Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

With 'Obamacare' Kicking In, Microsoft Sees a Health-Data Windfall

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the in-the-cloud dept.

Microsoft 201

curtwoodward writes "Now that President Obama's federal health care reform is past its major political hurdles — and with renewed focus on out-of-control costs in healthcare — companies that sell 'big data' software are licking their chops. The reason: Healthcare has huge piles of information that is being used in new ways, to track patient admissions, spending, and much more. From hospitals to insurance companies, they'll all need new ways of crunching those numbers. It's basically an entirely new field that will dwarf the spending growth in traditional data-heavy industries like finance, retail and marketing, a Microsoft regional sales GM says."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Big Data" (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053591)

Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now. It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.

Re:"Big Data" (2, Insightful)

John Jorsett (171560) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053643)

Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now. It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.

I usually employ the standard of whether somebody is capable of making a point without resorting to profanity.

Re:"Big Data" (0, Offtopic)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053689)

People who know the point they want to make use profanity, people who are to stuck up / proper try to talk around the use of swearing and usually end up sounding like a complete idiot.

Re:"Big Data" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053707)

you sir, are a fool.

Re:"Big Data" (2, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053887)

That's "Total Fucking Fool" to you...

scatological terminology (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053715)

Usually, I find that those who complain about the use of scatological terminology are on the losing end of the argument in no uncertain terms, and are a suit weasel.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053737)

People who know the point they want to make use profanity, people who are to stuck up / proper try to talk around the use of swearing and usually end up sounding like a complete idiot.

People who know the point they want to make just make it. Swearing is a distraction, a brain-fart, a signal to detect wind-bags.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

starless (60879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053769)

People who know the point they want to make use profanity, people who are to stuck up / proper try to talk around the use of swearing and usually end up sounding like a complete idiot.

Personally, I find I'm often more influenced by whether by a native speaker makes frequent basic grammatical errors or not. (e.g. "to" vs. "too").

(And by McKean's law I must have several errors in the sentence above of course.)

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053845)

Not to say your wrong but personally that is completely unimportant to me, it's a small grammar / spelling rule that seems so pedantic it's absurd. I have never had an issue reading a sentence, paragraph, essay or book where the wrong version of to was used. I think if thats an issue for someone it's not the person writing the work, it the person reading it.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054051)

Were your errors intentional and making a point, or did you not actually look back over what you wrote?

Re:"Big Data" (1)

only_human (761334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054063)

You're right.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054125)

Fair enough thats a mistake but it shouldn't be big enough to cause you not to understand the post after you read it.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054137)

It may not affect a reader's ability to understand the post, but it does reflect poorly on you, your ability to communicate, and the point you're making. Whether it should or not is debatable I suppose, but generally (especially on the internet) poor grammar and spelling is indicative of someone who isn't worth listening to.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054237)

I completely disagree with that, you need to think about the post after you read it, spelling and grammar can take a back seat if the point is vailid.

Re:"Big Data" (1, Flamebait)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054389)

Being a grammar/spelling pendant reflects badly on the no life having fucking morons that waste their obviously worthless time.

That goes double for the 'don't cuss' festering care bears.

When someones got _nothing_ they attack spelling/grammar/language.

Please see Dilbert 20040606 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054411)

[expletive deleted]

Re:"Big Data" (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053917)

too vs to i can forgive (though it should not survive proofreading), but misusing there/they're/their or you're/your is outright inexcusable.

Re:"Big Data" (1)

WhatAreYouDoingHere (2458602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054223)

Personally, I find I'm often more influenced by whether by a native speaker makes frequent basic grammatical errors or not. (e.g. "to" vs. "too").

I've tried listening to native speakers very closely, and still find it very hard to determine whether they are speaking "to" or "too."

Re:"Big Data" (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053719)

Yet you used profanity in your post.

Re:"Big Data" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053731)

Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now. It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.

I usually employ the standard of whether somebody is capable of making a point without resorting to profanity.

I usually employ the grammatical standard of conveying the difference between an idiot and a fucking idiot.

There is a difference, and sometimes it takes some rather colorful language to convey the message properly.

Not sure which planet you're from, but ours is fucked up. And no, there's no other way to say it.

Re:"Big Data" (5, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053847)

I'm biased, as my entire job is building those systems so many people refer to as "big data" - but the marketing is terrible. The technology itself is quite good, and makes a huge amount of sense. The problem is, companies traditionally used to doing data stuff for large corporations (ie, EMC, Oracle) are pissing themselves. This destroys their entire business model - so they're flooding the market with crap trying to avoid losing absolute boatloads of money and accounts to these technologies.

Talk about big data with those companies all you like, and they won't mention the actual reason hadoop and the like are a big deal:
1- It's all open source. Don't wanna pay? Self support.
2- It's all designed to run on the cheapest commodity hardware you can find. Why buy appliances with huge markups?

This has companies used to huge margins on appliances and software shitting themselves. They tried FUD with single point of failure stuff, and now that that's solved, they're stuffing infiniband into custom rack designs and saying how much better it is. Meanwhile you can buy 4x the gear for that same price.

Is it a buzzword? Yup. Is it saturated with marketing? Yup. Is it a stupid idea? Hell no.

how do you get the Cs to "get" it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054189)

I built my companies 1st hadoop cluster in late 2009 & it was a total _O_ _M_ _G_ moment - I knew this was a transformative technology like the spreadsheet & rdbms before it. I've tried in vain for years to make the lightbulb go off in various executives heads but 3 1/2 years later they're wanting to kill our modest 20-ish node cluster (since it's not "in the cloud" {rolls eyes}) & replace it with terradata or netezza (yes, you read that correctly).

Re:how do you get the Cs to "get" it? (2)

epiphani (254981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054415)

In my case, I didn't even talk about the major advantages like the complex analysis. 100 billion row joins don't sell execs. I did it purely based on the cost vs. enterprise grade storage. That got it in the door - and then I was selling the platform to developers. Showing a dev team a little pig script written on the spot, then sending it out on a production cluster and watching it use 800 cores and 8TB of memory, processing a few dozen TB of data while we're sitting in a room, and the devs got on board. Now I've got new dev groups wanting onto the platform regularly - and the execs keep hearing about how this hadoop thing is a critical part of their app/service/report. It sells itself, after a point.

No. (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053849)

Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now

The worst buzzword out there is, without a doubt, "Obamacare". This clusterfuck of an industry bailout bill has pretty well no resemblance to health care reform, or to any of what Obama actually wanted to do.

It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.

br? That is also true about people who use the word "Obamacare".

Re:No. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053903)

This clusterfuck of an industry bailout bill has pretty well no resemblance to health care reform, or to any of what Obama actually wanted to do.

I know somebody who works in pharma.
It's certainly likely that 'the suits' were lining their wallets, and virtually guaranteed that our Ruling Class [amazon.com] is out to shear us all after the sheep fashion.
One is curious as to what you think "Obama actually wanted to do". My guess is Single-payer [wikipedia.org] , that smashing British success story [wikipedia.org] .
Because, hey, if we've bought enough of the anti-capitalist propaganda, and ignored the empirical results, I say: "Let us crash [youtube.com] ."

Re:No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054061)

One is curious as to what you think "Obama actually wanted to do". My guess is Single-payer [wikipedia.org] , that smashing British success story [wikipedia.org] .

Interesting. You appear to not realise that the NHS is not a single payer system - it nationalises not just payment, but the provision of treatment as well. A single payer system would be more like Medicare-for-all, wherein the government runs a kind of health insurer, but not the actual treatment facilities themselves. Also, while the NHS certainly isn't flawless, there is absolutely no interest in eliminating it. Even proposals from some Conservatives to move to a more single-payer style system are considered quite daring. Note that the England has significantly lower government spending on healthcare per person than the US, despite the fact that the US government(s) doesn't cover that many people.

Re:No. (3, Insightful)

sesshomaru (173381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054165)

Obama certainly didn't want to do single-payer, nationalized health-care, a "robust public option," (whatever the Hell that means, since if it was any good the for profit healthcare system would cease to be in an number of years, so they might as well go to single-payer) or any of those things. Obama is a neoliberal, he'd never propose anything that wasn't a cash grab for someone (the Republicans are also neoliberals, but they have that Southern Strategy gunking them up that means they can't be as fleet of foot as a neoliberal Democrat like Obama). His healthcare plan was basically written by the Heritage Foundation, not generally known as a bastion of socialism.

Basically, in countries that are sensible, they understand that healthcare ought to be like fire and police departments. (Whereas in neoliberal Hells like the United States, they'd like to make the police and fire departments more like our wonderful healthcare system. They're already doing it to the post office and the school. And it's bipartisan.)

It's not capitalism, it's Thatcherism (oh, and you know what country has suffered under the yoke of Thatcherism for year? I'll give you a hint, she was Prime Minister of the UK.). There Is No Alternative. (I'm looking forward to our coming Greek style healthcare, myself, though in many ways we already have it.)

Re:No. (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054193)

Obamacare? Clusterfuck?

You mean the bill that means that I'll actually be able to buy insurance in the future? The state by state approach wasn't working because healthcare is an interstate commerce issue. People move from state to state and take their medical issues with them. I'm living in WA and it was one of the only states to guarantee health insurance to anybody that could pay for it. Which meant that they had to flunk 10% into the high risk pool no matter how healthy they were. Which meant that I'd be paying $500 or $600 a month because I was flagged as high risk.

And no health care reform? What do you call mandatory coverage for preventative care and capping the administrative fees? Or, what do you call the pay for quality changes that are coming? Sure, it wasn't what it should be, but without being able to go back to the '70s and take Nixon's proposal, it was the best we could do.

Plus, Obama should be proud of getting something done. I used to oppose the term Obamacare, but honestly, at this point, he should at least get credit for it, he's taking the heat regardless.

Re: No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054313)

Good for you, but that has nothing to do with the topic, you fucking idiot.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054353)

If the legislation didn't even resemble what Obama wanted, why did he sign off on it?

Big Data is great for funding (1)

prefec2 (875483) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053983)

In recent years we had SOA, SOA is dead, Cloud, SOA in the Cloud. A lot of software architecture topics. Good for funding software engineering faculties. However, the database people had not that much new things to sell. Ok there is no-SQL DBs and graph-databases, but to really sell them, you need a new buzzword. And big data is superb. All the problems which where solved for small and normal data, can now reselled for big data.

Actually the is something new, it is the complexity of the data storage and its increased distribution. However, we can use all that data mining stuff from recent years and just have to scale them.

Confusing (1, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053609)

1) feel ill
2) go to doctor
3) get better

What does an insurance company have to do with it?

Re:Confusing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053677)

4) Pay for step 2

Re:Confusing (1, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053751)

4) Pay for step 2

That's why I pay taxes. Same as providing roads, picking up trash, looking after aircraft in flight, providing education, etc.

Re:Confusing (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053901)

That's why I pay taxes.

Well, then that government is your insurer. At least, when it's not throwing that money at other things.

Re:Confusing (2)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053749)

What does an insurance company have to do with it?

Something along these lines:

1) pay $x to insurance company
2) feel ill
3) go to doctor
4) have insurance company pay $x*20 to doctor
5) get better

It's an actuarial calculation. The sum of everyone paying to the insurance company must be more than the sum of what doctors are charging from the insurance company. So, the insurance company searches for ways to widen the difference as much as possible all the while staying competitive with the other insurance companies.

The problem with the US system is that you don't have laws stating that that insurance companies cannot deny pre-existing conditions, must provide treatment for basically everything, and cannot charge differently due to you being a high-demanding customer, only being allowed to increase prices due to age and even so within pre-defined limits. If such laws existed insurance premiums would be calculated in a way as to make it all work by simply charging the huge number of younger and healthier customers slightly more. It's how it works here in Brazil. You get private insurance, you get treatment for almost everything. Insurance companies here compete only in terms of time from diagnostic to procedure (the faster it is the more you pay, with the government determining a maximum limit), the list of hospitals you get access to (the fancier and most renowned ones cost more) and niceties (private vs. multiple patient room, free choice of doctor vs. pre-approved ones, automatic access to expensive exams vs. pre-screened and subject to authorization, private ambulance/air-transport/etc. included or not, coverage area, discounts on medications etc.), but not in what they cover or for whom. Oh, and insurance companies must compete with the government provided free health coverage, which is admittedly bad to the extreme but in being free imposes a maximum limit on private insurance's premiums before people think paying isn't worth it anymore.

When these impositions were made lots of insurance companies couldn't adapt and went bankrupt. Then the surviving ones wen't into merges and reorganizations. Nowadays the ones that remain in business are doing fine even with the government continually expanding the list of procedures they must cover and materials they must provide.

It works.

Re:Confusing (4, Insightful)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053829)

There are lots of other government transfer programs that tax the young to pay for the old. It only "works" until the demographic shift inherent to an aging population gets bad enough that there aren't enough young people paying taxes to support the old people. Then you either move the age to qualify for benefits up or you run up massive deficits.

Re:Confusing (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053973)

There are lots of other government transfer programs that tax the young to pay for the old. It only "works" until the demographic shift inherent to an ageing population gets bad enough that there aren't enough young people paying taxes to support the old people. Then you either move the age to qualify for benefits up or you run up massive deficits.

This is exactly the same no matter how you fund it, publicly or privately. In a perfect capitalist system, the baby boomers have all saved lots of piece of paper saying $100. They reach 65, and all demand that the youth accept these pieces of paper in exchange for doing work for them.

The youth decide they spend far too many hours as a country looking after old people, and not enough time looking after themselves. As such, they charge the old people more, and pay themselves more.

A piece of paper saying $100 is worthless. I will fix your broken leg, but you have give me a cow in exchange. That's not a practical way of conducting business in most countries, so we use things as barter. Dollars, Euros, shiny gems, whatever.

Once you leave the workforce, you're relying on your shiny gems maintaining their value. If inflation means these drop in value, tough.

Fundamentally, if you increase the resources looking after non-functioning people in society (majorly disabled, rich retirees, unemployed benefit scroungers), the rest suffer. The solution is to reduce the number of non-functioning people, either by raising retirement age, or by reducing the money and time you spend on them.

Re:Confusing (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054037)

If the boomers in that capitalist system did their retirement planning right instead of depending on some government bureaucrat to do it for them, they'd be invested in assets that grow to counteract most or all of the inflation.

Re:Confusing (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054217)

If they hadn't voted for politicians that borrowed the money to avoid service cuts or tax raises it wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is now. Or had been given the ability to invest the money in some low risk fashion it wouldn't be a problem.

But, in addition to that, the Boomers absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are going to have to be cuts because the SS trust fund can't afford to pay out COLAs when wages are stagnant and there is no inflation. What's more, it's mostly their politicians that have been gutting programs like education that are necessary for younger folks to make the money necessary to pay into the trust so that it's funded.

What's even more infuriating, is that defined benefits plans are a thing of the past, younger Americans can't count on getting a dime for their retirement other than what the government hands out. And they bitch about how articles acknowledging it are getting the younger folks riled up. Well, we should be riled up, they're stealing our chance at the American dream because they were too short sighted and greedy to plan for their futures.

Re:Confusing (1)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053977)

You omitted the third option, the one that is the most politically expedient: you borrow money and once you can't borrow you print.

Thus eventually you destroy your currency and the entire issue becomes irrelevant - you can get your SS or Medicare check, but they don't buy anything, because your country isn't producing anything and all of your importers don't want to take your fake currency for their products.

Sounds like a job for Greenplum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053619)

These things are being sold like hot cakes for this exact reason

"cashing in" is the point (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053625)

Cashing in was the only point of Obamacare. It fixes nothing except the job security of insurance executives. They still don't have any motivation to keep you alive, now that you're a captive audience.

Re:"cashing in" is the point (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054231)

They have increased job security to a point, but with the cap on non-service spending they can't make the bucket loads of cash they had been making. And Obamacare does have provisions where they pay for quality rather than quantity. Which should deal with that. What's more, with the insurance exchanges it's a lot harder for insurance companies that aren't providing quality services to keep people using their insurance.

So, collectively it may have increased their job security, but if an insurer is doing as poorly as many of them are now, in the future, the market can actually deal with that to an extent by having a mass exodus of people whose needs are being served going elsewhere.

Re:"cashing in" is the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054379)

How do the insurance companies get premiums from dead people?

Same gov't gives us the TSA and summary execution (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053679)

Rail against the out-of-control government that gives us the TSA, the Patriot Act, and summarily executes US citizens.

Then cheer it on when it takes over 1/6 of the US economy?

And you claim to care about your rights and freedoms?

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT OVERWEENING GOVERNMENT THAT MUCH *MORE* POWER?!?!?!

Re:Same gov't gives us the TSA and summary executi (1)

footNipple (541325) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053759)

I'd like to pledge all of my future mod points to you mister...whoever you are.

Re:Same gov't gives us the TSA and summary executi (4, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053775)

Rail against the out-of-control government that gives us the TSA, the Patriot Act, and summarily executes US citizens.

Then cheer it on when it takes over 1/6 of the US economy?

And you claim to care about your rights and freedoms?

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT OVERWEENING GOVERNMENT THAT MUCH *MORE* POWER?!?!?!

UK Economy: $2.4 trillion
UK Heath expenditure: under $200 billion.

That's 1/12th of the economy, sounds like you overspend on your health system. Shouldn't the competition keep prices down?

Re:Same gov't gives us the TSA and summary executi (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054007)

Rail against the out-of-control government that gives us the TSA, the Patriot Act, and summarily executes US citizens.

Then cheer it on when it takes over 1/6 of the US economy?

And you claim to care about your rights and freedoms?

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT OVERWEENING GOVERNMENT THAT MUCH *MORE* POWER?!?!?!

UK Economy: $2.4 trillion
UK Heath expenditure: under $200 billion.

That's 1/12th of the economy, sounds like you overspend on your health system. Shouldn't the competition keep prices down?

First, US government involvement has historically lead to anything but keeping prices down.

Second, since most US health care is through private insurance and through private transactions, the US population basically spends that much on health care for the simple reason they want to.

Third, Obamacare is fundamentally dysfunctional. It's two main goals of greater health care coverage and lower cost are diametrically opposed. It's pretty damn impossible to increase demand without increasing cost. Of course, giving everyone "coverage" and then rationing health care would do that. Hmmm, would the same cynical demagogue who railed against the Patriot Act as a candidate but then went well beyond anything in that Act to actually conduct "extrajudicial killing" of US citizens once elected to President, hmmm, would a person who could do THAT really care what the actual results would be as long as he could claim some great accomplishment that would make his useful idiot constituency happy?

Re:Same gov't gives us the TSA and summary executi (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054265)

Bullshit.

They only appear diametrically opposed if you're a moron. The reality is that people will be forced to pay into the system if they have the money rather than waiting until they get sick to get insurance so they'll at least be contributing something rather than being overwhelmed by bills and declaring bankruptcy. What's more, we're already starting to see checks mailed out to people whose health insurer charged too much for premiums. My insurer was pretty good at estimating the real costs so my check was pretty small. But for other people the checks were a lot larger.

Obamacare also mandates that insurance companies pay for preventative care, you know the care that prevents serious and expensive conditions from occurring or at least reduces the likelihood of such conditions occurring. The US pays a crap load of money for preventable diseases to people who haven't been able to afford coverage and have to wait until they have a serious illness before seeking help or worry about whether or not their trip to the hospital for a possible heart attack is going to be covered.

As far as the historical, that's not the government that's because morons like you vote for corporatists with no interest in keeping costs down if it means corporate interests and the rich suffer. Every other country that's gone with universal healthcare has lower costs than we do, if we screw that up, you can blame the GOP for corporate welfare.

Big healthcare data? (2)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053681)

What big health care data? I'm not joking when I saw that the last place I would ever trust sensitive or critical information is a hospital. Hospitals have the least amount of data production and verification imaginable, I would be very skeptical about tracking data from any healthcare system because frankly it will always be incorrect.

Over the last 10 years I've had MANY MANY files that have gone missing, been lost, been misplaced and just plan gone from the health care system. In one case after losing the same MRI test three times they also lost the paper copies! Now I don't know a lot of industries that can lose the same work multiple times in both digital and non digital form.

Clearly I'm left with a very different out look on the health care system and data management and security, So as for collecting big data, that just wont work, that data isn't secure enough inside the system to account for anything. It would be like running a survey of 10,000 people where you only return 7,000 surveys, the data will never work because your missing to much important data.

Re:Big healthcare data? (4, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053761)

What big health care data? I'm not joking when I saw that the last place I would ever trust sensitive or critical information is a hospital...

What big health care data you ask? The data that your government (also known as your new healthcare provider) is going to demand, that's what data.

From how fast you drive to how much fattening butter (in grams, weighed by the smart container that reported it to your smart fridge), expect data to be collected everywhere. Isn't it ironic how the hipsters think all this new smart tech is really "cool" today, without even thinking of the consequences in the future.

And expect that data to be used against you, to charge you more for the lifestyle you want.

As far as security goes, no comment when it comes to our government. InfoSec seems to be the least of their concerns, especially when it's your data.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053859)

So it sounds like you don't want government run health care, but you want other people to subsidize your butter gorging lifestyle?

I can't tell what you are advocating for exactly. Maybe the current us status quo where your coworkers subsidize your lifestyle while you are working, then the government after you retire?

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054147)

So it sounds like you don't want government run health care, but you want other people to subsidize your butter gorging lifestyle?

I think he's like many of us in what is supposed to be "the land of the free". Leave me the hell alone. I don't want to force you or anyone else to pay for my lifestyle choices. It sounds to me like you are insisting on being forced to subsidize my choices. So be it, if you want that obligation to be forced on you, and you vote for the people who will demand that obligation be forced on you, I apparently have no say in the matter.

So, all those who wanted Obamacare, get ready to pay for a few million people who don't want your help, but will shove your over-reaching tyranny right back down your throats until you choke to death. Then, after we've reduced your desire to pay for us, maybe you'll understand the error of your ways.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054291)

So, all those who wanted Obamacare, get ready to pay for a few million people who don't want your help, but will shove your over-reaching tyranny right back down your throats until you choke to death. Then, after we've reduced your desire to pay for us, maybe you'll understand the error of your ways.

So what are you going to do, get sick till we "learn our lesson". What kind of braindead fucking moron actually thinks like that?

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054325)

So it sounds like you don't want government run health care, but you want other people to subsidize your butter gorging lifestyle?

No, I merely want whatever agency is going to run healthcare to come up with a reasonable way to calculate medical premiums without going to extremes to create ways to generate more revenue.

I used to get a rate insurance adjustment every few years. Now it's every year. Soon it will be every 6 months, just like auto insurance policies have shrunk down to. But the big difference is we don't change our driving habits all that often. Changes in eating habits can create expensive medical issues rather quickly, thus creating the (weak-ass) justification to review and adjust insurance premiums however often they want. How often you ask? Well, look at your mortgage. Seems they have no issues at all charging you interest daily, even though as consumers that kind of interest schedule doesn't exist to our benefit. I can't think of a single reason that abuse wouldn't carry over. This is the medical industry we're talking about. They practically wrote the book on abuse.

If they have the ability to collect all kinds of lifestyle data on you, and they control how often they will review that data and adjust your individual rate, I fail to understand why in the hell no one thinks they won't abuse that power. I simply don't want this to be yet another avenue for abuse, and allow the corrupt elite to create more ways to increase revenue by screwing over the masses. Daily.

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053869)

Wow, you're a nutjob. Sorry for not offering up anything except for an ad hominem, but your comment is just too paranoid.

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054191)

Wow, you're a nutjob. Sorry for not offering up anything except for an ad hominem, but your comment is just too paranoid.

I can track an individual down on the planet to the very speed he is walking with 3m accuracy with free apps today that overlay it on a satellite view detailed enough for me to peer inside your window of your house.

Tell that statement to someone 20 years ago, and see what kind of colorful labels they come up with. I'm not a nutjob. I'm merely old enough to remember what actual privacy meant in this world, and not ignorant enough to know where it's going.

Perhaps it is you that needs to wise up.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054317)

I can track an individual down on the planet to the very speed he is walking with 3m accuracy with free apps today that overlay it on a satellite view detailed enough for me to peer inside your window of your house.

Unless you are working for the USAF, you're a fucking liar. Also, here is a hint, my father-in-law actually did telemetry on the SR-71 while it was still a "secret", they were able to do what you just described *in 1970*.

Another paranoid moron is what you are.

Re:Big healthcare data? (2, Insightful)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053871)

They can dig everything they want up on me. Personally living in Canada it's a little different up here, but we'll follow most moves the US makes. The health care sector can dig up what ever they want on me and they can even publish it for all I care. People in general are way to concerned with privacy, privacy is dead! It's been dead for a long time, if someone wants to find you they will. If someone wants your records they can get them and if someone want to wipe you out they can do that. People who think they have privacy are either super careful or idiots. Every time you log onto a network, every time you use the internert, a credit card, take a trip, fill out a survey or walk around, your being tracked! Privacy is dead and it's not coming back, so because it's dead take what you want from me and use it, I'd rather look like innocent guy because I'm forth comming with it, rather then look like the guilty guy because I hide behind laws and rights that don't really protect me.

Re:Big healthcare data? (2)

shia84 (1985626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053993)

Privacy is only dead to those who have given up on it, e.g. you.

While the current technical possibilities make it easy for some entities to invade your privacy, it is not a technical question at all. Popularise and pass laws (remember that democracy thingie...) that punish someone who violates your expectation of privacy. I know this sounds outlandish over there, because it probably is, but where I live (Switzerland) both the government and companies have to tread very carefully with peoples data. For example Google got tons of flak (it was quite a fight for them, and the aftermath is still ongoing) for Streetview _after_ they blurred faces, numbers and all those measures that made it "acceptable" in the USA.

We look with shock and awe at things like your sex offender databases, and again, even if my internet provider can technically easily bring up a list of all my "naughty visits", they wouldn't dare even giving the impression that someone got it through them.

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054091)

Fair enough, I was more so talking about North America, I'll give you that post :-)

Re:Big healthcare data? (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054141)

They can dig everything they want up on me. Personally living in Canada it's a little different up here, but we'll follow most moves the US makes. The health care sector can dig up what ever they want on me and they can even publish it for all I care...

Ah, just to make things clear, I don't pay my ever-increasing medical premiums with "publications". I pay it with cash.

You let me know how much you give a shit about your medical privacy when your individual insurance premiums are adjusted every 3 months based on them digging up "everything they want" on you. Now tell me why they wouldn't do this. Ever.

Or perhaps you won't get that job because the healthcare data warehouse was hacked last year, and your name showed up on the wrong disease list in a Google index that should not have existed. Now tell me why this wouldn't happen. Ever.

Privacy is dying because if ignorance about what can and will be done with data that should have not been recorded in the first place.

Wake up.

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054253)

My medical insurance is provided by my government at least in Canada and I can't be denied a job because of my medical history. If that is how it works in the US then I feel sorry for that extremely broken system but hear in Canada we get a decent standard of health care for free and the rest is usually given by your employeer. Medical history aside we get treated pretty well up here.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054207)

People in general are way to concerned with privacy, privacy is dead!.

Please post your online banking username and password, bigshot.

Re:Big healthcare data? (1)

mlookaba (2802163) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054241)

The health care sector can dig up what ever they want on me and they can even publish it for all I care

I'd rather look like innocent guy because I'm forth comming with it, rather then look like the guilty guy because I hide behind laws and rights that don't really protect me.

The Nazis loved people like you.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054303)

What's your address and credit card numbers again?

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054381)

Privacy is dead

Please respond with your full name, date of birth, social insurance number, mailing address, and mothers maiden name. Following this advice will, in all likelihood, demonstrate exactly why you're wrong.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053777)

That is your experience and here is mine, I work for a very large hospital in the US (4500+) providers are employed all over the state it is in. The hospital has 2 "Big Data" warehouses (Netezza High Capacity Appliances http://www-142.ibm.com/software/products/us/en/ibmnetehighcapaappl/ [ibm.com] ). My current job is working in the IS Analytics department where we are in the process of consolidating/porting thousands of legacy COBOL programs to SAS http://www.sas.com/ [sas.com] . Along with this we also do ad-hoc reporting for providers/users. The amount of data collected at the hospital from other systems and then funneled into these machines is staggering and runs 18/5 right now. If you ever had to deal with QM (Quality Measures) you know the kinds of data that is collected and stored.

Re:Big healthcare data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053933)

Well you have to provide this information to get treatment. Guess you'll be stuck doing chemo at home.

"New" systems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053685)

Well, I for one welcome hospitals' advancements into COBOL. Such a huge improvement compared to current systems. Didn't know Microsoft had a COBOL division, though.

Central planning (1, Troll)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053687)

Central planning, destruction of competition, government money (taxed, borrowed, printed, whatever), more 'data crunching'.

The costs are going up, the people who used to have health insurance (whether paid for it themselves or through their employer) will be falling while the number of people who never had health insurance but can now have it because it will be heavily subsidized for them will be going up.

The nonsensical SCOTUS decision on ACA [slashdot.org] (4 vs 5 makes something Constitutional as opposed to unconstitutional?) is only technically 'constitutional' because the fine for not buying insurance is seen as a tax, but as such, it cannot be too high (whatever that means), otherwise it means the Congress is legislating by taxing, and that's illegal. Of-course ACA is unconstitutional, because it is a direct tax, the fact that some people will not pay it does not turn it into indirect tax. There are plenty of people who are not paying federal income taxes, yet that does not make them indirect. (Here I cover all these arguments and more [slashdot.org] ).

But Americans were sold a bill of goods, the health care COSTS will be going up, as there will be even more demand generated than just with gov't money in Medicare, fake demand that would not have existed otherwise with fake money, that nobody that would spend it had to earn.

The costs will be going up, the insurance companies will see a drastic fall in subscribers, their revenues will disappear, and the gov't will have to either bail out the insurance companies or the next bill will completely nationalize health insurance and turn it into 'single payer', which is even more devastating than that USA used to have prior to ACA.

Of-course there is no money for any of it, this is another giant step towards destruction of the American economy, and people are still wondering, 'why are investors not investing in America? [slashdot.org] '

USSR used to have a 'free for all' health care and education and even 'right to work' (where you'll get a job, regardless whether you want it or not, otherwise you could even face jail time for being a 'parasite') American CIA even believe until the last day of USSR that the former Soviet state was strong. Yeah, well, the same people (or the same attitudes and misconceptions) that worked for the CIA at the time are at work today, believing that what USA needs is more socialism and not less of it.

USA is bankrupt, ACA doesn't matter anymore, the US economy cannot afford it but it doesn't even have to, it won't matter much to the final outcome.

Re:Central planning (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054097)

I'm sorry, but from the point of "4 vs 5 makes something Constitutional as opposed to unconstitutional?" you lose all credibility.

You can dislike the holding all you like, and there are a number of legal arguments that can be made about it, but when your route of attack is a whine about how five people can decide what the constitution means you've just undermined all of your remaining points.

That is how the judiciary in this country has worked for a little more than 200 years (Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803), to complain about it now, because of a holding you disagree with, is facile in the extreme.

Re:Central planning (1)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054133)

I really don't care about your 'giving credibility', I wrote about this problem previously [slashdot.org] . SCOTUS is not supposed to 'interpret the law', it's supposed to uphold the law. If a law is unclear, it should be clarified in the Constitution. "Interpreting" the Constitution = breaking it.

I am quite certain there isn't one type of argument that you can throw at me that I didn't actually address previously in some comment or a journal entry (not that it matters, just a thought).

Re:Central planning (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054161)

And your post on the subject doesn't help matters. It just brings into clearer relief that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about.

Re:Central planning (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054335)

Well, I hear they don't have a Supreme Court in Somalia. Maybe you should move?

Also, you're an idiot.

Re:Central planning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054321)

Maybe it needs to change, then. Just because 'that is how we have always done it' doesn't make it right. Not recognizing that makes you lose all your credibility.

Oh you mean... (3, Funny)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053709)

You'll lobby the government to update everything to metro and get a big nice juicy contract.

USA medical spend 15% of GDP, Europe 8-10% (5, Insightful)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053745)

US system is FUBAR, 50million uninsured, huge numbers of medical induced bankruptcies (for the heinous crime of being unlucky), lower life expectancy.

Nationalised single payer with optional extra private coverage is demonstrably cheaper and has (on average) better outcomes. Anyone with half a brain would get behind establishing it in the US. Oh and while you are at it do something about malpractice tort reform - the major cause of excessive medical costs.

Re:USA medical spend 15% of GDP, Europe 8-10% (2)

LaggedOnUser (1856626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053785)

On the other hand, the US also spends twice as much on our education system and gets worse results. Maybe this country is suffering from an excess of money and a shortage of brains... it is possible that they could convert to some other healthcare system as you suggest without actually saving money or getting better results.

Re:USA medical spend 15% of GDP, Europe 8-10% (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053825)

In the UK the figure is 9%. Everyone has access to healthcare free at the point of use ( tax funded ). The downside is that when we reach the age of 30 our crystals glow red and we have to report to the NHS death panels.

You've missed the official narrative (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053911)

Nationalised single payer with optional extra private coverage is demonstrably cheaper and has (on average) better outcomes. Anyone with half a brain would get behind establishing it in the US

You are absolutely correct on that.

Unfortunately you have missed the fact that such a thing is officially labeled as "uncontrollable, completely nutbar, crazy-ass Stalin-esque Hitler-loving Castro-backing communist socialist fascism!". So while it makes sense to a sensible person, the dominant conservative narrative here tells people that it is a terrible, terrible idea that should never enter the discussion. Even our allegedly "liberal" president took the idea off the table about 12 seconds into the first discussion.

In other words, the US will never stand for single payer. This is an enormous travesty but it will always be that way; single payer won't come to the country currently known as the USA.

Oh and while you are at it do something about malpractice tort reform - the major cause of excessive medical costs.

You do know the most common profession for legislators before being elected, right? The most common profession is lawyer. Malpractice suits are a huge revenue stream for attorneys all over this country, there is no way they will attack it, that would be like United Defense telling the Department of Defense that they don't see a need for a new kind of missile, warhead, or transporter.

Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Re:You've missed the official narrative (1)

CncRobot (2849261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053987)

Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

You can always move to Canada or England if you think they are so much better. It always amazes me that liberals complain that conservatives want to run their life when it is the liberals who are demanding that everyone follows their rules. And when you don't agree with the liberal it goes right to name calling.

Re:You've missed the official narrative (3, Insightful)

Ironhandx (1762146) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054197)

What you are saying happens on both sides, but disagreeing with the effectiveness of a single payer health care system is about as pants-on-head retarded as it gets. There is so much proof for its greater effectiveness WITH lesser costs that arguing against it is... frankly clinging to an ideology thats been totally disproven in multiple countries by multiple different types of government, presiding over multiple different cultures.

All it boils down to is "We can't do that becuz thats the cumminists. If we do that they win!"

Additionally conservative media in the U.S. can't even back up its crazy lines anymore without generating extremely biased(or in some cases completely fabricated) studies. Its gone beyond the point of retardation to the point where it seems like the conservative movement in the U.S. is actually trying to do as much DAMAGE as possible to the U.S.

Reality check: Cold war is over. Both sides lost. Get over it. Merits to be found in both forms of government. Take the best of both sides and be happier.

Re:You've missed the official narrative (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054261)

Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

You can always move to Canada or England if you think they are so much better

That is a very common statement, but why do I need to leave? Why can't I help change the system and then other people can leave? Why are you the one who deserves to stay?

On top of that, the people who say things like "why don't you just go leave and live in Canada or the UK" often have no idea how difficult it is to do that. I am a highly qualified worker but I need a job offer in one of those countries in order to move there - I can't just show up and declare myself to be living there. Conversely, the conservative free-market havens like Somalia and Afghanistan tend to require almost nothing in order to live there, so why don't you leave instead?

It always amazes me that liberals complain that conservatives want to run their life

Well considering how the conservatives in government are constantly impeding on my ability to live my life, I would say they are indeed telling me how to run my life.

it is the liberals who are demanding that everyone follows their rules

Single payer health care does not demand you follow any new rules. If every other industrialized country in the world is any example, it would actually result in you keeping more of your earned income than what you currently keep - and it will still allow you to die from preventable ailments if you choose to do so.

And when you don't agree with the liberal it goes right to name calling.

Considering they way you are already throwing around unsubstantiated assumptions I would say you have already gone to name calling.

Re:You've missed the official narrative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054409)

It always amazes me that liberals complain that conservatives want to run their life when it is the *MAJORITY* who are demanding that everyone follows their rules.

Fixed that for you.

closed by MS? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053767)

Can there be real competition or is the data already in some MS format or behind MS servers?

Uses of 'big data' (5, Informative)

Enry (630) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053815)

i work at a major medical research institution. A few years ago, our CIO showed us a graph of data they'd gone through showing a large spike in heart attacks in otherwise healthy men. The spike then dropped a few years later. Normally someone wouldn't be looking at this data, so it wasn't until after the spike was gone that this was investigated. Turned out that Vioxx had been put on the market about a year before the spike started, and was pulled off the market about 6 months or so before the spike dropped off.

Getting massive amounts of data (anonymized of course) can show trends in public health that can give us a lot of information and save lives and money.

(and yes, I hate the term 'big data'. No sense of scale of how big it is.)

Re:Uses of 'big data' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053897)

Billions and Billions of Bits of Bureaucratic Botnet Based Bioaccumulation of Bulk Breaches of Business Byproducts

This market is already saturated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053927)

This article makes it seem like there is a sudden market in hospital data management and reporting capabilities. This market has already existed for at least the 15 years, and Microsoft will have a hard time breaking in if thats what they want. Companies like Cerner, Sunquest, Meditech, Epic, McKesson, etc already have the market pretty much cornered on LIS/HIS data systems that provide all of the functionality these hospitals need...patient tracking, billing, result tracking, etc. The people who make the decisions about what systems to go with usually ask their friends and colleagues at other hospitals about what they are already using, because hospitals want to go with what they know works.

I work as a software engineer for a medical device integration/medical data management company, and I know first hand how tough it is to get a new product out on the market (even barring any FDA approval) because even if you have been providing solutions to a hospital for over a decade, they still want to know who else is using it to get their feedback on it.

I've said this before on /. ... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053945)

The future's NOT in applications, but instead, data... BIG data of nearly ALL kinds!

* "The future, is now..."

APK

P.S.=> For ANY "doubting Thomas'" here as well?

Try *think* about 1 thing - how data is OFTEN used against you!

This is nothing new either, since a simple rumor can send the stockmarket "flying" in ANY direction "the powers that be" choose, simply by using the "right mouthpiece" saying he has the 'data' that backs him up!

You NEED HIM TO BE AN "EXPERT"? Hey, no problem - buy his way onto the NY Times "best seller" lists too -> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/02/22/heres-how-you-buy-your-way-onto-the-new-york-times-bestsellers-list/ [forbes.com]

(See folks? It's ALL DATA TO BE MANIPULATED, or even CREATED artificially, & any way you like, to get the RESULT expected!)

It's also amazing how easily statistics are "bent" in samplesets to do it, especially ones you PAID for in paid studies & "4/5 dentists chew trident" when they're on your HMO's payroll & you SENT them crates of the stuff to chew too!

(So watch yourselves on that account too, as far as 'data' goes - after all, it's how the 'great depression' was initiated by bankers via using JP Morgan the financier's words to do it, & recently done as an experiment, yet again on APPLE stocks -> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/doug-kass-shows-how-easy-it-manipulate-shares-apple [networkworld.com] ))...

... apk

The premise of this article is entirely wrong (5, Interesting)

somarilnos (2532726) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054021)

Hospitals aren't buying into software because of "Obamacare" (or the Affordable Care Act, if brevity isn't your thing). Hospitals are buying into software because of the HITECH act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). They're getting more Medicare reimbursement for showing meaningful use of their software, so that's the trigger, not the ACA.

Re:The premise of this article is entirely wrong (2)

somarilnos (2532726) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054099)

Also, why is Microsoft explicitly being mentioned? There's a lot of established players in Healthcare software that are getting much more out of this windfall. Microsoft barely scratches the surface, and they're, quite frankly, not significant in this particular market, unless you're counting the machines running their OS. Look for EHR (Electronic Health Record) vendor market share on Google, and you're not even going to see them mentioned. You're going to see Epic, Meditech, Allscripts, McKesson, Cerner, Siemens. MS, at best, is an "also ran".

Forget MS, hello IBM (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054071)

If you want "big data" you think IBM, you don't think Microsoft.

Re:Forget MS, hello IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054219)

If you want "big data" you think IBM, you don't think Microsoft.

Forget IBM check out Greenplum

Re:Forget MS, hello IBM (2)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054343)

If you want "big data" you think IBM, you don't think Microsoft.

But mentioning a company to rail against, besides Microsoft, won't get you on /..

Recursion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054155)

Microsoft regional sales GM says that finance, retail and marketing dwarfs the yearly growth of finance, retail and marketing. They also have a piece of new software to address this challenge: while(1){}

patisepeti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054195)

ahha good share thanks..

Be interesting to see a HIPAA violation prosecuted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054311)

Be interesting to see a HIPAA violation prosecuted against MS due to their lack of security.

And think about what a day long service failure would be like...

Windows would then be killing many people not getting the appropriate care.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?