The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%

  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%

  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%

  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%

  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Total voters
    66
Mica

Mica

Likes Dirt
Haakon said:
Don’t forget to opt out kiddies :)
Click to expand...
I may have missed the discussion earlier (and can’t say I’ve really looked into it myself yet) but why?

-data security?
-inability to make insurance claims based on history?
-3rd party data access to further marginalise those with medical conditions (employment, gov assistance etc)
-some tinfoil hat government conspiracy?

Can’t say I’ve researched much but would like to know the full/rational reasons why. I would think a central database would help cover medial needs of patients and ensure doctors go in fully knowing the situation as well as a good records of health services would help to ensure adequate funding (optimistic I know)

The counterpoint to that is the usual privacy/data security concerns (which I am all in favour of, as well as being under no illusion as to the competence of the government).

With the whole myGov records (Medicare, ATO, Centrelink) that have been around for a few years now is this really any different?

Any enlightenment of my ignorance would be appreciated?
 
John U

John U

MTB Precision
Overrides client doctor privilege. Something that has been in place for a long time, for good reason. That’s enough for me.
 
Mica

Mica

Likes Dirt
hifiandmtb said:
Why ask us?
Click to expand...
Because despite being a bunch of fuckwits you can generally find a more broad range of opinions and information here than most media or other channels.

Only confirmation bias you find here is to never buy a yeti or sram, which suits me just fine.

Thanks for the link, a more detailed response than I’ve managed to stumble across, very surprised to see you can edit your own file. Really defeats the purpose of the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
Calvin27

Calvin27

Eats Squid
I haven't actually heard anyone in the health/IT profession recommend I stay opt in - they have all suggested I opt out. That's good enough for me.

On a similar note, I'd like to mention that a lot of the arguments about faster administering of health procedures is a poor argument. Doctors aren't going to chuck in some A blood just because you health records says that. Standards tests will still happen and take time.
 
Oddjob

Oddjob

Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
Calvin27 said:
I haven't actually heard anyone in the health/IT profession recommend I stay opt in - they have all suggested I opt out. That's good enough for me.

On a similar note, I'd like to mention that a lot of the arguments about faster administering of health procedures is a poor argument. Doctors aren't going to chuck in some A blood just because you health records says that. Standards tests will still happen and take time.
Click to expand...
I've got a slightly different perspective on this. I'm an economist and deal with population level data day in and day out. For public health researchers and policy makers the my health data could be very valuable. Not in a 'lets screw them for more many way' more a 'if we provide universal childcare, kids will be smarter, better socialised and have better health across their lives'.

Regarding some of the common arguments:
-Insurers require you to disclose relevant medical history anyway. If you omit anything, your cover is withdrawn.
-In order for someone to bother trying to hack your data, they have to give a shit about you. Sorry kids but hardly anyone cares about you as an individual.
-The government will probably mishandle the data and the whole dataset will be corrupted/useless/whatever. Data is data, as long as the cockups are consistent you can still glean useful information from populations level data.
-It's a waste of money. I could talk all day about white elephants, this at least tries to do something useful.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
John U

John U

MTB Precision
Oddjob said:
I've got a slightly different perspective on this. I'm an economist and deal with population level data day in and day out. For public health researchers and policy makers the my health data could be very valuable. Not in a 'lets screw them for more many way' more a 'if we provide universal childcare, kids will be smarter, better socialised and have better health across their lives'.
Click to expand...
Nah. Look at all the studies they do, and then completely ignore the majority of the recommendations. Universal healthcare is something they should just do. The results you mention have already been proven. The current govt would rather attack people with less, saying they’re bludgers and therefore don’t deserve healthcare. They’re interested in winning votes, not the good being of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top