GreekChat.com Forums
Page 4 of 44 123 4 567814 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=103175)

ASTalumna06 02-17-2009 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1780683)
I can't find a polite way to tell deepimpact to shut up.

ASTalumna did a pretty good job. :)
Thank you.

Seriously, stop hateratin', people.

:D

UGAalum94 02-17-2009 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1780565)
Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping? If so, she should know that that's something many people in the medical community have been wanting for quite a long time. It's not only an efficiency/money saving issue, but it's a huge safety issue as well. Do you realize that right now, people can go from hospital to hospital with no trace of which drugs they may be taking or which procedures and conditions they've had in the past? It's a great way to enable prescription drug abuse. Furthermore, if you were taken to the ER, unconscious, the medical team these days might have no idea which medications you were taking, which drugs you might be allergic to, whether you've had your spleen removed, etc. By keeping medical records in one database, doctors attending to you whereever you may be know your medical history, which just might save your life. Of course, there are security issues that need to be addressed with such a system (we don't want people hacking into it), but overall the idea is sound, I think.
The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

deepimpact2 02-17-2009 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1780683)
I can't find a polite way to tell deepimpact to shut up.

ASTalumna did a pretty good job. :)
What would be the point of telling me? It won't work. I have just as much right to post here as you. :D


And for the record, ASTalumna hasn't done a good job on anything besides wasting posts to dicuss how annoying it is to him/her when people use the word hateration. (As if someone is supposed to actually CARE that hateration is annoying to him/her)

deepimpact2 02-17-2009 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 1780715)
Thank you.

Seriously, stop hateratin', people.

:D
WOW for someone who finds it "annoying" you sure were quick to use it...

agzg 02-17-2009 10:52 PM
I hope you realize that at least three people's signatures pertain to you, deepimpact2. And by three people, I mean THREE POSTERS IN THIS THREAD ALONE.

PeppyGPhiB 02-17-2009 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1780747)
The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.
Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.

agzg 02-17-2009 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1780747)
The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.
I can see both sides of the coin.

It would be good on a safety level. Bad on a privacy level. If it gets serious play in these talks, legislators are going to have to make a hard and fast decision on which is more important. Then supreme court justices will have to do the same.

I don't think we'll be nationalizing health care any time soon, though. I think the goal right now is ensuring everyone has access to some sort of health care.

DaemonSeid 02-17-2009 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1780782)
Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.
Seeing and dealing with some of the data leak issues even coming from the VA...I am sure, to a point we can patch a few things but most of it is up to the actual folks who deal with data systems.

problem is, of course keeping up with hackers who keep trying to gain access and making sure that IT departments maintain adequate security.

Some of the problems I face in my department is that IT is so busy chasing it's own tail that they wind up locking out the wrong people who need access.

heh...

AKA_Monet 02-17-2009 11:07 PM
About the health medical records alone: Google Health has their site up... Pretty intense, and has all the info available. Not sure how your physicians will have access to it without their consent. Moreover, the folks that sat on the advisory board are some real "big wigs" in healthcare... So, they have a nice little program on their hands. IDK if I trust Google with all my health information, though... I did not include ALL of it, like my entire vax schedule.

ASTalumna06 02-17-2009 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1780778)
And for the record, ASTalumna hasn't done a good job on anything besides wasting posts to dicuss how annoying it is to him/her when people use the word hateration. (As if someone is supposed to actually CARE that hateration is annoying to him/her)
Calm yourself. And before trying to insult me, you should read my username. Because if you did, and you knew what an ALUMNA was, you would realize that I'm a her.

UGAalum94 02-17-2009 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1780782)
Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.
I didn't mean to imply that I read anything that you need to. I just think that having one unified database will essentially mean that anyone who has access now would have access to everything. It's also difficult to imagine successfully locking the folks who control payment in the present system out.

It's hard to see the database leading to the benefits that it could provide while at the same time having the safeguards in privacy that most of us would be comfortable with. Either it's something that provides total access to your complete history to anyone who might need it, even in an emergency when you couldn't give consent, OR it's limited and protected in access and can't deliver its complete promise.

DrPhil 02-17-2009 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB
Did he have to issue an executive order to get that site done?
Maybe to the technology task force. :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1780778)
What would be the point of telling me?
I have some better rhetoricals.

DGTess 02-18-2009 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1780747)
The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.
And the government deciding what's "meaningful" -- "The bill indicates that grants will go to establishments that show "meaningful use" of health IT, a somewhat vague description that analysts say could persuade physicians to hold off on upgrading their records." (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6061672.html)

recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.

DaemonSeid 02-18-2009 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 1780814)
And the government deciding what's "meaningful" -- "The bill indicates that grants will go to establishments that show "meaningful use" of health IT, a somewhat vague description that analysts say could persuade physicians to hold off on upgrading their records." (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6061672.html)

recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.
oh...you sound like that this is something new....LOL

DrPhil 02-18-2009 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 1780814)
recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.
Eh...no one absorbs instantaneously even if they think they do. :)

Anyway, you always have to read all of the information provided. Obviously reading the full bill would give you a direct and detailed reference as with reading the original document for anything. However, 5% or less of the American population will be reading the full bill, hence the website. There is more to the website than the bar chart and perhaps more details on specific programs under the categories will be released as details become available.

We have to have high expectations but realistic expectations.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 AM.
Page 4 of 44 123 4 567814 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.