<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_21_2149258</id>
	<title>Medical Professionals Aren't Leaping For E-Medicine</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269168000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Despite all the stimulus money being directed toward developing electronic medical records, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1973287,00.html">surprisingly few doctors, hospitals and insurers are using Google Health</a> and other sites like it. One reason, Newsweek suggests, may be that Web-based personal-health records like the ones being compiled on Google Health don't appear to be covered under HIPAA, which requires that health care providers and health plans protect patient confidentiality. 'We don't connect that information to other aspects of Google,' explains Dr. Roni Zeiger, product manager for Google Health. Still, the federal government is in the process of drafting privacy recommendations that would apply to Google Health, as well as the makers of consumer apps that perform tasks like monitoring blood pressure."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Despite all the stimulus money being directed toward developing electronic medical records , surprisingly few doctors , hospitals and insurers are using Google Health and other sites like it .
One reason , Newsweek suggests , may be that Web-based personal-health records like the ones being compiled on Google Health do n't appear to be covered under HIPAA , which requires that health care providers and health plans protect patient confidentiality .
'We do n't connect that information to other aspects of Google, ' explains Dr. Roni Zeiger , product manager for Google Health .
Still , the federal government is in the process of drafting privacy recommendations that would apply to Google Health , as well as the makers of consumer apps that perform tasks like monitoring blood pressure .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Despite all the stimulus money being directed toward developing electronic medical records, surprisingly few doctors, hospitals and insurers are using Google Health and other sites like it.
One reason, Newsweek suggests, may be that Web-based personal-health records like the ones being compiled on Google Health don't appear to be covered under HIPAA, which requires that health care providers and health plans protect patient confidentiality.
'We don't connect that information to other aspects of Google,' explains Dr. Roni Zeiger, product manager for Google Health.
Still, the federal government is in the process of drafting privacy recommendations that would apply to Google Health, as well as the makers of consumer apps that perform tasks like monitoring blood pressure.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31565318</id>
	<title>Not surprising...</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1269261900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea why the summary says "surprisingly few" are using this.  People don't want it, even the people who don't normally realize how much data they're giving away don't want this.  It's not easy for the medical profession to use and it doesn't really provide anything of great value to the patients either.  First, try getting your medical records from a doctor or dentist some time-- every doctor I've ever talked to about it (I move a lot) always gives me a hard time when I request copies of everything.  It's ridiculous..  We all know those are "our" records, but doctors are required to keep them for insane periods of time (at least they were in the 80s and 90s here in the USA) even after no longer seeing patients and that responsibility seems to make doctors believe the records are theirs.  Now, the e-records or whatever would actually make that easier, but I've yet to see a system that doesn't require manual data entry, which is often slower than the pen and paper alternative, especially in a busy office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea why the summary says " surprisingly few " are using this .
People do n't want it , even the people who do n't normally realize how much data they 're giving away do n't want this .
It 's not easy for the medical profession to use and it does n't really provide anything of great value to the patients either .
First , try getting your medical records from a doctor or dentist some time-- every doctor I 've ever talked to about it ( I move a lot ) always gives me a hard time when I request copies of everything .
It 's ridiculous.. We all know those are " our " records , but doctors are required to keep them for insane periods of time ( at least they were in the 80s and 90s here in the USA ) even after no longer seeing patients and that responsibility seems to make doctors believe the records are theirs .
Now , the e-records or whatever would actually make that easier , but I 've yet to see a system that does n't require manual data entry , which is often slower than the pen and paper alternative , especially in a busy office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea why the summary says "surprisingly few" are using this.
People don't want it, even the people who don't normally realize how much data they're giving away don't want this.
It's not easy for the medical profession to use and it doesn't really provide anything of great value to the patients either.
First, try getting your medical records from a doctor or dentist some time-- every doctor I've ever talked to about it (I move a lot) always gives me a hard time when I request copies of everything.
It's ridiculous..  We all know those are "our" records, but doctors are required to keep them for insane periods of time (at least they were in the 80s and 90s here in the USA) even after no longer seeing patients and that responsibility seems to make doctors believe the records are theirs.
Now, the e-records or whatever would actually make that easier, but I've yet to see a system that doesn't require manual data entry, which is often slower than the pen and paper alternative, especially in a busy office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561192</id>
	<title>Chinese stealing American medical data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269172800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will they go about ensuring that the Chinese don't steal American medical data? I mean, we've already seen that they have some pretty significant problems with the Chinese government getting access to what should be private information hosted by Google.</p><p>I'd like to know some very techincally-specific details about how they're ensuring this sort of a breach can never happen. For instance, I'd need to know that they're using OpenBSD rather than Linux on their various servers before I'd ever consent to my information going to them. I'd need to know that they're not messing around with NoSQL databases or anything insecure like that. I'd need to know that they're using OpenBSD's secure Apache HTTP daemon. I'd want to know about the encryption they're using to protect the data. I'd like to know where the data centers are located. We need these sort of details if they're getting into this line of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will they go about ensuring that the Chinese do n't steal American medical data ?
I mean , we 've already seen that they have some pretty significant problems with the Chinese government getting access to what should be private information hosted by Google.I 'd like to know some very techincally-specific details about how they 're ensuring this sort of a breach can never happen .
For instance , I 'd need to know that they 're using OpenBSD rather than Linux on their various servers before I 'd ever consent to my information going to them .
I 'd need to know that they 're not messing around with NoSQL databases or anything insecure like that .
I 'd need to know that they 're using OpenBSD 's secure Apache HTTP daemon .
I 'd want to know about the encryption they 're using to protect the data .
I 'd like to know where the data centers are located .
We need these sort of details if they 're getting into this line of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will they go about ensuring that the Chinese don't steal American medical data?
I mean, we've already seen that they have some pretty significant problems with the Chinese government getting access to what should be private information hosted by Google.I'd like to know some very techincally-specific details about how they're ensuring this sort of a breach can never happen.
For instance, I'd need to know that they're using OpenBSD rather than Linux on their various servers before I'd ever consent to my information going to them.
I'd need to know that they're not messing around with NoSQL databases or anything insecure like that.
I'd need to know that they're using OpenBSD's secure Apache HTTP daemon.
I'd want to know about the encryption they're using to protect the data.
I'd like to know where the data centers are located.
We need these sort of details if they're getting into this line of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561406</id>
	<title>More costs than you would think!</title>
	<author>Old Flatulent 1</author>
	<datestamp>1269175020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reality of going to an all digital system is not as clear cut as many on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would believe. Vancouver Island Canada has to a large extent undergone a huge change over to E-film and E-records, and has perhaps the most advanced systems around. The costs of making all this work has not been reflected in reduced numbers of staff needed to handle data instead of paper.<p>There still are large amounts of paper necessary for day to day operations and getting Doctors and clinics to effectively use secure online services has been nothing short of a nightmare. It costs more to do day to day operations and many say they would find going back to simple reliable terminal based systems more efficient and cost effective! The costs of supporting, securing and system training for PC based software is over the top and is a tremendous burden on any essential service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality of going to an all digital system is not as clear cut as many on / .
would believe .
Vancouver Island Canada has to a large extent undergone a huge change over to E-film and E-records , and has perhaps the most advanced systems around .
The costs of making all this work has not been reflected in reduced numbers of staff needed to handle data instead of paper.There still are large amounts of paper necessary for day to day operations and getting Doctors and clinics to effectively use secure online services has been nothing short of a nightmare .
It costs more to do day to day operations and many say they would find going back to simple reliable terminal based systems more efficient and cost effective !
The costs of supporting , securing and system training for PC based software is over the top and is a tremendous burden on any essential service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality of going to an all digital system is not as clear cut as many on /.
would believe.
Vancouver Island Canada has to a large extent undergone a huge change over to E-film and E-records, and has perhaps the most advanced systems around.
The costs of making all this work has not been reflected in reduced numbers of staff needed to handle data instead of paper.There still are large amounts of paper necessary for day to day operations and getting Doctors and clinics to effectively use secure online services has been nothing short of a nightmare.
It costs more to do day to day operations and many say they would find going back to simple reliable terminal based systems more efficient and cost effective!
The costs of supporting, securing and system training for PC based software is over the top and is a tremendous burden on any essential service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561346</id>
	<title>Re:I trust no one with my health records</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269174480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So would you trust an insurance company or wherever your files are stored, maintained and secured by one or two persons, or google who have millions of servers? If I would know that my doctor can keep my files safe and easily accessible to me from another location, then sure, let them stay there, but Google is everywhere, it's where I live, and where I go for vacation in summer or winter, my doctor or insurance firm isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So would you trust an insurance company or wherever your files are stored , maintained and secured by one or two persons , or google who have millions of servers ?
If I would know that my doctor can keep my files safe and easily accessible to me from another location , then sure , let them stay there , but Google is everywhere , it 's where I live , and where I go for vacation in summer or winter , my doctor or insurance firm is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So would you trust an insurance company or wherever your files are stored, maintained and secured by one or two persons, or google who have millions of servers?
If I would know that my doctor can keep my files safe and easily accessible to me from another location, then sure, let them stay there, but Google is everywhere, it's where I live, and where I go for vacation in summer or winter, my doctor or insurance firm isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561246</id>
	<title>The real problem with centralized records</title>
	<author>slackergod</author>
	<datestamp>1269173160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a company that produces various types of medical records management software (credentials management, PHI document exchange, EMR); and I've spent a lot of time talking to a number of doctors, both tech-saavy and not so much. That disclaimed...</p><p>Let me tell you what the key problem is with electronic medical records: they are legally the property of the patient, but no doctor can (or will) trust the important details of such records unless they come from another doctor, and have a verifiable history leading back to that doctor. Not that they don't believe the part that lists a patient's allergies, but when the medical record says the patient has a debilitating disease which *requires* they be given morphine and lots of it, the doctor has to be able to verify the patient didn't just fake a record for a quick drug fix.</p><p>This leads to an interesting state electronically: if data records are to be centralized, a public key system must be set up, tied to each doctor, allowing them to both contribute &amp; authenticate records, and allowing the patient to do the same (but the patient contributions will have to remain "untrusted" medically). You can have centralization without a public key system, but then you're just trusting the gatekeeper to never mess up, get hacked, or paid off. And even if you'd set up such a system which you know (as a programmer/cryptographer) can be made to work... you have to get the doctors to trust it as well; as given how seriously most of them take the responsibility to safeguard their patient's records, that's a hard sell even to a tech-saavy doctor.</p><p>Which is why the only major movement we've had in adoption of electronic records has been a decentralized one... doctors are converting their offices to use electronic systems internally, exchange information electronically; but always records are transmitted in a p2p fashion (whether by email, fax, courier, etc); allowing the receiving doctor to trust the veracity of the information (at least as far as they trust the originating doctor); without requiring them to trust the patient.</p><p>Google Health is merely one of the most prominent "my PHR online" projects out there, but the problem they are faced with solving is not merely legal or luddite based, but a issue of cryptographic trust in it's truest sense.</p><p>And that's not to mention that centralization of medical records creates a much more attractive point of failure for all kinds of things (such identity theft, if merely for the purposes of using some else's insurance),<br>and even if a public key system is implemented, the doctor (and staff) are handing off part of their trust to a central database... and given the mess of outdated information the NPI registry contains, they are loath to believe in such a system.</p><p>disclaimer: my company has a number of ongoing projects in this field, but my assessment here is pretty well unbiased architecture and adoption-wise as far as I know, we have a number of pokers in the fire fitting most of the above scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a company that produces various types of medical records management software ( credentials management , PHI document exchange , EMR ) ; and I 've spent a lot of time talking to a number of doctors , both tech-saavy and not so much .
That disclaimed...Let me tell you what the key problem is with electronic medical records : they are legally the property of the patient , but no doctor can ( or will ) trust the important details of such records unless they come from another doctor , and have a verifiable history leading back to that doctor .
Not that they do n't believe the part that lists a patient 's allergies , but when the medical record says the patient has a debilitating disease which * requires * they be given morphine and lots of it , the doctor has to be able to verify the patient did n't just fake a record for a quick drug fix.This leads to an interesting state electronically : if data records are to be centralized , a public key system must be set up , tied to each doctor , allowing them to both contribute &amp; authenticate records , and allowing the patient to do the same ( but the patient contributions will have to remain " untrusted " medically ) .
You can have centralization without a public key system , but then you 're just trusting the gatekeeper to never mess up , get hacked , or paid off .
And even if you 'd set up such a system which you know ( as a programmer/cryptographer ) can be made to work... you have to get the doctors to trust it as well ; as given how seriously most of them take the responsibility to safeguard their patient 's records , that 's a hard sell even to a tech-saavy doctor.Which is why the only major movement we 've had in adoption of electronic records has been a decentralized one... doctors are converting their offices to use electronic systems internally , exchange information electronically ; but always records are transmitted in a p2p fashion ( whether by email , fax , courier , etc ) ; allowing the receiving doctor to trust the veracity of the information ( at least as far as they trust the originating doctor ) ; without requiring them to trust the patient.Google Health is merely one of the most prominent " my PHR online " projects out there , but the problem they are faced with solving is not merely legal or luddite based , but a issue of cryptographic trust in it 's truest sense.And that 's not to mention that centralization of medical records creates a much more attractive point of failure for all kinds of things ( such identity theft , if merely for the purposes of using some else 's insurance ) ,and even if a public key system is implemented , the doctor ( and staff ) are handing off part of their trust to a central database... and given the mess of outdated information the NPI registry contains , they are loath to believe in such a system.disclaimer : my company has a number of ongoing projects in this field , but my assessment here is pretty well unbiased architecture and adoption-wise as far as I know , we have a number of pokers in the fire fitting most of the above scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a company that produces various types of medical records management software (credentials management, PHI document exchange, EMR); and I've spent a lot of time talking to a number of doctors, both tech-saavy and not so much.
That disclaimed...Let me tell you what the key problem is with electronic medical records: they are legally the property of the patient, but no doctor can (or will) trust the important details of such records unless they come from another doctor, and have a verifiable history leading back to that doctor.
Not that they don't believe the part that lists a patient's allergies, but when the medical record says the patient has a debilitating disease which *requires* they be given morphine and lots of it, the doctor has to be able to verify the patient didn't just fake a record for a quick drug fix.This leads to an interesting state electronically: if data records are to be centralized, a public key system must be set up, tied to each doctor, allowing them to both contribute &amp; authenticate records, and allowing the patient to do the same (but the patient contributions will have to remain "untrusted" medically).
You can have centralization without a public key system, but then you're just trusting the gatekeeper to never mess up, get hacked, or paid off.
And even if you'd set up such a system which you know (as a programmer/cryptographer) can be made to work... you have to get the doctors to trust it as well; as given how seriously most of them take the responsibility to safeguard their patient's records, that's a hard sell even to a tech-saavy doctor.Which is why the only major movement we've had in adoption of electronic records has been a decentralized one... doctors are converting their offices to use electronic systems internally, exchange information electronically; but always records are transmitted in a p2p fashion (whether by email, fax, courier, etc); allowing the receiving doctor to trust the veracity of the information (at least as far as they trust the originating doctor); without requiring them to trust the patient.Google Health is merely one of the most prominent "my PHR online" projects out there, but the problem they are faced with solving is not merely legal or luddite based, but a issue of cryptographic trust in it's truest sense.And that's not to mention that centralization of medical records creates a much more attractive point of failure for all kinds of things (such identity theft, if merely for the purposes of using some else's insurance),and even if a public key system is implemented, the doctor (and staff) are handing off part of their trust to a central database... and given the mess of outdated information the NPI registry contains, they are loath to believe in such a system.disclaimer: my company has a number of ongoing projects in this field, but my assessment here is pretty well unbiased architecture and adoption-wise as far as I know, we have a number of pokers in the fire fitting most of the above scenarios.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561804</id>
	<title>Can you waive liability?</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1269177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me there are some rights you shouldn't be able to waive in any agreements.  A bit of (ironic) Googling turned up an article saying that <a href="http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi\_0199-7114984/Gross-negligence-waivers-are-unenforceable.html" title="ecnext.com">waiving rights to gross negligence is unenforceable in California.</a> [ecnext.com]

<br> <br>
FTA:<p><div class="quote"><p>California defines gross negligence as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct." In contrast, ordinary negligence consists of a "failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm."
<br> <br>
The "traditional skepticism" concerning agreements to release liability for future torts is expressed, the court said, in a California statute providing that all contracts with the purpose of exempting anyone from their "own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."</p></div><p>I'd be interested if a lawyer (or other slashdotter) knew of a case where someone was denied remedy in a negligence case because they waived liability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me there are some rights you should n't be able to waive in any agreements .
A bit of ( ironic ) Googling turned up an article saying that waiving rights to gross negligence is unenforceable in California .
[ ecnext.com ] FTA : California defines gross negligence as either a " want of even scant care " or " an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct .
" In contrast , ordinary negligence consists of a " failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm .
" The " traditional skepticism " concerning agreements to release liability for future torts is expressed , the court said , in a California statute providing that all contracts with the purpose of exempting anyone from their " own fraud , or willful injury to the person or property of another , or violation of law , whether willful or negligent , are against the policy of the law .
" I 'd be interested if a lawyer ( or other slashdotter ) knew of a case where someone was denied remedy in a negligence case because they waived liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me there are some rights you shouldn't be able to waive in any agreements.
A bit of (ironic) Googling turned up an article saying that waiving rights to gross negligence is unenforceable in California.
[ecnext.com]

 
FTA:California defines gross negligence as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.
" In contrast, ordinary negligence consists of a "failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm.
"
 
The "traditional skepticism" concerning agreements to release liability for future torts is expressed, the court said, in a California statute providing that all contracts with the purpose of exempting anyone from their "own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.
"I'd be interested if a lawyer (or other slashdotter) knew of a case where someone was denied remedy in a negligence case because they waived liability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561270</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1269173520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I don't exactly want just anybody to be able to get to MY data either... But I trust google with it a lot more than I trust my insurance company!"<br> <br>
You are frightening!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't exactly want just anybody to be able to get to MY data either... But I trust google with it a lot more than I trust my insurance company !
" You are frightening !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't exactly want just anybody to be able to get to MY data either... But I trust google with it a lot more than I trust my insurance company!
" 
You are frightening!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563812</id>
	<title>Re:socialize healthcare</title>
	<author>cekander</author>
	<datestamp>1269194460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_care\_reform\_in\_the\_United\_States#President.27s\_plan.2C\_2009" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this entry</a> [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia:
</p><p>"During a June 2009 speech, President Barack Obama outlined his strategy for reform. He mentioned electronic record-keeping."
</p><p>He also supported a public option during the 08 campaign. I suppose Barack Obama would be a flame baiter here as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this entry [ wikipedia.org ] on wikipedia : " During a June 2009 speech , President Barack Obama outlined his strategy for reform .
He mentioned electronic record-keeping .
" He also supported a public option during the 08 campaign .
I suppose Barack Obama would be a flame baiter here as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this entry [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia:
"During a June 2009 speech, President Barack Obama outlined his strategy for reform.
He mentioned electronic record-keeping.
"
He also supported a public option during the 08 campaign.
I suppose Barack Obama would be a flame baiter here as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561610</id>
	<title>they missed hippa?</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1269176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually worked at a medical online company that sent me through hippa and I dnd't see a single medical record while I was there.  How could google miss that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually worked at a medical online company that sent me through hippa and I dnd't see a single medical record while I was there .
How could google miss that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually worked at a medical online company that sent me through hippa and I dnd't see a single medical record while I was there.
How could google miss that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561414</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269175080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rdquo;m sorry, but physics disagree.<br>There is no such thing as data ownership. Because data is not a physical object, like e.g. a chair. The container may be. But the data is not.<br>If you want control over it, don&rsquo;t pass it on. Simple as that.<br>If you pass data on, you split control over it. Now it&rsquo;s too late, so quit bitchin&rsquo;.<br>You can not ever guarantee control over data that is passed on. Even when you threaten with punishment.</p><p>The media reproduction industries tried that. And they failed again, and again, and again.</p><p>Don&rsquo;t get me wrong. I&rsquo;m absolutely for privacy!<br>But why do you pass your private data on to untrustworthy people, and then expect them to handle it &ldquo;properly&rdquo;?<br>ONLY pass on what you trust someone with. You know, like a good friend, that you tell something very private, because you know he won&rsquo;t tell anybody.<br>And still that won&rsquo;t guarantee he won&rsquo;t do it anyway, if you ever happen to start hating each other.</p><p>Things like this are, why I want to see social skills as a main subject in school. It has the same importance as English and math together!<br>Oh, and of course one should learn the basic physics of bitspace. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    m sorry , but physics disagree.There is no such thing as data ownership .
Because data is not a physical object , like e.g .
a chair .
The container may be .
But the data is not.If you want control over it , don    t pass it on .
Simple as that.If you pass data on , you split control over it .
Now it    s too late , so quit bitchin    .You can not ever guarantee control over data that is passed on .
Even when you threaten with punishment.The media reproduction industries tried that .
And they failed again , and again , and again.Don    t get me wrong .
I    m absolutely for privacy ! But why do you pass your private data on to untrustworthy people , and then expect them to handle it    properly    ? ONLY pass on what you trust someone with .
You know , like a good friend , that you tell something very private , because you know he won    t tell anybody.And still that won    t guarantee he won    t do it anyway , if you ever happen to start hating each other.Things like this are , why I want to see social skills as a main subject in school .
It has the same importance as English and math together ! Oh , and of course one should learn the basic physics of bitspace .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I”m sorry, but physics disagree.There is no such thing as data ownership.
Because data is not a physical object, like e.g.
a chair.
The container may be.
But the data is not.If you want control over it, don’t pass it on.
Simple as that.If you pass data on, you split control over it.
Now it’s too late, so quit bitchin’.You can not ever guarantee control over data that is passed on.
Even when you threaten with punishment.The media reproduction industries tried that.
And they failed again, and again, and again.Don’t get me wrong.
I’m absolutely for privacy!But why do you pass your private data on to untrustworthy people, and then expect them to handle it “properly”?ONLY pass on what you trust someone with.
You know, like a good friend, that you tell something very private, because you know he won’t tell anybody.And still that won’t guarantee he won’t do it anyway, if you ever happen to start hating each other.Things like this are, why I want to see social skills as a main subject in school.
It has the same importance as English and math together!Oh, and of course one should learn the basic physics of bitspace.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561858</id>
	<title>Re:EMR is much more than record keeping.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269178320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW, as a developer of an EMR (or as it's currently called, EHR - Electronic Health Record.  Gotta keep up with the buzzword bingo) and friends with a number of doctors using our EMR, competitors' EMRs, and plain paper, the number one problem with using electronic records to get more money is that the insurance companies are on to us.</p><p>One doctor started getting regularly audited by Medicare because their E&amp;M code "bell curve" shifted upwards - they were doing more level 4 and 5's than before, all because their medical record software told them "you're so close to the next level, add x and you'll have sufficient documentation for it!"  Of course, this isn't limited to electronic records (I've got an HPI textbook that tells me that smoking status, whether smoking or not, is <i>always</i> pertinent medical history), but when all of the "x"s are just checkboxes, it's pretty easy to go down the list and hit them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , as a developer of an EMR ( or as it 's currently called , EHR - Electronic Health Record .
Got ta keep up with the buzzword bingo ) and friends with a number of doctors using our EMR , competitors ' EMRs , and plain paper , the number one problem with using electronic records to get more money is that the insurance companies are on to us.One doctor started getting regularly audited by Medicare because their E&amp;M code " bell curve " shifted upwards - they were doing more level 4 and 5 's than before , all because their medical record software told them " you 're so close to the next level , add x and you 'll have sufficient documentation for it !
" Of course , this is n't limited to electronic records ( I 've got an HPI textbook that tells me that smoking status , whether smoking or not , is always pertinent medical history ) , but when all of the " x " s are just checkboxes , it 's pretty easy to go down the list and hit them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, as a developer of an EMR (or as it's currently called, EHR - Electronic Health Record.
Gotta keep up with the buzzword bingo) and friends with a number of doctors using our EMR, competitors' EMRs, and plain paper, the number one problem with using electronic records to get more money is that the insurance companies are on to us.One doctor started getting regularly audited by Medicare because their E&amp;M code "bell curve" shifted upwards - they were doing more level 4 and 5's than before, all because their medical record software told them "you're so close to the next level, add x and you'll have sufficient documentation for it!
"  Of course, this isn't limited to electronic records (I've got an HPI textbook that tells me that smoking status, whether smoking or not, is always pertinent medical history), but when all of the "x"s are just checkboxes, it's pretty easy to go down the list and hit them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31564500</id>
	<title>Google Health = PHR NOT EMR</title>
	<author>El Gigante de Justic</author>
	<datestamp>1269248460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be pointed out that Google Health is not an Electronic Medical Record, it is an online Personal Health Record, with patient entered data.  It may be handy in some cases, such as if you travel a lot and want a common place to keep your allergies and medications, and some basic information may be able to interface with existing EMR systems on a read only basis, but it is in no way equivalent to an Electronic Medical Record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be pointed out that Google Health is not an Electronic Medical Record , it is an online Personal Health Record , with patient entered data .
It may be handy in some cases , such as if you travel a lot and want a common place to keep your allergies and medications , and some basic information may be able to interface with existing EMR systems on a read only basis , but it is in no way equivalent to an Electronic Medical Record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be pointed out that Google Health is not an Electronic Medical Record, it is an online Personal Health Record, with patient entered data.
It may be handy in some cases, such as if you travel a lot and want a common place to keep your allergies and medications, and some basic information may be able to interface with existing EMR systems on a read only basis, but it is in no way equivalent to an Electronic Medical Record.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31562506</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So much of the medical diagnosis could be automated. Everything from image analysis to the various charts they read off.</p></div><p>I am aware that I may be pissing up a rope here.  However.<br> <br>I'm a physician, and I'd be happy to let every drug (except antibiotics) be over-the-counter.  Kill yourself, make yourself better, get high - it's really no skin off my back.  But good diagnosis is hard, and it's definitely not automatable except in the most trivial of situations.  After all, if it were automated, you'd have a great product to sell to physicians who could then hire a vast cadre of nurses to do the patient interviews and generate the diagnoses, which they could then swoop in and bill for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much of the medical diagnosis could be automated .
Everything from image analysis to the various charts they read off.I am aware that I may be pissing up a rope here .
However. I 'm a physician , and I 'd be happy to let every drug ( except antibiotics ) be over-the-counter .
Kill yourself , make yourself better , get high - it 's really no skin off my back .
But good diagnosis is hard , and it 's definitely not automatable except in the most trivial of situations .
After all , if it were automated , you 'd have a great product to sell to physicians who could then hire a vast cadre of nurses to do the patient interviews and generate the diagnoses , which they could then swoop in and bill for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much of the medical diagnosis could be automated.
Everything from image analysis to the various charts they read off.I am aware that I may be pissing up a rope here.
However. I'm a physician, and I'd be happy to let every drug (except antibiotics) be over-the-counter.
Kill yourself, make yourself better, get high - it's really no skin off my back.
But good diagnosis is hard, and it's definitely not automatable except in the most trivial of situations.
After all, if it were automated, you'd have a great product to sell to physicians who could then hire a vast cadre of nurses to do the patient interviews and generate the diagnoses, which they could then swoop in and bill for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561694</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem with centralized records</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1269177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey sg,<br> <br>

The thing is that a decentralised system isn't a bad thing at all. PKI was designed, from the start, to be usable as a non-centralised system (non-pyramid). Realistically speaking, using the same example as the one you offered, where a doctor needs to validate medical records provided by the patient to be truthful, you only need to verify the other doctor's credentials and a signed file.<br> <br>

Now we get back to the old "How do I trust another doctor's certificates?", well, we use a centralised service. Each doctor <a href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-79-1/SP800-79-1.pdf" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">needs to enroll</a> [nist.gov] (<a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:emoAbwmLGgAJ:csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-79-1/SP800-79-1.pdf+site:csrc.nist.gov+filetype:pdf+piv&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=au&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESgWD\_TSH4CPTmRDKXsOCun8ywpVgNJwq4thcKzyPVcEQA15c9fTcngMgfEw8sPdMRBgXghNl2BICkHeMWTAEmzNnyRWusey1\_Zs6LIV6xoTgnQi81MnRnznkrskfrkOlu13\_ayw&amp;sig=AHIEtbQlaV48IJzGHoP1L40NVctfKziezA" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google cache</a> [google.com] of the same document) to get his certificates, and they are delivered by a central authority, possibly governmental (or whatever authority governs doctors in your country). It's not a very hard thing to do, and can be implemented for roughly a couple million dollars -- the whole system.<br> <br>

How many doctors are there in the US? A laughable amount if you compare how many certificates are issued for the DoD. Heck, you could even implement it to be fully PIV-C compatible, and get cross-certification from the US government, and would allow doctors' credentials to be easily validated during a crisis.<br> <br>

Heck, nobody even needs to own the PKI solution in the US. The government can do it for you, if you are a valid organisation, an excellent project <a href="http://www.idmanagement.gov/fpkipa/" title="idmanagement.gov" rel="nofollow">provides certificate management</a> [idmanagement.gov] for you. Outside the US it gets a bit more difficult, as interoperability is not quite as great as in the US, however PIV is starting to have quite a lot of traction in Europe as well (I can't remember off the top of my head if it's PIV-I or PIV-C that is being implemented with the UK police forces).

A <a href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-73-3/sp800-73-3\_PART4\_piv-transitional-interface-data-model-spec.pdf" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">pretty good read</a> [nist.gov] (<a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:\_xhDjIYupm8J:csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-73-3/sp800-73-3\_PART4\_piv-transitional-interface-data-model-spec.pdf+piv-i+piv-c&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=au&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESh45ghzswRudbiuGtTNLU6N0QdMxXY-y6JY\_uzAwiEkS5l-4KyEHEDrSpJg0Vz8KxY6g7QsvuejHqVL4TCTQRtEmnBWw2G\_V1OyhVCsGfeVCXLNdi93XwSgSrRDNJII-VZYBiEz&amp;sig=AHIEtbR4KbELxGX-ZJ2tCjH3Z6yWl3gnBQ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google cache</a> [google.com] as it doesn't seem to be loading from here) about how data is provided on a PIV smartcard.<br> <br>

That being said, maybe the health care professionals ought to have raised their voice at <a href="http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/piv/documents/FIPS201-Public-Comments/Argonne-National-Laboratory2.pdf" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">the same time the engineers and scientists did</a> [nist.gov] (<a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:JLsF45zDprIJ:csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/piv/documents/FIPS201-Public-Comments/Argonne-National-Laboratory2.pdf+site:csrc.nist.gov+filetype:pdf+piv&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=au&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESjv1BUGQXnTae2xavWJHJLQsjqEFQmeWvtC6nT2FpL04HG6GIzzLgpsd\_couFFrKHXdhkvQwozPegsE7lvUVv6iCSHN3kmWwNCE9CQcHyZrNiFcbbsNpUDIT99zQRYDNCN35y4v&amp;sig=AHIEtbRTyvb2ZFi-tNkZn7Vv7TN-IRvwCg" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google cache</a> [google.com])?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey sg , The thing is that a decentralised system is n't a bad thing at all .
PKI was designed , from the start , to be usable as a non-centralised system ( non-pyramid ) .
Realistically speaking , using the same example as the one you offered , where a doctor needs to validate medical records provided by the patient to be truthful , you only need to verify the other doctor 's credentials and a signed file .
Now we get back to the old " How do I trust another doctor 's certificates ?
" , well , we use a centralised service .
Each doctor needs to enroll [ nist.gov ] ( Google cache [ google.com ] of the same document ) to get his certificates , and they are delivered by a central authority , possibly governmental ( or whatever authority governs doctors in your country ) .
It 's not a very hard thing to do , and can be implemented for roughly a couple million dollars -- the whole system .
How many doctors are there in the US ?
A laughable amount if you compare how many certificates are issued for the DoD .
Heck , you could even implement it to be fully PIV-C compatible , and get cross-certification from the US government , and would allow doctors ' credentials to be easily validated during a crisis .
Heck , nobody even needs to own the PKI solution in the US .
The government can do it for you , if you are a valid organisation , an excellent project provides certificate management [ idmanagement.gov ] for you .
Outside the US it gets a bit more difficult , as interoperability is not quite as great as in the US , however PIV is starting to have quite a lot of traction in Europe as well ( I ca n't remember off the top of my head if it 's PIV-I or PIV-C that is being implemented with the UK police forces ) .
A pretty good read [ nist.gov ] ( Google cache [ google.com ] as it does n't seem to be loading from here ) about how data is provided on a PIV smartcard .
That being said , maybe the health care professionals ought to have raised their voice at the same time the engineers and scientists did [ nist.gov ] ( Google cache [ google.com ] ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey sg, 

The thing is that a decentralised system isn't a bad thing at all.
PKI was designed, from the start, to be usable as a non-centralised system (non-pyramid).
Realistically speaking, using the same example as the one you offered, where a doctor needs to validate medical records provided by the patient to be truthful, you only need to verify the other doctor's credentials and a signed file.
Now we get back to the old "How do I trust another doctor's certificates?
", well, we use a centralised service.
Each doctor needs to enroll [nist.gov] (Google cache [google.com] of the same document) to get his certificates, and they are delivered by a central authority, possibly governmental (or whatever authority governs doctors in your country).
It's not a very hard thing to do, and can be implemented for roughly a couple million dollars -- the whole system.
How many doctors are there in the US?
A laughable amount if you compare how many certificates are issued for the DoD.
Heck, you could even implement it to be fully PIV-C compatible, and get cross-certification from the US government, and would allow doctors' credentials to be easily validated during a crisis.
Heck, nobody even needs to own the PKI solution in the US.
The government can do it for you, if you are a valid organisation, an excellent project provides certificate management [idmanagement.gov] for you.
Outside the US it gets a bit more difficult, as interoperability is not quite as great as in the US, however PIV is starting to have quite a lot of traction in Europe as well (I can't remember off the top of my head if it's PIV-I or PIV-C that is being implemented with the UK police forces).
A pretty good read [nist.gov] (Google cache [google.com] as it doesn't seem to be loading from here) about how data is provided on a PIV smartcard.
That being said, maybe the health care professionals ought to have raised their voice at the same time the engineers and scientists did [nist.gov] (Google cache [google.com])?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561914</id>
	<title>Re:I trust no one with my health records</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't get me wrong, i do think Google is one of the best, if not the best, company to trust my data with (not that is something to brag about) but my health records are a complete no-no. I don't want anyone except the doctor I'm using at the time to see them. Not that I'm some sort of gimp with all sorts of shit oozing from my body but my health records are *the* most private thing to me imo.</p><p>I'll happily expose my genitals online but not my health records.</p></div><p>A Sterling citizen of the New Republic! Someone who's ready to march through the airport scanners, and believes that insurance companies will spare no expense to keeping their computer systems secure.</p><p>Google has had its mis-steps. And one of the recent ones WAS security related. But I'm willing to trust their computer security far more than I am that of any of the finance and insurance companies I've worked with over the last several decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , i do think Google is one of the best , if not the best , company to trust my data with ( not that is something to brag about ) but my health records are a complete no-no .
I do n't want anyone except the doctor I 'm using at the time to see them .
Not that I 'm some sort of gimp with all sorts of shit oozing from my body but my health records are * the * most private thing to me imo.I 'll happily expose my genitals online but not my health records.A Sterling citizen of the New Republic !
Someone who 's ready to march through the airport scanners , and believes that insurance companies will spare no expense to keeping their computer systems secure.Google has had its mis-steps .
And one of the recent ones WAS security related .
But I 'm willing to trust their computer security far more than I am that of any of the finance and insurance companies I 've worked with over the last several decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, i do think Google is one of the best, if not the best, company to trust my data with (not that is something to brag about) but my health records are a complete no-no.
I don't want anyone except the doctor I'm using at the time to see them.
Not that I'm some sort of gimp with all sorts of shit oozing from my body but my health records are *the* most private thing to me imo.I'll happily expose my genitals online but not my health records.A Sterling citizen of the New Republic!
Someone who's ready to march through the airport scanners, and believes that insurance companies will spare no expense to keeping their computer systems secure.Google has had its mis-steps.
And one of the recent ones WAS security related.
But I'm willing to trust their computer security far more than I am that of any of the finance and insurance companies I've worked with over the last several decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561844</id>
	<title>Violation of HIPAA?</title>
	<author>brianleb321</author>
	<datestamp>1269178260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google Health isn't covered under HIPAA, it's illegal for any of these healthcare providers to enter any protected information into the system without the written consent of the individual patient. There are serious fines attached to this breach, per patient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google Health is n't covered under HIPAA , it 's illegal for any of these healthcare providers to enter any protected information into the system without the written consent of the individual patient .
There are serious fines attached to this breach , per patient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google Health isn't covered under HIPAA, it's illegal for any of these healthcare providers to enter any protected information into the system without the written consent of the individual patient.
There are serious fines attached to this breach, per patient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561552</id>
	<title>Why should I care about Google?</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1269176100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google isn't getting their money's worth from all that campaigning with Obama, why should I care?
</p><p>There are other corporations that understand HIPAA, the value of privacy, and willing to enter an agreement that makes them risk liability and criminal penalties for accidental disclosure.
</p><p>I can't understand the irrational willingness to give all data to Google. Of course, this is Slashdot so a lot of comments are from people predisposed to like and trust Google. This is despite comments from Google executives that say otherwise. I guess Google's position would be that if you have something embarrassingly wrong with you then don't go to the doctor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google is n't getting their money 's worth from all that campaigning with Obama , why should I care ?
There are other corporations that understand HIPAA , the value of privacy , and willing to enter an agreement that makes them risk liability and criminal penalties for accidental disclosure .
I ca n't understand the irrational willingness to give all data to Google .
Of course , this is Slashdot so a lot of comments are from people predisposed to like and trust Google .
This is despite comments from Google executives that say otherwise .
I guess Google 's position would be that if you have something embarrassingly wrong with you then do n't go to the doctor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google isn't getting their money's worth from all that campaigning with Obama, why should I care?
There are other corporations that understand HIPAA, the value of privacy, and willing to enter an agreement that makes them risk liability and criminal penalties for accidental disclosure.
I can't understand the irrational willingness to give all data to Google.
Of course, this is Slashdot so a lot of comments are from people predisposed to like and trust Google.
This is despite comments from Google executives that say otherwise.
I guess Google's position would be that if you have something embarrassingly wrong with you then don't go to the doctor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31562160</id>
	<title>Like laptops in schools</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1269180360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>E medicine is like laptops in schools. It seems like a good idea but adds nothing to the interaction of doctor and patient. But it is great innovation for the government bureaucracy busy bodies and other do-gooders who feel the need to insert themselves between my doctor and my colonoscopy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>E medicine is like laptops in schools .
It seems like a good idea but adds nothing to the interaction of doctor and patient .
But it is great innovation for the government bureaucracy busy bodies and other do-gooders who feel the need to insert themselves between my doctor and my colonoscopy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E medicine is like laptops in schools.
It seems like a good idea but adds nothing to the interaction of doctor and patient.
But it is great innovation for the government bureaucracy busy bodies and other do-gooders who feel the need to insert themselves between my doctor and my colonoscopy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563760</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1269193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the "ME MY OUR" mentality all works wonders when you are technology centric enough to make it work, and conscious enough to apply it. But what happens when you are unconscious? And even if you aren't unconscious, what happens to the 50\% percent of humanity that is statistically dumber than the average Joe?</p><p>The sad truth is that we need a system that works, even for the dumb people who can barely scratch their names onto a piece of paper and believe in aliens, creationism, and/or the illuminatti. "You don't have your records, and now you'll probably die" is not a good answer to give to the sorry young lady who lost her USB drive with the medical records on it when her boyfriend threw them into the fireplace in a jealous rage.</p><p><b>The problem is a problem because of the adversarial relationship we all have to have with private insurance companies</b>. Policies such as "no pre-existing health conditions" and others required in a for-profit scenario make it a bad thing to document health conditions because they become loopholes exploited by private entities who seek to take our money while denying us the (costly) health care.</p><p>If only we could come up with a system that would allow everybody equal access to quality healthcare, without the motive for profit... too bad humanity isn't ingenious enough to figure this out! And so, because of this horrid lack of a solution, we have the messy quagmire of privacy and accessibility conflicts that all but nullify the benefits of information technology in health care.</p><p>It's time for a single-payer system - too bad we aren't going to get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the " ME MY OUR " mentality all works wonders when you are technology centric enough to make it work , and conscious enough to apply it .
But what happens when you are unconscious ?
And even if you are n't unconscious , what happens to the 50 \ % percent of humanity that is statistically dumber than the average Joe ? The sad truth is that we need a system that works , even for the dumb people who can barely scratch their names onto a piece of paper and believe in aliens , creationism , and/or the illuminatti .
" You do n't have your records , and now you 'll probably die " is not a good answer to give to the sorry young lady who lost her USB drive with the medical records on it when her boyfriend threw them into the fireplace in a jealous rage.The problem is a problem because of the adversarial relationship we all have to have with private insurance companies .
Policies such as " no pre-existing health conditions " and others required in a for-profit scenario make it a bad thing to document health conditions because they become loopholes exploited by private entities who seek to take our money while denying us the ( costly ) health care.If only we could come up with a system that would allow everybody equal access to quality healthcare , without the motive for profit... too bad humanity is n't ingenious enough to figure this out !
And so , because of this horrid lack of a solution , we have the messy quagmire of privacy and accessibility conflicts that all but nullify the benefits of information technology in health care.It 's time for a single-payer system - too bad we are n't going to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the "ME MY OUR" mentality all works wonders when you are technology centric enough to make it work, and conscious enough to apply it.
But what happens when you are unconscious?
And even if you aren't unconscious, what happens to the 50\% percent of humanity that is statistically dumber than the average Joe?The sad truth is that we need a system that works, even for the dumb people who can barely scratch their names onto a piece of paper and believe in aliens, creationism, and/or the illuminatti.
"You don't have your records, and now you'll probably die" is not a good answer to give to the sorry young lady who lost her USB drive with the medical records on it when her boyfriend threw them into the fireplace in a jealous rage.The problem is a problem because of the adversarial relationship we all have to have with private insurance companies.
Policies such as "no pre-existing health conditions" and others required in a for-profit scenario make it a bad thing to document health conditions because they become loopholes exploited by private entities who seek to take our money while denying us the (costly) health care.If only we could come up with a system that would allow everybody equal access to quality healthcare, without the motive for profit... too bad humanity isn't ingenious enough to figure this out!
And so, because of this horrid lack of a solution, we have the messy quagmire of privacy and accessibility conflicts that all but nullify the benefits of information technology in health care.It's time for a single-payer system - too bad we aren't going to get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31577224</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1269260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; It's MY data... give it to ME, and let ME decide what to do with it.
<p>
Do you realize that you have everything you want?   health providers are legally mandated to give you your health data under HIPAA.  Just walk in and tell them you are making a request for a copy of your records as obliged under HIPAA.
</p><p>
Then you can sit back contemplate the stack of random paper and obscure electronic binary formats that they give you and wonder how to read it, and you will realize that the actual problem here is about formats and standardization, not access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's MY data... give it to ME , and let ME decide what to do with it .
Do you realize that you have everything you want ?
health providers are legally mandated to give you your health data under HIPAA .
Just walk in and tell them you are making a request for a copy of your records as obliged under HIPAA .
Then you can sit back contemplate the stack of random paper and obscure electronic binary formats that they give you and wonder how to read it , and you will realize that the actual problem here is about formats and standardization , not access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's MY data... give it to ME, and let ME decide what to do with it.
Do you realize that you have everything you want?
health providers are legally mandated to give you your health data under HIPAA.
Just walk in and tell them you are making a request for a copy of your records as obliged under HIPAA.
Then you can sit back contemplate the stack of random paper and obscure electronic binary formats that they give you and wonder how to read it, and you will realize that the actual problem here is about formats and standardization, not access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561572</id>
	<title>Our taxes are secure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269176220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can our health records be secure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why can our health records be secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can our health records be secure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31580338</id>
	<title>Re:EMR is much more than record keeping.</title>
	<author>juliusbeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1269376800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too am a physician.

&gt;The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.


may be true, but reflects the lamentable ethics of the American profession.

The bottom line you should care about is the outcome for the patient, who is a member of a population. Good recordkeeping is a keystone of good medical practice, and EMRs offer many potential benefits for both the individual and society: but you insist on privileging the capitalist discourse in all this. Error.

Financial incentives may have their place, but to place them at the apex of the value system of a culture is dismal and wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too am a physician .
&gt; The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line .
may be true , but reflects the lamentable ethics of the American profession .
The bottom line you should care about is the outcome for the patient , who is a member of a population .
Good recordkeeping is a keystone of good medical practice , and EMRs offer many potential benefits for both the individual and society : but you insist on privileging the capitalist discourse in all this .
Error . Financial incentives may have their place , but to place them at the apex of the value system of a culture is dismal and wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too am a physician.
&gt;The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.
may be true, but reflects the lamentable ethics of the American profession.
The bottom line you should care about is the outcome for the patient, who is a member of a population.
Good recordkeeping is a keystone of good medical practice, and EMRs offer many potential benefits for both the individual and society: but you insist on privileging the capitalist discourse in all this.
Error.

Financial incentives may have their place, but to place them at the apex of the value system of a culture is dismal and wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563474</id>
	<title>EMRs can greatly harm a physician's work..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a physician has to use a computer interface to replace the good old paper charts, the result is INSANELY slower usage than with the paper charts.  Productivity hits may reduce the physician's ability to see numbers of patients by 10 to 50 per cent.  And even a few percent can be a disaster for a primary care practice.  Why is it so much slower?  If IT types (disclaimer: I am one) actually WATCHED a physician "interact" with the paper chart one would see that a great deal of info, of many differing types, can be reviewed in MOMENTS.  Maybe input (notes) added too, also quickly.  A typical EMR may require LOTS of clicks and selections and oodles of page views and scrolls etc etc etc etc. to gain acess to a variety of needed info.  Physicians are also are often reduced to being clumsy data entry clerks to get data into an EMR. (And since so many physicians are employees these days, the whole EMR thing was probably done without doctor input (typical Dilbert situation), and on the cheap . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.meaning the servers are getting overloaded and each screen of the many needed is taking 10 to 30 seconds to display.   While everyone is aware of the wonderful benefits of having data computerized, someone who needs to get a wide variety of data in &amp; out of an EMR may be for big trouble.  Most interface technologies are WAY inadequate to this task; biggest shortterm help may be FAST response time, and giving the EMR app the ability to have MANY windows into the data ("windows"? wow!) at once, shown on a BIG monitor (although few exam rooms would have room for one anyway).  Some real creativity, new ideas, are desperately needed.  (Microsoft's touch-screen table??  i-Pod technologies improved / adapted ??)   Better info at two EXCELLENT links:  "Why docs hate EMRs":   http://www.healthcareguy.com/?p=663#comments       and a really good downloadable (free) paper from the Journal of Usabilty Studies at: http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa\_publications/jus/2009february/smelcer1.html<br>(Pls forgive inexperienced post, don't think have posted here before although been reading for years.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a physician has to use a computer interface to replace the good old paper charts , the result is INSANELY slower usage than with the paper charts .
Productivity hits may reduce the physician 's ability to see numbers of patients by 10 to 50 per cent .
And even a few percent can be a disaster for a primary care practice .
Why is it so much slower ?
If IT types ( disclaimer : I am one ) actually WATCHED a physician " interact " with the paper chart one would see that a great deal of info , of many differing types , can be reviewed in MOMENTS .
Maybe input ( notes ) added too , also quickly .
A typical EMR may require LOTS of clicks and selections and oodles of page views and scrolls etc etc etc etc .
to gain acess to a variety of needed info .
Physicians are also are often reduced to being clumsy data entry clerks to get data into an EMR .
( And since so many physicians are employees these days , the whole EMR thing was probably done without doctor input ( typical Dilbert situation ) , and on the cheap .
. .meaning the servers are getting overloaded and each screen of the many needed is taking 10 to 30 seconds to display .
While everyone is aware of the wonderful benefits of having data computerized , someone who needs to get a wide variety of data in &amp; out of an EMR may be for big trouble .
Most interface technologies are WAY inadequate to this task ; biggest shortterm help may be FAST response time , and giving the EMR app the ability to have MANY windows into the data ( " windows " ?
wow ! ) at once , shown on a BIG monitor ( although few exam rooms would have room for one anyway ) .
Some real creativity , new ideas , are desperately needed .
( Microsoft 's touch-screen table ? ?
i-Pod technologies improved / adapted ? ?
) Better info at two EXCELLENT links : " Why docs hate EMRs " : http : //www.healthcareguy.com/ ? p = 663 # comments and a really good downloadable ( free ) paper from the Journal of Usabilty Studies at : http : //www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa \ _publications/jus/2009february/smelcer1.html ( Pls forgive inexperienced post , do n't think have posted here before although been reading for years .
)                </tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a physician has to use a computer interface to replace the good old paper charts, the result is INSANELY slower usage than with the paper charts.
Productivity hits may reduce the physician's ability to see numbers of patients by 10 to 50 per cent.
And even a few percent can be a disaster for a primary care practice.
Why is it so much slower?
If IT types (disclaimer: I am one) actually WATCHED a physician "interact" with the paper chart one would see that a great deal of info, of many differing types, can be reviewed in MOMENTS.
Maybe input (notes) added too, also quickly.
A typical EMR may require LOTS of clicks and selections and oodles of page views and scrolls etc etc etc etc.
to gain acess to a variety of needed info.
Physicians are also are often reduced to being clumsy data entry clerks to get data into an EMR.
(And since so many physicians are employees these days, the whole EMR thing was probably done without doctor input (typical Dilbert situation), and on the cheap .
. .meaning the servers are getting overloaded and each screen of the many needed is taking 10 to 30 seconds to display.
While everyone is aware of the wonderful benefits of having data computerized, someone who needs to get a wide variety of data in &amp; out of an EMR may be for big trouble.
Most interface technologies are WAY inadequate to this task; biggest shortterm help may be FAST response time, and giving the EMR app the ability to have MANY windows into the data ("windows"?
wow!) at once, shown on a BIG monitor (although few exam rooms would have room for one anyway).
Some real creativity, new ideas, are desperately needed.
(Microsoft's touch-screen table??
i-Pod technologies improved / adapted ??
)   Better info at two EXCELLENT links:  "Why docs hate EMRs":   http://www.healthcareguy.com/?p=663#comments       and a really good downloadable (free) paper from the Journal of Usabilty Studies at: http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa\_publications/jus/2009february/smelcer1.html(Pls forgive inexperienced post, don't think have posted here before although been reading for years.
)
               </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228</id>
	<title>I trust no one with my health records</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get me wrong, i do think Google is one of the best, if not the best, company to trust my data with (not that is something to brag about) but my health records are a complete no-no. I don't want anyone except the doctor I'm using at the time to see them. Not that I'm some sort of gimp with all sorts of shit oozing from my body but my health records are *the* most private thing to me imo.
<br> <br>
I'll happily expose my genitals online but not my health records.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , i do think Google is one of the best , if not the best , company to trust my data with ( not that is something to brag about ) but my health records are a complete no-no .
I do n't want anyone except the doctor I 'm using at the time to see them .
Not that I 'm some sort of gimp with all sorts of shit oozing from my body but my health records are * the * most private thing to me imo .
I 'll happily expose my genitals online but not my health records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, i do think Google is one of the best, if not the best, company to trust my data with (not that is something to brag about) but my health records are a complete no-no.
I don't want anyone except the doctor I'm using at the time to see them.
Not that I'm some sort of gimp with all sorts of shit oozing from my body but my health records are *the* most private thing to me imo.
I'll happily expose my genitals online but not my health records.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563066</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269187500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my experience (employed @ a hospital for some years now) this whole EMR issue has nothing to do with HIPAA or Google.  Their greatest fear is disclosure &amp; the threats that it represents:</p><p>Doctors are hanging on with a death grip to the fragmented remains of their monopoly on medical information &amp; the patriarchy that went along with it.  They long for the pre-Internet days of patient ignorance &amp; lower liability insurance premiums.  We're working on some pre-EMR stuff now &amp; @ least 10\% of the doctors onsite have vowed to retire rather than deal with the sea change in how they do their work &amp; the potential for increased visibility into their practices.  They want to be treated like mystics who can pontificate on all things health-related without any practical accountability.</p><p>Hospitals &amp; Insurers fear transparency of any kind.  The hospital I work @ has an average markup of 190\% on its services.  For things like imaging diagnostics &amp; lab work the markup is close to 300\%.  They fear a time when patients can "shop around" for their healthcare services.  In fact my hospital is having meetings now about reducing services to only those which provide the best revenues, &amp; scrapping plans for things like cancer treatment (too much overhead) &amp; drug rehab services (not enough PR value).</p><p>I can't wait to see what happens if/when the Feds make any decisions regarding fee disclosure &amp; standardizing costs regardless of insurer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience ( employed @ a hospital for some years now ) this whole EMR issue has nothing to do with HIPAA or Google .
Their greatest fear is disclosure &amp; the threats that it represents : Doctors are hanging on with a death grip to the fragmented remains of their monopoly on medical information &amp; the patriarchy that went along with it .
They long for the pre-Internet days of patient ignorance &amp; lower liability insurance premiums .
We 're working on some pre-EMR stuff now &amp; @ least 10 \ % of the doctors onsite have vowed to retire rather than deal with the sea change in how they do their work &amp; the potential for increased visibility into their practices .
They want to be treated like mystics who can pontificate on all things health-related without any practical accountability.Hospitals &amp; Insurers fear transparency of any kind .
The hospital I work @ has an average markup of 190 \ % on its services .
For things like imaging diagnostics &amp; lab work the markup is close to 300 \ % .
They fear a time when patients can " shop around " for their healthcare services .
In fact my hospital is having meetings now about reducing services to only those which provide the best revenues , &amp; scrapping plans for things like cancer treatment ( too much overhead ) &amp; drug rehab services ( not enough PR value ) .I ca n't wait to see what happens if/when the Feds make any decisions regarding fee disclosure &amp; standardizing costs regardless of insurer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience (employed @ a hospital for some years now) this whole EMR issue has nothing to do with HIPAA or Google.
Their greatest fear is disclosure &amp; the threats that it represents:Doctors are hanging on with a death grip to the fragmented remains of their monopoly on medical information &amp; the patriarchy that went along with it.
They long for the pre-Internet days of patient ignorance &amp; lower liability insurance premiums.
We're working on some pre-EMR stuff now &amp; @ least 10\% of the doctors onsite have vowed to retire rather than deal with the sea change in how they do their work &amp; the potential for increased visibility into their practices.
They want to be treated like mystics who can pontificate on all things health-related without any practical accountability.Hospitals &amp; Insurers fear transparency of any kind.
The hospital I work @ has an average markup of 190\% on its services.
For things like imaging diagnostics &amp; lab work the markup is close to 300\%.
They fear a time when patients can "shop around" for their healthcare services.
In fact my hospital is having meetings now about reducing services to only those which provide the best revenues, &amp; scrapping plans for things like cancer treatment (too much overhead) &amp; drug rehab services (not enough PR value).I can't wait to see what happens if/when the Feds make any decisions regarding fee disclosure &amp; standardizing costs regardless of insurer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561186</id>
	<title>Things like this tend to make people nervious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269172680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>12. Limitation of Liability

NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN DIRECT DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE PARTY KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT OTHER DAMAGES ARE POSSIBLE OR THAT DIRECT DAMAGES ARE NOT A SATISFACTORY REMEDY. THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION APPLY TO YOU ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE LAWFUL IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN $1,000.

The limitations of liability in this Section do not apply to breaches of intellectual property provisions or indemnification obligations.

it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>12 .
Limitation of Liability NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN DIRECT DAMAGES , EVEN IF THE PARTY KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT OTHER DAMAGES ARE POSSIBLE OR THAT DIRECT DAMAGES ARE NOT A SATISFACTORY REMEDY .
THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION APPLY TO YOU ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE LAWFUL IN YOUR JURISDICTION .
NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN $ 1,000 .
The limitations of liability in this Section do not apply to breaches of intellectual property provisions or indemnification obligations .
it appears the slashdot spam filter does n't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter does n't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter does n't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter does n't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter does n't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter does n't like all the above caps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>12.
Limitation of Liability

NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN DIRECT DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE PARTY KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT OTHER DAMAGES ARE POSSIBLE OR THAT DIRECT DAMAGES ARE NOT A SATISFACTORY REMEDY.
THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION APPLY TO YOU ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE LAWFUL IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN $1,000.
The limitations of liability in this Section do not apply to breaches of intellectual property provisions or indemnification obligations.
it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.it appears the slashdot spam filter doesn't like all the above caps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561326</id>
	<title>socialize healthcare</title>
	<author>cekander</author>
	<datestamp>1269174060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where buying into a public option requires your health records to be filed electronically in a government secured database. The privately insured can also use the file-system, with consent of the patient and willingness of the Dr, but not mandated. That should keep everyone happy... No?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where buying into a public option requires your health records to be filed electronically in a government secured database .
The privately insured can also use the file-system , with consent of the patient and willingness of the Dr , but not mandated .
That should keep everyone happy... No ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where buying into a public option requires your health records to be filed electronically in a government secured database.
The privately insured can also use the file-system, with consent of the patient and willingness of the Dr, but not mandated.
That should keep everyone happy... No?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561106</id>
	<title>nothing in common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269172140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google health and the stimulus money are 2 very different things.  They have no relationship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google health and the stimulus money are 2 very different things .
They have no relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google health and the stimulus money are 2 very different things.
They have no relationship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398</id>
	<title>EMR is much more than record keeping.</title>
	<author>MMC Monster</author>
	<datestamp>1269175020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a physician.</p><p>The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.</p><p>The people that create many EMR systems understand that, and build the systems in a way so that physicians can increase the billing rate above what they can do with paper systems.</p><p>I currently do my patients records on paper.  I bill much lower than I could, because I'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.</p><p>My office is going EMR within the next year.  I am positive that the amount I will bill for just about everything will increase, and I will (hopefully) offset the cost of going electronic at that point.</p><p>Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care?  Almost certainly not.  It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see:<br>1. which ones haven't been seen in a while and bring them in.<br>2. which ones are eligible for a procedure but haven't had it yet.</p><p>Will this decrease patient morbidity (illness) and mortality (death)?  Probably, but that can only be determined by (likely retrospective) studies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a physician.The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.The people that create many EMR systems understand that , and build the systems in a way so that physicians can increase the billing rate above what they can do with paper systems.I currently do my patients records on paper .
I bill much lower than I could , because I 'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.My office is going EMR within the next year .
I am positive that the amount I will bill for just about everything will increase , and I will ( hopefully ) offset the cost of going electronic at that point.Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care ?
Almost certainly not .
It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see : 1. which ones have n't been seen in a while and bring them in.2 .
which ones are eligible for a procedure but have n't had it yet.Will this decrease patient morbidity ( illness ) and mortality ( death ) ?
Probably , but that can only be determined by ( likely retrospective ) studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a physician.The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.The people that create many EMR systems understand that, and build the systems in a way so that physicians can increase the billing rate above what they can do with paper systems.I currently do my patients records on paper.
I bill much lower than I could, because I'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.My office is going EMR within the next year.
I am positive that the amount I will bill for just about everything will increase, and I will (hopefully) offset the cost of going electronic at that point.Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care?
Almost certainly not.
It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see:1. which ones haven't been seen in a while and bring them in.2.
which ones are eligible for a procedure but haven't had it yet.Will this decrease patient morbidity (illness) and mortality (death)?
Probably, but that can only be determined by (likely retrospective) studies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563428</id>
	<title>HITECH law changes make Google a Covered Entity</title>
	<author>cryptwhomp</author>
	<datestamp>1269191100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And therefore covered by HIPAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And therefore covered by HIPAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And therefore covered by HIPAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561614</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1269176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what planet have you been living in?<br>If you want a prescription, can you just get one yourself?</p><p>Do you know why you aren't allowed to?  Because you're not responsible.  You need to expertise of a doctor to diagnose and prescribe things for you.  You can't be responsible with prescriptions.  And you certainly can't be trusted with your own health data.</p><p>Of course that's what the medical associations tell us... to maintain their strangle hold monopoly over health care.<br>That's the real reason they are against any of this.  So much of the medical diagnosis could be automated.  Everything from image analysis to the various charts they read off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what planet have you been living in ? If you want a prescription , can you just get one yourself ? Do you know why you are n't allowed to ?
Because you 're not responsible .
You need to expertise of a doctor to diagnose and prescribe things for you .
You ca n't be responsible with prescriptions .
And you certainly ca n't be trusted with your own health data.Of course that 's what the medical associations tell us... to maintain their strangle hold monopoly over health care.That 's the real reason they are against any of this .
So much of the medical diagnosis could be automated .
Everything from image analysis to the various charts they read off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what planet have you been living in?If you want a prescription, can you just get one yourself?Do you know why you aren't allowed to?
Because you're not responsible.
You need to expertise of a doctor to diagnose and prescribe things for you.
You can't be responsible with prescriptions.
And you certainly can't be trusted with your own health data.Of course that's what the medical associations tell us... to maintain their strangle hold monopoly over health care.That's the real reason they are against any of this.
So much of the medical diagnosis could be automated.
Everything from image analysis to the various charts they read off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561054</id>
	<title>Sketchy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269171900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't even aware Google produced a product called Google Health.</p><p>I can understand their other technology developments, but this is one area where it's blatantly apparent that they just want to know a scary amount about each of their users...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't even aware Google produced a product called Google Health.I can understand their other technology developments , but this is one area where it 's blatantly apparent that they just want to know a scary amount about each of their users.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't even aware Google produced a product called Google Health.I can understand their other technology developments, but this is one area where it's blatantly apparent that they just want to know a scary amount about each of their users...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561258</id>
	<title>risk</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1269173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>while the idea of online health records I think is good, I am opposed to one company/gov't agency having it all stored in their care.  The more data you have in one place the more valuable that database is and greater incentive to steal it.   Admittedly this does go somewhat against the idea of e-health records that is an expense I am willing to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>while the idea of online health records I think is good , I am opposed to one company/gov't agency having it all stored in their care .
The more data you have in one place the more valuable that database is and greater incentive to steal it .
Admittedly this does go somewhat against the idea of e-health records that is an expense I am willing to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while the idea of online health records I think is good, I am opposed to one company/gov't agency having it all stored in their care.
The more data you have in one place the more valuable that database is and greater incentive to steal it.
Admittedly this does go somewhat against the idea of e-health records that is an expense I am willing to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31562434</id>
	<title>Big Savings Are Just Around The Corner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are big saving is electronic records and nobody is talking about saving the postage.  A primary motivation is rationing although it will be called "best practices".  The best practices will prescribe the number of visits authorized per complaint per time period, the amount and type of medication per diagnosis, the switch - beyond the substitution of generics - to "therapeutically equivalent" medications and other cost saving initiatives.  On the other hand the data can be massaged to reveal total cost per diagnosis by doctor.  The less done/prescribed the better.  Same thing with hospitals.  There are big savings to be had and the push will increase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are big saving is electronic records and nobody is talking about saving the postage .
A primary motivation is rationing although it will be called " best practices " .
The best practices will prescribe the number of visits authorized per complaint per time period , the amount and type of medication per diagnosis , the switch - beyond the substitution of generics - to " therapeutically equivalent " medications and other cost saving initiatives .
On the other hand the data can be massaged to reveal total cost per diagnosis by doctor .
The less done/prescribed the better .
Same thing with hospitals .
There are big savings to be had and the push will increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are big saving is electronic records and nobody is talking about saving the postage.
A primary motivation is rationing although it will be called "best practices".
The best practices will prescribe the number of visits authorized per complaint per time period, the amount and type of medication per diagnosis, the switch - beyond the substitution of generics - to "therapeutically equivalent" medications and other cost saving initiatives.
On the other hand the data can be massaged to reveal total cost per diagnosis by doctor.
The less done/prescribed the better.
Same thing with hospitals.
There are big savings to be had and the push will increase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31568292</id>
	<title>Re:EMR is much more than record keeping.</title>
	<author>phorest</author>
	<datestamp>1269272580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.</p></div></blockquote><p>I believe 2014 is the target date to decrease physician reimbursement by 5\% for not using EMR software</p><blockquote><div><p>I currently do my patients records on paper. I bill much lower than I could, because I'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.</p></div></blockquote><p>You should NOT be billing defensively! You need to have competent chart-audits regularly and bill for what you actually perform. You need to keep meticulous notes to verify your charges. Just because your office is <b>"going EMR within the next year"</b> and <b>"amount you bill will increase"</b> means absolutely <b>NOTHING</b>. They will still pay you the UCR rate in your area for whatever you bill for. Couple that with the fact that major insurers and Medicare/Medicaid are probably going to start paying a set fee on the diagnosis because of things like PQRI <i>(see below)</i>, chances are you'll never make that up.</p><p> Case in point:
</p><p>We have a doctor that bill $4000.00 for arthroscopic knee surgery. He only gets $600.00 and is very unhappy about it. We told him to stop doing surgery altogether and just do joint injections instead because they (payers) actually pay for that what it's worth, plus he'll save on malpractice insurance. If he takes our proposal seriously, he'll make more money for less work. Software won't give you that.</p><p>We have another doctor that tried out <a href="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri/" title="hhs.gov">PQRI</a> [hhs.gov] but for that extra 2\% reimbursement it takes an extra 20 minutes of reporting per claim by the doctor herself. A chart-audit showed that all she had to do was bill her initial visit (9920X's) and she'd increase her monthly revenues by 7-15\% (dermatologist - lots of new patients a month). <br>
A different doctor (Psych) of ours asked about PORI and with what we came to the conclusion that it is nothing but research and for quantifying the data into a database to be able to start paying on the DX and not on the actual work performed.  If you're a GP/Internist and you have a diabetic patient you're getting office visit reimbursement now. In the future you won't. You'll get a set-fee for the year and if it takes 2 visits, well maybe you're ahead on that patient but if it takes 20 visits you're out quite a bit of revenue... It's hard to stay on top of the reimbursement game.</p><blockquote><div><p>Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care? Almost certainly not. It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see:</p></div></blockquote><p> 
Any decent billing software allows you to do the same exact thing. Even if it can't do it out of the box, chances are you can find someone who can get that data out of it with simple SQL queries. Our software does for the most part but since it is SQL based, I can extend any reporting easily either with CrystalReports or SSRS (SqlServerReportingServices) and in no time at all. Need to know reimbusement percentage? easy... Need to know detailed reimbursement analysis by CPT code and Insurance Company? easy... Need a recall list with specific parameters, again easy...You don't need EMR software to do that.</p><p>I don't presume to know your actual payer mix but if it's the normal 55\% Insurance/ 45\% the two M's/ 10\% other you need a competent certified coder/biller/auditor who plays by the rules and investigates trends. You'll still end up with EMR down the road though some old-timers who still use ledger cards won't, but until more providers use it or it's a requirement to actually get paid... I'd wait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.I believe 2014 is the target date to decrease physician reimbursement by 5 \ % for not using EMR softwareI currently do my patients records on paper .
I bill much lower than I could , because I 'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.You should NOT be billing defensively !
You need to have competent chart-audits regularly and bill for what you actually perform .
You need to keep meticulous notes to verify your charges .
Just because your office is " going EMR within the next year " and " amount you bill will increase " means absolutely NOTHING .
They will still pay you the UCR rate in your area for whatever you bill for .
Couple that with the fact that major insurers and Medicare/Medicaid are probably going to start paying a set fee on the diagnosis because of things like PQRI ( see below ) , chances are you 'll never make that up .
Case in point : We have a doctor that bill $ 4000.00 for arthroscopic knee surgery .
He only gets $ 600.00 and is very unhappy about it .
We told him to stop doing surgery altogether and just do joint injections instead because they ( payers ) actually pay for that what it 's worth , plus he 'll save on malpractice insurance .
If he takes our proposal seriously , he 'll make more money for less work .
Software wo n't give you that.We have another doctor that tried out PQRI [ hhs.gov ] but for that extra 2 \ % reimbursement it takes an extra 20 minutes of reporting per claim by the doctor herself .
A chart-audit showed that all she had to do was bill her initial visit ( 9920X 's ) and she 'd increase her monthly revenues by 7-15 \ % ( dermatologist - lots of new patients a month ) .
A different doctor ( Psych ) of ours asked about PORI and with what we came to the conclusion that it is nothing but research and for quantifying the data into a database to be able to start paying on the DX and not on the actual work performed .
If you 're a GP/Internist and you have a diabetic patient you 're getting office visit reimbursement now .
In the future you wo n't .
You 'll get a set-fee for the year and if it takes 2 visits , well maybe you 're ahead on that patient but if it takes 20 visits you 're out quite a bit of revenue... It 's hard to stay on top of the reimbursement game.Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care ?
Almost certainly not .
It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see : Any decent billing software allows you to do the same exact thing .
Even if it ca n't do it out of the box , chances are you can find someone who can get that data out of it with simple SQL queries .
Our software does for the most part but since it is SQL based , I can extend any reporting easily either with CrystalReports or SSRS ( SqlServerReportingServices ) and in no time at all .
Need to know reimbusement percentage ?
easy... Need to know detailed reimbursement analysis by CPT code and Insurance Company ?
easy... Need a recall list with specific parameters , again easy...You do n't need EMR software to do that.I do n't presume to know your actual payer mix but if it 's the normal 55 \ % Insurance/ 45 \ % the two M 's/ 10 \ % other you need a competent certified coder/biller/auditor who plays by the rules and investigates trends .
You 'll still end up with EMR down the road though some old-timers who still use ledger cards wo n't , but until more providers use it or it 's a requirement to actually get paid... I 'd wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way doctors are going to go to EMR systems is when they improve the bottom line.I believe 2014 is the target date to decrease physician reimbursement by 5\% for not using EMR softwareI currently do my patients records on paper.
I bill much lower than I could, because I'm scared about penalties associated with being caught over-billing.You should NOT be billing defensively!
You need to have competent chart-audits regularly and bill for what you actually perform.
You need to keep meticulous notes to verify your charges.
Just because your office is "going EMR within the next year" and "amount you bill will increase" means absolutely NOTHING.
They will still pay you the UCR rate in your area for whatever you bill for.
Couple that with the fact that major insurers and Medicare/Medicaid are probably going to start paying a set fee on the diagnosis because of things like PQRI (see below), chances are you'll never make that up.
Case in point:
We have a doctor that bill $4000.00 for arthroscopic knee surgery.
He only gets $600.00 and is very unhappy about it.
We told him to stop doing surgery altogether and just do joint injections instead because they (payers) actually pay for that what it's worth, plus he'll save on malpractice insurance.
If he takes our proposal seriously, he'll make more money for less work.
Software won't give you that.We have another doctor that tried out PQRI [hhs.gov] but for that extra 2\% reimbursement it takes an extra 20 minutes of reporting per claim by the doctor herself.
A chart-audit showed that all she had to do was bill her initial visit (9920X's) and she'd increase her monthly revenues by 7-15\% (dermatologist - lots of new patients a month).
A different doctor (Psych) of ours asked about PORI and with what we came to the conclusion that it is nothing but research and for quantifying the data into a database to be able to start paying on the DX and not on the actual work performed.
If you're a GP/Internist and you have a diabetic patient you're getting office visit reimbursement now.
In the future you won't.
You'll get a set-fee for the year and if it takes 2 visits, well maybe you're ahead on that patient but if it takes 20 visits you're out quite a bit of revenue... It's hard to stay on top of the reimbursement game.Is EMR going to reduce the cost of health care?
Almost certainly not.
It will likely allow physicians to drill down into their database of patients to see: 
Any decent billing software allows you to do the same exact thing.
Even if it can't do it out of the box, chances are you can find someone who can get that data out of it with simple SQL queries.
Our software does for the most part but since it is SQL based, I can extend any reporting easily either with CrystalReports or SSRS (SqlServerReportingServices) and in no time at all.
Need to know reimbusement percentage?
easy... Need to know detailed reimbursement analysis by CPT code and Insurance Company?
easy... Need a recall list with specific parameters, again easy...You don't need EMR software to do that.I don't presume to know your actual payer mix but if it's the normal 55\% Insurance/ 45\% the two M's/ 10\% other you need a competent certified coder/biller/auditor who plays by the rules and investigates trends.
You'll still end up with EMR down the road though some old-timers who still use ledger cards won't, but until more providers use it or it's a requirement to actually get paid... I'd wait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31564878</id>
	<title>Re:I trust no one with my health records</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dream on kiddo. Every jotter blotting, ink swatting flunky in the insurance industry will be sharing and pouring over every little detail in your health records just to make sure you are not cheating of course. Not to try and deny the charge or cross charge it to another insurer, heaven forbid you should think that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dream on kiddo .
Every jotter blotting , ink swatting flunky in the insurance industry will be sharing and pouring over every little detail in your health records just to make sure you are not cheating of course .
Not to try and deny the charge or cross charge it to another insurer , heaven forbid you should think that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dream on kiddo.
Every jotter blotting, ink swatting flunky in the insurance industry will be sharing and pouring over every little detail in your health records just to make sure you are not cheating of course.
Not to try and deny the charge or cross charge it to another insurer, heaven forbid you should think that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561104</id>
	<title>Googlectomy</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269172140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mixing Google and my medical records would give a whole new meaning to the word <i>'Buzz</i>'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mixing Google and my medical records would give a whole new meaning to the word 'Buzz' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mixing Google and my medical records would give a whole new meaning to the word 'Buzz'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</id>
	<title>They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1269172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That it is OUR health data... and not theirs. If *I* want to post my health info to google, I should be able to. I should be able to obtain my own data relatively easily and painlessly (aside from whatever the doctor did to me, I mean!) and I shouldn't have to go through the whole battery of duplicate tests everytime I go to a different doctor.</p><p>I don't exactly want just anybody to be able to get to MY data either... But I trust google with it a lot more than I trust my insurance company!</p><p>No matter how this all pans out... I just want to have access to all of it myself, not locked up in some doctor's storage shed, or some insurance company's tape archive..</p><p>It's MY data... give it to ME, and let ME decide what to do with it. If I leave it out in the open, and the insurance company decides to charge me more because of something *I* allowed them to read, or if *I* lose info, and have to duplicate a bunch of tests.. at least it will be *MY* fault...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That it is OUR health data... and not theirs .
If * I * want to post my health info to google , I should be able to .
I should be able to obtain my own data relatively easily and painlessly ( aside from whatever the doctor did to me , I mean !
) and I should n't have to go through the whole battery of duplicate tests everytime I go to a different doctor.I do n't exactly want just anybody to be able to get to MY data either... But I trust google with it a lot more than I trust my insurance company ! No matter how this all pans out... I just want to have access to all of it myself , not locked up in some doctor 's storage shed , or some insurance company 's tape archive..It 's MY data... give it to ME , and let ME decide what to do with it .
If I leave it out in the open , and the insurance company decides to charge me more because of something * I * allowed them to read , or if * I * lose info , and have to duplicate a bunch of tests.. at least it will be * MY * fault.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That it is OUR health data... and not theirs.
If *I* want to post my health info to google, I should be able to.
I should be able to obtain my own data relatively easily and painlessly (aside from whatever the doctor did to me, I mean!
) and I shouldn't have to go through the whole battery of duplicate tests everytime I go to a different doctor.I don't exactly want just anybody to be able to get to MY data either... But I trust google with it a lot more than I trust my insurance company!No matter how this all pans out... I just want to have access to all of it myself, not locked up in some doctor's storage shed, or some insurance company's tape archive..It's MY data... give it to ME, and let ME decide what to do with it.
If I leave it out in the open, and the insurance company decides to charge me more because of something *I* allowed them to read, or if *I* lose info, and have to duplicate a bunch of tests.. at least it will be *MY* fault...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563348</id>
	<title>Re:Sketchy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh, think "Doubleclick health". Even if "Google" promises absolute security, don't think for a moment that other division of Google won't want to take even just a peek at the medical records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh , think " Doubleclick health " .
Even if " Google " promises absolute security , do n't think for a moment that other division of Google wo n't want to take even just a peek at the medical records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh, think "Doubleclick health".
Even if "Google" promises absolute security, don't think for a moment that other division of Google won't want to take even just a peek at the medical records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561636</id>
	<title>Re:They can't get it into their heads...</title>
	<author>DevConcepts</author>
	<datestamp>1269176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MY MY ME ME ME.. It's all about you isn't it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>MY MY ME ME ME.. It 's all about you is n't it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MY MY ME ME ME.. It's all about you isn't it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31564878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31577224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31580338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31562506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_2149258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31568292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31568292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31580338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31562506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31577224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31564878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_2149258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31561192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_2149258.31563348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
