September 1, 2019 Eric Dishman: Take health care off the mainframe By William Claassen Articles, Blog 100 Comments Related posts: How Technology Is Helping (and Hurting) Health Care Rebecca Onie: What if our healthcare system kept us healthy? How childhood trauma affects health across a lifetime | Nadine Burke Harris Bill Clinton: TED Prize wish: Let’s build a health care system in Rwanda Tags:and, care, Dishman, doctor, Eric, health, healthcare, hospital, Medicine, personal, system, talks, ted, TEDMED, TEDTalks, that, the, us About Author admin 100 Comments O&A Fan Videos @ErikNikolai (continued) I don't know about you, but as an "Average Joe", I only had over 20k in my bank account when I put a down payment for my condo. I don't know anyone who isn't rich or who isn't saving up for a house who has that kind of money lying around. If you do, congratulations. On the other hand, I do know lots of people who have a few cents to spare every month. It works great everywhere else, so why wouldn't it in the States? March 16, 2010 Reply sugarkang this is impractical. everything becomes a symptom once you're looking for it. March 16, 2010 Reply sugarkang oh yeah, he's gay. but that doesn't matter one bit. March 16, 2010 Reply sugarkang thumbs up for you my friend. that's what liberals don't fundamentally understand. where do jobs come from? FROM THE PRODUCERS. THE ENTREPRENEURS. THE ONES THAT YOU WANT TO TAX. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi UK? 50000 cases of malnutrition in hospitals, hundreds of deaths from starvation UK? March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi No it doesn't. *sigh* You people have problems with abstracting, parties compete on the free market, which forces them to be better and cheaper than their competition. Health resources and services are no different than other goods and services. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi It's not healthcare that is supposed to help the poor, read more carefully. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi Right, but it doesn't apply to healthcare, as I argued above. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi it is a fact, google it March 16, 2010 Reply Tiffian Ruler France actually Erik.. The US is around 32nd in the World. Point is you care for everyone, Higher chance of life. Rather than reject the poor.. That's a certainty to cause Death. Amazing that America calls itself a CHARITABLE CHRISTIAN Nation yet utterly despises helping the poor. My mam would be dead now if it wasn't for the NHS, 15 years on, she's still with us. The Money or Death System of America is insanity, the loons running the asylum over there. March 16, 2010 Reply Tiffian Ruler You're so full of shit luszczi. Like I said earlier my mam would be dead 15 years ago if it wasn't for the nhs, your lies wont wash with me sunshine. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi I'm not trying to wash with you darling, I'm trying to wash with people who are capable of critical thinking. March 16, 2010 Reply sciencemile only the Evangelicals call it a "Charitable Christian" Nation. However, it is the most charitable nation statistically. As a percentage of GDP to boot. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi I already answered that, you're tiring. March 16, 2010 Reply extion Your gaydar's fucked, 'cuz he actually does sound gay. He does these gay dips too with his knees that looks really gay. March 16, 2010 Reply Tiffian Ruler @luszczi The FACT.. I LIVE in the UK and I've NEVER had a bad experience in the NHS.. While YOU come from America, probably get Government Paid Medi-care and make shit up about the Nhs. Who is speaking the Truth here? It's certainly not you as I live here, if it was shit I'd agree with you. Don't waste my time, go back to dribbling on your window. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi Why so angry? Are you experiencing a cognitive dissonance? I posted some facts and you are reacting with denial rather than refuting them. If I am so full of shit, why not showing it to me? March 16, 2010 Reply Tiffian Ruler Yeah from people like Bill Gates who donate Billions. Yet all you hear from the Right is "Why should we help the rest of the World." , while at the same time saying America is the Leader of the West.. Leaders have to lead by example. March 16, 2010 Reply sciencemile Bill Gates couldn't donate that much, and he uses his money to help the world more in the R&D department anyways; most of it comes from small, individual donations accumulated in charities like Red Cross or Rotary, Doctors without Borders, etc. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi No, it's not the government's job to take care of people. And no, it's not the corporations' job to make money – their job is to produce goods and provide services. They get paid for them as a result. If somebody needs a service – being taken care of and goods – medicaments and hospital time he pays the hospital. If he doesn't have enough money, he can think ahead and get insurance – this way he cannot afford his care, but 100 of people like him can provide for themselves. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi And if somebody cannot afford even an insurance fee, we have charities. Why private charities are better than government redistribution? See my first post. March 16, 2010 Reply Metalogic except the free market tries to take as much as possible and giving as little as possible to make the most profit as it stands now all the money you are paying that doesnt go to treating you goes to the pockets of insurance companies, instead of actually going into the healthcare system making it better March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi Government's job is to protect people from external (foreign aggression) and internal (crime) threats. Protecting is not caring for. And raison d'etre is not identical to the "job" you meant before. Because they want to make a lot of money, they are forced to offer best quality goods and services. March 16, 2010 Reply sugarkang yeah March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi No, the market doesn't try to make profit, parties of the market do. Such parties as hospitals, and no insurance company will take away its profits. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi You tend to find things in my comments that aren't there. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi I can sign under some of this statements, I don't understand why you put it as a response to my comment though. March 16, 2010 Reply lightsculler @anotherelvis That's not true, this summary can in no way be considered adequate. March 16, 2010 Reply BLByline I think this guy is sooo wrong. He is suggesting that people who are trained for at least 4 years to become doctors and learn what is physiologically wrong with people and diagnose it based on imperical data is not the best system. He is also suggesting making health care a door to door system. How is that in any way feasible? It would require a lot more doctors, but he's opposed to having "doctors" and "hospitals" as the center of health care. I don't buy it. March 16, 2010 Reply Patrick Keenan He has no gadgets to show, just ideas for them. He's talking about using household objects and the way we interact with them as diagnostic tools. March 16, 2010 Reply luszczi No! That's not my argument, and you seem to be completely resistant to reason. Constructing a good and fair healthcare system requires deep economical insights, rather than simple emotional arguments. If I were poor I would still definitely prefer private healthcare. March 16, 2010 Reply hughtub @luszczi Exactly. People attribute "govt" with qualities as if they are gods, or have proven their superior ability to make decisions, when in reality they're just people who make a living by extracting money from everyone else and justify it by saying they are needed. Government is like a monopoly who jails you if you don't buy their services you might not even want or need. March 16, 2010 Reply DigitalAssassin How about a *real* summary: 1. The elderly will soon outnumber the young. 2. Heathcare is broken. 3. Technology can fix it. 4. [Some examples, like telephones] March 16, 2010 Reply lightsculler I'd rather watch the video. March 16, 2010 Reply chas ames Yes, all Mr. Dishman says is true. Sadly, medical corporations will not field innovation until they can see what's in it for them or another corporation does it and they fear falling behind. March 16, 2010 Reply ForOrAgainstUs because only the rich buy anything worth a damn….uh huh March 16, 2010 Reply funincluded First, thank you for confirming what I said. Second, I never once mentioned poor people. This isn't about rich and poor, this is about insurance companies being able to manipulate the system to only "cover" healthy people, while pricing out the less healthy, and refusing to cover the sick. Further, if you had actually watched the video, you would have been informed as to how reactionary healthcare (that you support) doesn't work very well. March 17, 2010 Reply aleceth Did you actually watch it? The whole point was using technology to procure data statistics about a patient in their own living space, and then he demonstrated how it could save time and money over relying on doctors and hospitals to do the grunt work. March 17, 2010 Reply BLByline Honestly, I watched 9 minutes of it and what I said there was what I got from his speech… If I'm way off base it's only because I got bored of watching this guy talk and didn't wait till the end, which usually doesn't happen with TED videos March 17, 2010 Reply QuijanoPhD Correction: 1. The old already outnumber the young. March 17, 2010 Reply D Purdy @eatingperson he certainly has a unique personality March 17, 2010 Reply aSheeple luszczi, no, you wouldn't. because treating you would not be profitable, you wouldn't get much care. but the point is that even if you have lots of money, our system is inefficient, and you get less care per dollar than you could with a more efficient system. March 17, 2010 Reply luszczi aSheeple, I can see that you did not bother to read and understand my comments. March 17, 2010 Reply luszczi Rich and poor would get the same healthcare, if you read what I had written more carefully, you wouldn't write such comments. I made my case and you didn't get it, pity. I'm out. Oh, and the law thing is a strawman, I told you that it is the governments responsibility to protect you from internal threats. March 17, 2010 Reply Pat H good ideas March 17, 2010 Reply Peter Bechtel HAHAHA!!! I just laughed so hard. Thank you March 17, 2010 Reply Wayne Can't watch. "Gay voice" drives me crazy. March 17, 2010 Reply Corey Regan @ DigitalAssassin: 2000 marked the period where the elderly outnumber the young, that's the point of this video. It's here and we're still ignoring it and expect to react to the problem after it escalates into a crisis instead of focusing on crisis preventative measures. March 17, 2010 Reply triforcelink @hughtub wow, you just took that right out of my mouth! March 17, 2010 Reply aSheeple luszczi, we decide what the governments job is, we the people, and some of us think that the usa would be a better place if we decided to have the government run healthcare instead of corporations. if your opinion is different then thats fine, thats your right. March 17, 2010 Reply hughtub Sorry but I think he's the wife in the gayrriage. March 17, 2010 Reply ehhhhhhhhhh I really don't want to live to be that old. Chronic pain, taking pills all day, and intoxicated by the side effects… I think I'm more afraid of being old than being dead. March 17, 2010 Reply funkalunatic What he doesn't mention is that these kinds of advancements in medical technology are a tradeoff. We become safer and healthier, but in return we have a system monitoring everything about us 24/7. Even if it can be done in such a way that maintains privacy, it means that we'll become even more closely dependent on technology. That being said, if I'm old and sick I'll take it. March 17, 2010 Reply polymath7 Excellent point, but I don't see that this is any more a threat to your privacy than the comment you just posted. March 17, 2010 Reply polymath7 What the hell is that big black thing in his hand he's calling a "phone"!? This guy lost his mind? March 17, 2010 Reply funkalunatic If you follow what he's talking about to its logical end, then you're talking about a system that monitors our physical routines, habits, every aspect of our life – a much more comprehensive and intimate set of data than can be gleaned from a mere Internet footprint. March 17, 2010 Reply funkalunatic I didn't think he had much of a gay voice (definitely effeminate body language though), but if it excites you to the point of distraction, you should consider masturbating to orgasm to some gay pornography, and then watching the video during your refractory period. March 17, 2010 Reply funkalunatic You know health care used to be a door to door system. Also, we would have a lot more doctors and it would be cheaper to pay them if there weren't so many unnecessary barriers to entry into the medical field. March 17, 2010 Reply polymath7 Mm, I hadn't got that far. But even so, this is unique only in that it's *somatic*. I wouldn't consider this anywhere near as intimate as what is contained in my emails. March 17, 2010 Reply renegaed for some reason this guy seems to just piss me off! March 17, 2010 Reply k166a This is great bio-tech. We need to monitor our health more. March 17, 2010 Reply Wayne You misinterpret what I mean by "crazy". I mean crazy in the way that causes me to want to take a band saw to my ears. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's a homo. Not that that matters… Had he talked with a normal voice, it wouldn't matter. If he had a lisp I'd have the same reaction. March 17, 2010 Reply Mika Olaussen Well, if over half of the population in a country is rich, and if they share most of their political views, a democratic government would, theoretically, be chosen by the rich, and you would have laws chosen by the rich. March 17, 2010 Reply Lonnie Nerney @WhoisTheOtherVindAzz You dont even need half the population to be rich….the rich can pay into senators campaign funds to run ads. Money=ads=votes of the uneducated and lazy. Thats what happens in america anyways. Its part of the reason corporations are running america rather than the people. They were ruled by the supreme court to be allowed to pay into politics (biggest mistake ever) March 18, 2010 Reply funnyguise more focus on prevention… March 19, 2010 Reply PacManJulie The whole of the USA is moving to one place , and thats O. B. City. March 26, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi You're talking about an imaginary government belonging to some minarchist libertarian state that exists only in your head. The purpose of governments in normal democracies is to enact the will of the people, subject to certain checks and balances. The US government, for example, is limited by the Constitution. But it can build roads (is not being able to get to work an internal, or an external threat?), and it can provide healthcare (if fire is a threat, how is cancer not one?) April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi I've lived in the UK and the US and had experiences with both healthcare systems. I also have a keen interest in economics. A public system of some sort works for the rest of the developed world, and it works better than the private system used in the US, and I can explain why. All you have to counter the figures and my personal experience are ideological talking points about how corporations are inherently more trustworthy because they have to satisfy their customers. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi Plenty of money is wasted when you deal with charities too. Money is spent on admin, advertising for more donations, and other indirect areas. Government and business have incentives (votes and sales) to show that they give good value for money. Bad charities can survive solely on making you feel good without actually accomplishing anything with your money. A site called givewell attempts to rank charities by their transparency and proof of effectiveness and discusses this issue. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi @pickmanfox Again: you read things in my comments that were not there. I don't think that the system in the US was private, it was full of bad regulations already, Obama's plan was just a small step in relation to it. The system was bad and it needed a reform, but a different one. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi Public systems of healthcare and social security in welfare states work only because of constantly raising taxation and debts (Britain just recently raised income tax to 50%, scandinavian countries have them on more or less 80%, add to it VAT and other things and you get the picture). This can't go on forever. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi If you know something about the economy, you know that the Keynesian solution was based on the assumption that the populations will grow, instead there is a negative growth in almost whole Europe. This problem is already evident to some, and more people will become aware of it soon. A new system is needed. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi You did not give any figures, somewhere below I gave an example of an independent research that have shown tens of thousands cases of malnutrition and hundreds of cases of starvation in British hospitals. That's what happens if medical staff is paid the same salary regardless of the quality of their services. I'm also not using any vivid sophismates, just basic economical facts of supply, demand and competition. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi The 50,000 figure is a guess, not a statistic. Nutrition is a serious problem in hospitals, but neglecting nutrition actually costs money, so it isn't an issue with how care is funded. It's equally likely, and equally terrible, whether your system is private or public. In 1975 a news report stated that 5% of patients discharged from US hospitals were malnourished. I couldn't find any modern figures, but I'd be curious to see how far that has improved. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi @pickmanfox If the people knew how the governments enact their will, they would be on the streets tomorrow. Government also can't "provide" anything if it doesn't have our money to pay for it. Sure, we can let it have our resources for some purposes, but first we have to decide if the government is the best institution to trust it to. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi @pickmanfox Have you ever seen a vet treating her patients badly? Have you seen incompetence or long lines in their clinics? Have you ever seen a horse giving a bribe to a vet? April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi And one question: why do we need BOTH social security and government provided healthcare? If the government already provides necessary resources for the poor, why do it twice and waste money on more government officials' salaries, when it can go to the ones that need it? Maybe because less than 30% of social security money reaches its targets (the book "Trap" by Goldsmith)? Good reform proposals are on the cato institute website, have a nice reading. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi The amount of money the NHS costs per capita is so small that you could pay your share, and buy private health cover from BUPA on top of it, for less than half what it would cost to buy insurance in the USA, so that's not really an argument. And the rate of income tax is variable; nobody actually pays 50% of their income in income tax. I paid 31% tax last year, and I'm not poor. Actual tax rates are best expressed as tax/GDP, which for the uk is 39%, and for Sweden is 50%. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi @pickmanfox I don't remember the exact figures, my bad. But remember that every tax you put on each producer is spread on the society (baker compensates a part of his taxes by raising the prices of bread, so does everyone). This includes VAT and a shitload of other things, I probably remembered the overall calculation for Sweden or Finland, hence that 80% I mentioned. This will eventually come to Britain as well. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi I know no such thing. Keynsian theory suggests that government intervention can serve to increase aggregate demand and shorten recessions. Public healthcare is not Keynsianism except in the very vague sense that it is a form of government spending. That aside, I'd be curious to see where Keynes ever said that population growth was a necessary precondition for government intervention to work. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi And stop implying that I approve of USA's system. NHS is also far from being perfect and steadily getting worse for reasons I explained. I like how you cling to a single element of each of my posts and ignore the rest. Be fair. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi I'm not talking about government healthcare, but overall policies. And he did say such a thing. Remember "In the long run, we're all dead"? Well, it worked for him. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi Independent research which you didn't bother to actually read. You're also looking at the results and assuming a cause for them based on your own ideology, not on any sort of causal evidence. By your logic, implementing MUST nutrition screenings will not reduce the number of cases, since the cause is standardised pay and not the lack of adequate clinical procedures. Let's wait and see how that works for you, shall we? April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi bla bla bla Your only arguments now are guessing things about me that are unfortunately wrong. Look at the things I write and not your funny picture of me. The other paragraph is unintelligible, sorry. I won't try to wrongly guess what you meant, like you are doing with my posts. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi Also, you suggest that paying medics by performance will improve their work. This may not work, since prices being relative it may encourage laziness in the average medics as much as it inspires excellence in the best. Regardless, it will lead to good medics being expensive and lazy, inept ones being cheap. The rich will use the good medics, because they can afford to, leaving the poor to take their chances with the lousy ones. I'd rather demand adequate performance from all. April 7, 2010 Reply luszczi @pickmanfox It works for everything else. And you can't demand adequate performance for all. Give those lousy doctors a better pay for nothing and they will improve their performance? Hm, it doesn't seem right. April 7, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi So you admit that you support a system in which the rich pay for good doctors and the poor get Dr Nick Riviera off the Simpsons? Offering more money isn't the only way to motivate people, particularly when all you want is for them to meet certain standards. In that case, all you have to do is fire the ones who fall below that standard. When it comes to peoples' lives those doctors who can't do the job right shouldn't be working anyway. April 18, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @luszczi Because social security and healthcare are two completely different things. April 18, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @ErikNikolai Taxation isn't stealing, Erik, and nobody has ever put a gun to your head. When you're a little older you may come to understand the concept of a social contract – the rights and responsibilities that come with choosing to live in a given country. It's much the same as when you move into a gated community and there are rules about keeping your lawn mowed and not leaving trash bags outside or whatever. You aren't being enslaved, you're party to a mutual agreement. April 18, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @ErikNikolai Singapore's system consists of mandatory payroll deductions, nationalised health insurance for serious illness, and government price controls – in other words, it's 'Obamacare', only more so. April 18, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @ErikNikolai If you live in a country then you accept the social contract for that country. You can't complain when the tax man shows up to enforce that contract. Singapore's system has a huge amount of government intervention – half the hospitals are state run, there's universal state insurance for serious illness, as well as savings accounts. I agree that it's a good system, but it's not the system the democrats spoke out against. April 22, 2010 Reply pickmanfox @ErikNikolai You're right that I shouldn't tell you to grow up, and I apologise, but I get quite frustrated with libertarians who talk as though taxation were stealing. As a citizen you're party to a contract with your government, which gives you the right to vote and attempt to change policy in return for paying taxes and following the laws. If you don't like that contract you can leave it, but you don't want to give up the benefits of residency and citizenship. April 22, 2010 Reply rmcdaniel423 @crayzal I should rightly bear the cost of maintaining the sidewalk that crosses my property. I have no problem sharing that sidewalk with neighbors, as they share their portions with me. However it would be unethical to force you to pay for repairs on my sidewalk. Also, the problem with the social contract is that I never agreed to it, and I have no way to change it. Democracy favors powerful special interests, and I'm not special, or powerful. May 2, 2010 Reply rmcdaniel423 @crayzal I jumped into the middle of this discussion, so I apparently don't know the specifics you've discussed. Some of Erik's comments have been removed. I'm just suggesting that I pay for what's mine, you pay for what's yours, and that taxes not be levied to pay for "public" services on private property (as is the case in some communities). If tax money has to pay for the sidewalk in front of a city building, so be it. I'll follow this with one more comment . . . . May 3, 2010 Reply rmcdaniel423 @crayzal I think if someone buys property in an area that has pedestrian traffic (like everywhere in town) that landowner bears liability to provide a safe right of way across their property, like an easement. That's essentially what a sidewalk is. I don't have a problem with an ordinance requiring sidewalks. I just don't think taxes should be used for that purpose, as it is in some places. Of course, all of this deviates from the topic of health care, which is the point of this video. May 3, 2010 Reply kokofan50 @rmcdaniel423 no a sidewalk is like a road. its not my job to take care of the road. its for public use and prejudicial to the people in the town. the only thing a person most do is pay taxes and not violate the rights of other. poeple have the right to walk but they can not make a person bulid a sidewalk to do so thats why the government does it July 26, 2010 Reply rmcdaniel423 @kokofan50 In the town I used to live in, residential sidewalks were required by ordinance, but the property owner had to personally pay to keep it in repair. You would get a fine if it was cracked or dangerous, and it was up to you to contract the repairs or do it yourself. If you neglected that long enough, the city would do it and send you a bill that was MUCH higher than a contractor would have been. Plus you still owe the fine. And some communities don't require sidewalks at all. July 26, 2010 Reply kokofan50 @rmcdaniel423 i kind of know the felling. you shouldn't have to do that. what i wasing isn't that i doesn't happen July 26, 2010 Reply crudhousefull @crayzal I'm a liberal, but to use that logic you are assuming that the populace is against sidewalks January 5, 2012 Reply Mainframe4Everyone So an Intel employee / advocate maligns the Mainframe by misusing the term. IBM Mainframes are the original cloud architecture. Mainframes are more secure and dependable – the opposite side of the spectrum from Intel/Windows based servers. And they are the fastest way to deliver big data. The network is in the box. Wait time is virtually eliminated. So what do you want? Do you want to wait on a reboot? Or have your healthcare sidekick be the most bulletproof computing platform on the planet? September 28, 2012 Reply Add a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment:*Name:* Email Address:* Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.