.
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Is that an absolute position, or would you be more willing if the benefits (longevity, better health) were more apparent?
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?
Re: Google Co-Founders on Healthcare: “Thanks, But No Thanks”
#20didn't G+ out some transgender people? http://www.zdnet.com/google-outed-me-7000025416/ now imagine the same with Google having access to all medical records. regulation around this exists for a very, very good reason.
By "outed", G+ exposed the user's public name to someone, connecting two public pieces of the user's data, that the user intended to keep separate.
It was a poor UI experience, but it wasn't a private-data leak.