Slashdot Mirror
Stimulus Avoids Serious Solutions For Health IT
ivaldes3 writes in to note his post up on Linux Medical News, pointing out the severe shortcomings of the Health IT provisions of the just-passed stimulus bill. "The government has authorized enough money to purchase EMR freedom for the nation. Instead the government appears set to double down on proprietary lock-down. The government currently appears poised to purchase serfdom instead of freedom and performance for patients, practitioners and the nation. An intellectual and financial servitude to proprietary EMR companies for little or no gain. A truly bad bargain."
Healthcare is dominated by application vendors who each make their own megaplatform for healthcare records. Cerner, Meditech, Siemens, et al. are all trying to keep as much of their system closed as possible, and aren't particularly interested in opening it up to third party systems. They don't particularly want open interfaces, their goal is to keep their customer locked in as much as possible.
So the healthcare IT companies get what they want, i.e. a bigger push for electronic records, selling the software they already have.
The stimulas package isn't going to add an open spec for EMR because nobody in the healthcare industry is bringing it up that they want one.
This article is a poorly written, useless rant. It contains little information about what pisses the writer off, and even less about what should be done instead. I'd love to read a thoughtful, informative article about the subject, since I've recently started an IT job in the health care field, but this isn't it. Any suggestions?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
No, the problem lies with the lack of availability of credit and the lack of consumer demand. The primary direct cause of that may have been actions in and affecting the financial services industry including the banks, but that doesn't mean that the most effective way of dealing with it is exclusively with policies directed at that industry, in the same way that bad diet and inadequate exercise may be the principal cause of a heart attack, but the best response to a heart attack may not be limited to diet and exercise changes.
Liberals, in fact, were not generally complaining about that. Liberals were complaining that Iraq (not "invading Iraq") had nothing to do with 9/11 (not "the war on terror") and that invading Iraq was directly counterproductive in (not "had nothing to do with") the war against the people who had actually attacked the United States on 9/11, and that contributed to producing more people who would be more easily recruitable by groups wanting to attack the United States through terrorism.
The first half relates to the justification, the second to utility. Confusing different parts of two distinct-though-related criticisms of the invasion of Iraq misses the point of both criticisms rather completely.
That doesn't make sense. The economy is broken. Liberals are proposing a particular way of fixing it that, they argue, apply both to the immediate problem and the longer-term structural problems that make problems like the immediate one both more likely to occur and more damaging to individual citizens when they occur. As you note, what they are doing is directed at the economy, which is where you admit the problem is, not at some unrelated thing. Now, you might argue that the proposals are not directed well to fix the problems in the economy, which would be a legitimate point to debate, but you fail to make that argument, instead making an argument by analogy (though, as noted, a poorly-crafted analogy that reveals poor understanding both of the immediate situation and the one to which an analogy is drawn) that seems to rely on the idea that it is not directed at principal immediate cause of the problem, rather than arguing that it is ineffective at solving the problem. But being effective at addressing a set of undesirable conditions is logically orthogonal to being directed at the events and conditions which contributed to the development of those conditions.