Slashdot Mirror
Google Looking To Define a Healthy Human
rtoz writes: Google's moonshot research division, "Google X," has started "Baseline Study," a project designed to collect anonymous genetic and molecular information from 175 people (and later thousands more) to create a complete picture of what a healthy human being should be. The blueprint will help researchers detect health problems such as heart disease and cancer far earlier, focusing medicine on prevention rather than treatment. According to Google, the information from Baseline will be anonymous, and its use will be limited to medical and health purposes. Data won't be shared with insurance companies.
The baseline healthy person is of mixed race, has 1.93 arms and 2.1 children, and is a hermaphrodite.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Given the revelations from Snowden I see no reason to trust Google or any other large company. -Fixed that for you.
"Oh that promise to not sell the information? Well, we screwed up and sold it all for $10 Billion. Pay a fine of $10 Million? Sure, that's fair."
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
...the initiative, led by Khan Noonien Singh, looks to improve the quality of life and longevity, strength, and memory for all humans, over the entire planet. On the goals of his project, Khan replied, "Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity, but improve man and you gain a thousandfold."
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Oh wait, it's the detestable Democrats lying. How about that? What a fucking surprise! Lying Democrats? Who could believe this?
Oh course they are trying now to say that the subsidy afforded to states to setup exchanges and withheld from those who do not was a typo. Get that? 1000s of pages and they made a typo. This of course due to a court ruling that says that those who signed up via the federal exchange cannot get subsidies because of - get this - the wording in the legislation - has to stand.
Which of course will bankrupt Obamacare in short order. But they can't have that, so you see Democrat stooges saying things like "“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it,” Gruber told The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn. “But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.”
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-says
And here we have the same dirtbag earlier saying;
"But I don't know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens."
Does that sound like a speak-o to you? Sounds like a two faced lying looter to me.
You know damned well it isn't. These fucksticks are lying through their teeth.
But hey, who gives a fuck, the law is what the preznit says it is, he is our lord and our king! He will save us from those rich evil Republicans who seek only to make all poor people sick and die.
Right?
So who out there has even a smidgen of intellectual honesty? Lying administration. Lying cocksuckers in congress. Lying apparatchiks to the left and to the right. All designed to bring tyranny upon our land, to enslave the people and to force state run healthcare down our throats. All this for power.
You want a law? Write it to say what you want and sell that to the people honestly and with true words. That is too much to ask?
But we know what all you progressive assholes will say, anything to support the regime and to put those evil constitution loving bastards in their place.
I hate you stupid fucks more and more each day.
As someone with a science background, I always find it shocking how much random guesswork goes on in medicine. You'd think that we could take a person in, take a bunch of different samples for analysis, test their DNA, run a full body scan, and just find anything that wasn't working the way it should. Ideally, I think our goal should be to be able to find illness even when the patient doesn't know it's there.
It'd be great, for example, if you could go to the doctor and get a battery of tests, and have him say, "Hey, so you've been feeling a bit tired recently, right?"
The patient says, "Yeah, I guess I haven't been sleeping well, and..."
And the doctor interrupts, "Nope. I'm pretty sure the problem is that you haven't been eating enough [whatever]. It's causing too much of [something] in your system, which is causing you to be lethargic."
I would imagine that part of the problem is that you can't establish what constitutes a problematic variance from "normal" until you establish what is an acceptable variance from "normal". You can't establish what constitutes an acceptable variance from "normal" until you have some baseline of "normal".
Lol, naivete can be funny.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.
Lol, naivete can be funny.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.
You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.
Some examples:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/g...
A pastor in Iowa, who is covered under ObamaCare, decried “there’s no compassion in the Affordable Care Act,” after he was told just minutes before receiving life-saving chemo that his treatments would not be covered. The pastor’s family has since emptied their savings account and are now $50,000 in debt.
A February 4 Los Angeles Times article detailed the story of California resident Danielle Nelson who was promised by Anthem Blue cross that her oncologists would be covered in her new policy. Diagnosed with non-Hogkins lymphoma last year, a lump was found near her jaw in January. But when she went to her oncologist’s office, the Times reported she “promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.” Nelson told the Times: “I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night, I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob...
The Affordable Care Act is turning out to be less than affordable for some consumers.
That’s because many of the plans carry huge deductibles, creating potential financial problems for middle-class consumers. Some “bronze”-level plans, the lowest level of coverage, carry deductibles as high as $12,700 per year for a family of four... The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is a whopping $5,081 per year, according to research provided to CBS MoneyWatch from HealthPocket, a technology company that ranks health care plans.
What’s worse, that represents an increase of 40 percent from the average deductible for an individually purchased plan before the federal health care overhaul, according to The Wall Street Journal.
... and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Things will get worse as the delayed provisions start to kick in.
That said, I don't think the concept of single-payer healthcare is a bad one; however I do not believe the current implementation is an effective system that's not designed to bilk average Americans out of money for the benefit of insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I don't think the concept of single-payer healthcare is a bad one; however I do not believe the current implementation is an effective system that's not designed to bilk average Americans out of money for the benefit of insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them.
Glad to hear you support a single-payer system. However, the "current implementation" of the ACA is not a single-payer system. It is a government-managed marketplace, with private insurance companies providing the coverage.
If the ACA truly were a single-payer system (like Medicare is) it would be far more effective at protecting average Americans from being bilked by "insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.