Comments on: Get ready to Google-ize your health records

CEO Eric Schmidt to reveal Google's plans for digitizing the medical industry at health care trade show, but privacy and competition concerns abound.

[Save_Me_from_my_Govt]

Trust me...

Like, I'm going to put my health records in a database and "trust the privacy & security" of it? Even with "legislation in place" to protect it, we already know what good legislation is if the government wants the information. Constituion? "A da*ned piece of paper." The 4th Amendment? (No problem...We'll just use the magic words: "Protecting the American People" and we get a get-out-of-jail-free no-warrant-required pass.)

Someday it won't be "optional"... By that time, I can assure the government that I will fill up my profile with phoney information, and garbage. (Wasn't it terrible that I had a hysterectomy at the age of 3?...and a prostate problem at 5?)

Since the government can no longer be trusted with the information of private citizens, then they should not expect private citizens to march into the pen like sheep and give it up.

[jessiethe3rd]

Google... the new Big Brother

Gotta agree with you there....

Companies are take take take and they have protections ... more protection then citizens now... no thanks.

[francispotter]

"Health care". Sure.

Every time I read about "health care" technology, I stop to ponder the misuse of that word. There's a difference between "medical care" (which requires doctors, technology, and lots of money), and "health care" (which are the things that we do to take care of our health). If we do health care right, then we don't need medical care and the privacy concerns become moot.

[BIGELLOW]

Interesting dictionary...

...but I think terms mean what people start using them as. In other words, "awesome" used to mean "huge"... but as people started using it to mean "fantastic" it took on that meaning. "Sweet!" also only used to refer to something sugary, but now it can mean the same thing as "awesome." You get the point.

So, just because you have a dictionary that suggests that "health care" means one thing and "medical care" means another, doesn't mean this is the dictionary the rest of the world is using. My employer provides "health insurance" to me, even though you'd say "no, that's 'medical insurance'"... the United States is having a "health care crisis" to which you would say "no, it's a 'medical care' crisis"...

No matter how you slice it, you know what was meant... so there's no sense at trying to change the way people say it.

You seem to think that humans are capable of being so responsible for their own "health" as individuals and in groups that they will never need doctors... do you also think that humans are capable of being so responsible for their own "shelter" that they will never need architects and carpenters? Heck, maybe we will all become so self-sufficient that we won't need any jobs whatsoever. People will program their own search engines, build their own cars, perform surgery on themselves when they get into car accidents, pave the roads themselves, etc, etc...

Then, eventually, when we all become more civilized, we will learn that instead of everyone wearing many different hats, becoming jacks of all trades, masters of none... we will learn that it is more efficient for each of us to master certain trades. Then, we will have doctors, architects, carpenters, manufacturers, computer programmers, etc, etc, etc... oh, wait, that's the world you don't like.

Well, let's all become Amish, then. Then, we'll finally be rid of this wretched Interweb thingy.

[Ramalaka2]

Sick idea

Having Google "manage" your personal health data is like having a tweaker guard the meth lab when the cooks are gone: they'll dip into the pot for their own personal use and sell what they steal...it is a sick idea.

Integration with Google Maps will only enable better tracking for their counterparts at the NSA track people.

From a user interface perspective, few of Google's interfaces are a "clean and simple interface" - they are bad as as Microsoft when it comes to building good UIs.

[BIGELLOW]

Hahahaha...

I love good analogies put to bad use. They're very entertaining.

Considering your post to be intelligent is like considering an axe murderer to be sane.

Good stuff. Good stuff. So why, exactly, do you consider Google to be the equivalent of the "tweaker"? Do you have a laundry list of bad things Google has done that makes you distrust them? Or, in other words... imagine for a moment that you were going to give all of your health information to an organization... any organization... is Google at the very bottom of your list? Is Microsoft higher on your list? Or are you just dismissing the idea altogether, whether Google is involved or not?

Google has never sold personal information, so I find it funny that you are holding your pitchfork and your torch and are proclaiming them to be witches and warlocks.

[ericis.com]

Fantastic Innovation, but...

Wow is Google going to have to give a lot of blood and sweat to make this work... er, wait... Why don't they just make a deal with Walmart's health clinics to kick it off? http://shrinkster.com/vez

I am still waiting for Google Bank, Google Earth Kid Tracker, Google Rx, Google Taxes, Google New Year's Resolutions (you know you want more diet pill and gym ads), ...

Your information = $$$

[kinowerken]

Trust Google with Health Info--FORGET IT

With all their undisclosed cross referencing, undisclosed usage, of
non-medical personal information, I would never trust them with
health records. Hello, sir, we've come from the Master Index of your
LIfe Bureau.

[BIGELLOW]

You crack me up.

That is the most hilarious comment I have read in a long, long time. You bash Google for having so many "undisclosed" things, but then you say you don't trust them with information. So which is it? Do you want them to disclose your information you give them, or don't you. If they are so good at keeping secrets, wouldn't they be exactly who you trust with information?

They have never mis-used information in the past. If you try to hunt for some examples, I can show you dozens of easily-found examples from other organizations. So, it really comes down to this... either you trust AN organization with your information... or you don't. If you don't, why single Google out? If you do, who do you trust more than Google, and what examples lead you to that conclusion?

[kevinmcc0823]

author is a google lackey

"This will be extremely convenient"
Nice. I'm sure you bought their stock right around $750, too.

[HamletRL]

Personal Health Records

Regarding the latest announcement...
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0308/032708bb1.htm

Has anyone seen a heads-up comparison between the Google and Microsoft PHR's?

I currently use WebMD, but am interested in switching to something more established.

Thanks.

Rick
[e-mail]