Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5319)	3/14/2008 6:36:45 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

At a bare minimum your officemates, network administrator and IT department will have information about you that you might not have wanted to share. Ah, the rub. Using the company computer for personals business. Tsk, tsk. <g>

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5319)	12/30/2008 3:02:05 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Instead Of Centralized Healthcare Records, Why Not Let People Store And Manage Their Own? from the now-there's-an-idea dept Last month, we talked about the balancing act between making your medical records more accessible to health professionals, but at the same time keeping them private. There are many attempts at making medical records electronic and centralizing them -- which is great for medical professionals to be able to access when needed, but raises questions about how secure they really are. At the other end of the spectrum, though, is the idea of more distributed health records. For example, it's increasingly popular for people to create and store their own personal medical records, which they can let a medical professional access with permission, but which also lets the person have much more control over the records. There's obviously some concern about the idea of giving too much control to the individual, but it seems like perhaps there's a better middle ground here where individuals have more control both over what's available in their medical records and who can access them, rather than trusting the entire operation to the healthcare industry. If patients could not only manage their own records (with certain limitations), but also be kept aware of who is accessing their records, there's a lower probability of misuse. Similar to the ideas of sousveillance or David Brin's Transparent Society, giving more control to end users to watch who's watching their info could prevent some of the worst abuses of electronically available health records. techdirt.com what your medical records say about you by chris - Jan 8th, 2007 @ 2:13pm there was an episode of "seinfeld" where elaine was labeled as a difficult patient in her medical records and the staff at her doctor's office was very dismissive of her. she tried to get the medical records to see what was recorded in them by impersonating a nurse. she fialed and then had to enlist kramer's help as well. both attempts fail and the results are recorded in her and kramer's medical records. elaine eventually changes doctors, but her record of difficulties follows her with her altered medical records. this is also an issue with military medical records. a record of your vaccines is kept in a file as part of your medical records to show what vaccines you have received (typhoid, yellow fever, small pox, plague 1,2,3) if you have a problem of some sort with a medic, those records will often disappear and you will have to repeat the entire battery of injections again and again. in vietnam, an annotaion of "FWC" on your medical records (F**cked With Corpsman) meant difficulty at every interraction with medical staff. it was something akin to the scarlett letter, as medical screenings were often critical to the process of changing duty stations and trasitioning out of the military. techdirt.com