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

141–149 of 149 posts

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

#141

Post by balls187 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #31
balls187 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Wait, isn't Google a US company?

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

#142

Post by duaneb »

_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?

Anonymized data is a myth.

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

#143

Post by drcode »

samirmenon wrote: post #126
drcode wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with HIPAA is that it's supposed to look after my interests as a patient, but if I feel that it isn't, there's no way for me to opt out of it.

Are you sure? I've seen waivers and "individual consent" forms that can supposedly release your health records.

I should have been more clear- What I mean is, I can't sign a form saying "I hereby waive all my HIPAA protections". All I can do is sign a form saying "I allow entity X to get access to my records", but there is no provision for a global, generalized waiver. (Of course if I signed a document waiving all protections I'd also want that document to contain reference to an alternative set of protections.)

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

#144

Post by laurenstill »

rayiner wrote: post #124
fixermark wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems almost like the real issue is the insurance schema that makes medical care inaccessible without third-party money. This notion suggests that the right place to start the kind of big-data medical disruption that could work would be a nation with a weaker or nonexistent medical insurance framework.

It's not just insurance. Companies these days are using credit history as a reason to deny people employment. The credit card companies will hand out this information to almost anyone. Imagine what these folks will do with medical data.

...and the hospitals are using credit card data in their population management models. Oh, you've stopped by the liquor store 3 times this week and now presenting with pancreatitis? Sorry, you are now in our "at risk" billing class.

Just cause I'm feeling particularly paranoid today.

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

#146

Post by mcculley »

fixermark wrote: post #121
mcculley wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like that as well, but do you seriously think that would work for most people? Would you want your less technical loved ones to be responsible for the physical security of their data and carry it with them at all times?

I think that's over-thinking it. Medical alert bracelets already exist; I can't imagine it'd be too much challenge to embed a ruggedized USB stick in one, and people generally don't worry about less technical people failing to remember to wear their bracelet.

That's a really good point. It wouldn't take much more miniaturization than what we already have to put that in an earring or something else people wouldn't mind having all the time.

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

#147

Post by BrokenEnso »

mcculley wrote: post #116
BrokenEnso wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like for that database to be something that I control. This is, something that I carry with with me, like a usb stick; and that I have the software/tools to view it. Then I could actually take read though any notes and maybe take a more active role in my health.

I would like that as well, but do you seriously think that would work for most people? Would you want your less technical loved ones to be responsible for the physical security of their data and carry it with them at all times?

It wouldn't be that much more different then paper medical records. Sure it would enable some interesting attack vectors, but I don't see that to be a compelling reason to not do it. It also wouldn't have to be a mandatory thing. People that are comfortable with it can use it, and those that aren't don't have to. Much like banks, there were (are) lots of people that don't trust back and choose not to use them. The same would be true for something like this.

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

#148

Post by aianus »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #132
aianus wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? I want to see my results. They make it clear it's not an exact science and they link to the relevant studies so you can make your own decisions. Why should the FDA prevent them from sharing that information with me? I'm not even American!

Did you read my comment? It wasn't about the results. You want your results - you got them. It was that they were providing recommendations based on the results which haven't been verified as accurate by anyone but 23andme.

AFAIK they're not showing health results at all anymore because of the FDA decision.

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

#149

Post by jamra »

vertex-four wrote: post #75
jamra wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the laws continue to adapt in order to protect people from discrimination, we are on the right track.

This is the USA, it's about 40-50 years behind even my country (the UK) on discrimination-related law and practice, and law related to societal issues in general. One could argue that this is just the set of trade-offs that the US has made for itself, but the real-world results are looking grim.

Obama has done great things with healthcare. If Congress was not so deadlocked, he would have done more. So far, he got rid of the denial of service due to preexisting conditions. He started a government run program, which will greatly reduce prices in the long term.

HIPAA laws protect patient rights very well. I think we are on the right track.

Post reply on HN