9 ms·

Bloomberg used to be better. This is basically a non-story. The 'secret plan' was to use the nefarious mechanism of... Buying access that was for sale. All the

Bloomberg used to be better. This is basically a non-story. The 'secret plan' was to use the nefarious mechanism of... Buying access that was for sale. All the allusions to shadyhandedness are just there to justify the existence of a story about Palantir because the author knew a story about a controversial company would propagate better even if it was devoid of anything meaningful to say.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
It is the subject: NHS, Peter Thiel, CIA, Silicon Valley, privatization...the media coverage on this sort of stuff in the UK is deranged. Palantir is just offering a "shiny dashboard", we should build your own...it is that easy, just knock up a Palantir competitor in a weekend (the NHS has decent tech units, but core NHS is like this...they hire £20k "devs", ask why they are getting hacked all the time, nothing works properly..."this tech stuff is all just rubbish"...it is like the late 90s). The author spends an article outlining an elaborate plot then slips in that Palantir didn't actually manage to acquire anyone...and was working with the NHS years before this email was sent (and provided valuable support during Covid). The irony is that this media coverage explains why healthcare tech is so bad in the UK (there is actually a listed company, worth £10m+...that is just a staff directory for hospitals, it is pre-MySpace tech, and tons of trusts use it...it is actually comic).
- anonymousDan 4y ago
  So **ing what if UK healthtech isn't up to silicon valley 'standards'. As if the US healthcare system is anything to be envious of.
  - drstewart 4y ago
    - hef19898 4y ago
      The US system isn't up to anyones stabdard except the rich and powerfull. On Palantir, all I've seen from them so far is one orbtwo levels shinier then what you can build in Excel, while costing more and providing less value.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - drstewart 4y ago
        Can you tell me more about this low "stabdard"? Are the doctors undertrained and poor quality? No equipment? Please elaborate. Clearly you know about high "stabdards"
        esperent 4y ago
        Affordability is a standard. Ease of access to all demographics, rather than just rich people, is a standard.
        drstewart 4y ago
        So is healthcare IT, considering how many patients die due to medical charting errors alone. And the NHS isn't up to anyone's standard.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Such a strong statement, the patients dying due to charting errors, crys for a source. As does the fact that the NHS is not among the better systems, because any statistic, spending, outcome, average life span of people, shows the various single payer systems (in order to group all state sponsored systems together even if their are differences) out perform the US one. Let's entertain so that charting errors cause patient deaths. In order to judge how the NHS performs relative to other systems would require statistics on that fact alone. Not sure those even exist.
        esperent 4y ago
  - bidirectional 4y ago
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      I feel like healing the sick, and caring for the poor, is something from a certain religion that some aspects of the Republicans would like to make the state religion. I've never understood the dichotomy between America's religious zeal, and the disinclination to put it into practice unless you're targeting abortion or gay people. Very selective.
      - bidirectional 4y ago
        I'm not American, I'm British and feel as though our approach to healthcare is hobbled by people who think the NHS is some saintly miracle and not a very expensive bureaucracy which provides mediocre value for money.
        EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Firstly, I apologise for assuming there. Secondly, I agree that the NHS is described in almost hagiographic terms by some, especially left-leaning Americans. On the mediocre value for money, I don't doubt at all that the NHS could change to be better. That said, from my antipodean point of view, it appears to me that the Tories have been running the classic neoliberal play of "Set metrics that the public service will need more funding to meet, underfund them, point to the inability to meet your metrics as a) obvious proof that the government is inefficient and n bloated and b) reason to carve off the easy services for private sector businesses to fulfill at taxpayer expense, aforementioned private sector businesses often having been good donors, or close personal affiliations to members of your Cabinet. Bonus points if retiring MPs become members of their C-suites or board of directors" So yeah, the NHS definitely could be better, but I don't think the issues are inherent to it. Incidentally, our Tories have used that play repeatedly, hence why it's so familiar to me.
    - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
      Where do you see fanaticism in that comment? I read it as not wanting a US style system. Which pretty much nobody in the world does, including a lot of Americans! So not that controversial... We generally like healthcare to be free at the point of use. There are many ways that can be funded.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    You can't defend inefficiency. The reason to have an NHS isn't to have artisan healthcare, it's to have free healthcare. The fact is you have a system that is large enough to totally justify doing this stuff in house, but instead the work is going to private firms doing the least for the most.
- wuschel 4y ago
  I thought that Palantir is way more than a “shiny dashboard”, but that they managed to integrate data access and visualisation very well e.g. BASF is their customer for their Foundry product. Is there a detail overview somewhere what products Palantir actually has, and what technology it uses for these products?
  - robertkoss 4y ago
    The documentation is public. I think that Foundry is waaay more than a "shiny dashboard". Especially the concept of the ontology is ingenious in my opinion. Also the closing the loop concept is one of its kind.
- wanderlust123 4y ago
  Can you link the listed company? Curious to see what they actually do
- stuaxo 4y ago
  And the UK already has GDS, who in the main are very good at building digital services for government itself, they could join up more with.
- LightG 4y ago
  Seriously ... take your drip-drop, Palantir normalisation and shove it up your orifice. I would then be able recommend a decent NHS doctor who can look at that for you, free at the point of use, on my dime. Very best,
anonymousDan 4y ago
This is so disingenuous. The whole point is that in a publicly funded health system many people disagree with this access being available in the first place. The UK government tries to paint a picture whereby giving such access will allow a raft of plucky UK startups to revitalize the NHS, when in reality we are just handing over our data and taxpayer money to the likes of Palantir.
- kmlx 4y ago
  publicly funded systems routinely use privately funded solutions. there’s nothing new or special here. that fact that people disagree means nothing and should be ignored as people disagree all the times about anything and everything.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    No, that's relatively new. The NHS used to own its radiography suites. It used to own its land and buildings. It used to hire doctors and nurses and support staff directly. But because of a [also recent] forced-tender system, and high breakthrough prices on in-housing projects, it was deemed "cheaper" to let private providers burden the upfront costs of equipment, land and building management, and short contract management. Shock, horror! Letting "interface companies" extract profit makes services more expensive, and now we're paying more, it's even less affordable to talk about major public capital investment to bring these critical, primary services back in-house. The NHS needs to stand up for itself and politicians need to start talking about 20y plans. Making ends meet today isn't enough. Giving up, adding insurance companies to the mix won't do anything but make it even more expensive.
    - stepbeek 4y ago
      Yes! The UK has viewed private sector efficiency as axiomatic throughout my life. The New Statesmen has a good article on the systemic impact of such decisions in the current issue: https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2022/09/28/dieter-helm-capitalism-works-best-with-a-strong-state/content.html https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2022/09/28/dieter-helm-cap...
LightG 4y ago
Horsesh!t, greeney ... Palantir are controversial for a reason. And so I want to know everything single thing about them even tangentially touching the NHS so I know how to fight against it. But thanks for your input.
sorokod 4y ago
You dismiss the rest of the story but accept that Palantir is controversial. Perhaps you could say something about how the fact that it is Palantir, should not be cause for concern for NHS and its patients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Controve...

skippyboxedhero 4y ago

It is the subject: NHS, Peter Thiel, CIA, Silicon Valley, privatization...the media coverage on this sort of stuff in the UK is deranged. Palantir is just offering a "shiny dashboard", we should build your own...it is that easy, just knock up a Palantir competitor in a weekend (the NHS has decent tech units, but core NHS is like this...they hire £20k "devs", ask why they are getting hacked all the time, nothing works properly..."this tech stuff is all just rubbish"...it is like the late 90s). The author spends an article outlining an elaborate plot then slips in that Palantir didn't actually manage to acquire anyone...and was working with the NHS years before this email was sent (and provided valuable support during Covid). The irony is that this media coverage explains why healthcare tech is so bad in the UK (there is actually a listed company, worth £10m+...that is just a staff directory for hospitals, it is pre-MySpace tech, and tons of trusts use it...it is actually comic).

anonymousDan 4y ago
So **ing what if UK healthtech isn't up to silicon valley 'standards'. As if the US healthcare system is anything to be envious of.
- drstewart 4y ago
  - hef19898 4y ago
    The US system isn't up to anyones stabdard except the rich and powerfull. On Palantir, all I've seen from them so far is one orbtwo levels shinier then what you can build in Excel, while costing more and providing less value.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - drstewart 4y ago
      Can you tell me more about this low "stabdard"? Are the doctors undertrained and poor quality? No equipment? Please elaborate. Clearly you know about high "stabdards"
      - esperent 4y ago
        Affordability is a standard. Ease of access to all demographics, rather than just rich people, is a standard.
        drstewart 4y ago
        So is healthcare IT, considering how many patients die due to medical charting errors alone. And the NHS isn't up to anyone's standard.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Such a strong statement, the patients dying due to charting errors, crys for a source. As does the fact that the NHS is not among the better systems, because any statistic, spending, outcome, average life span of people, shows the various single payer systems (in order to group all state sponsored systems together even if their are differences) out perform the US one. Let's entertain so that charting errors cause patient deaths. In order to judge how the NHS performs relative to other systems would require statistics on that fact alone. Not sure those even exist.
        esperent 4y ago
- bidirectional 4y ago
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    I feel like healing the sick, and caring for the poor, is something from a certain religion that some aspects of the Republicans would like to make the state religion. I've never understood the dichotomy between America's religious zeal, and the disinclination to put it into practice unless you're targeting abortion or gay people. Very selective.
    - bidirectional 4y ago
      I'm not American, I'm British and feel as though our approach to healthcare is hobbled by people who think the NHS is some saintly miracle and not a very expensive bureaucracy which provides mediocre value for money.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Firstly, I apologise for assuming there. Secondly, I agree that the NHS is described in almost hagiographic terms by some, especially left-leaning Americans. On the mediocre value for money, I don't doubt at all that the NHS could change to be better. That said, from my antipodean point of view, it appears to me that the Tories have been running the classic neoliberal play of "Set metrics that the public service will need more funding to meet, underfund them, point to the inability to meet your metrics as a) obvious proof that the government is inefficient and n bloated and b) reason to carve off the easy services for private sector businesses to fulfill at taxpayer expense, aforementioned private sector businesses often having been good donors, or close personal affiliations to members of your Cabinet. Bonus points if retiring MPs become members of their C-suites or board of directors" So yeah, the NHS definitely could be better, but I don't think the issues are inherent to it. Incidentally, our Tories have used that play repeatedly, hence why it's so familiar to me.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    Where do you see fanaticism in that comment? I read it as not wanting a US style system. Which pretty much nobody in the world does, including a lot of Americans! So not that controversial... We generally like healthcare to be free at the point of use. There are many ways that can be funded.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You can't defend inefficiency. The reason to have an NHS isn't to have artisan healthcare, it's to have free healthcare. The fact is you have a system that is large enough to totally justify doing this stuff in house, but instead the work is going to private firms doing the least for the most.
wuschel 4y ago
I thought that Palantir is way more than a “shiny dashboard”, but that they managed to integrate data access and visualisation very well e.g. BASF is their customer for their Foundry product. Is there a detail overview somewhere what products Palantir actually has, and what technology it uses for these products?
- robertkoss 4y ago
  The documentation is public. I think that Foundry is waaay more than a "shiny dashboard". Especially the concept of the ontology is ingenious in my opinion. Also the closing the loop concept is one of its kind.
wanderlust123 4y ago
Can you link the listed company? Curious to see what they actually do
stuaxo 4y ago
And the UK already has GDS, who in the main are very good at building digital services for government itself, they could join up more with.
LightG 4y ago
Seriously ... take your drip-drop, Palantir normalisation and shove it up your orifice. I would then be able recommend a decent NHS doctor who can look at that for you, free at the point of use, on my dime. Very best,

anonymousDan 4y ago

This is so disingenuous. The whole point is that in a publicly funded health system many people disagree with this access being available in the first place. The UK government tries to paint a picture whereby giving such access will allow a raft of plucky UK startups to revitalize the NHS, when in reality we are just handing over our data and taxpayer money to the likes of Palantir.

kmlx 4y ago
publicly funded systems routinely use privately funded solutions. there’s nothing new or special here. that fact that people disagree means nothing and should be ignored as people disagree all the times about anything and everything.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  No, that's relatively new. The NHS used to own its radiography suites. It used to own its land and buildings. It used to hire doctors and nurses and support staff directly. But because of a [also recent] forced-tender system, and high breakthrough prices on in-housing projects, it was deemed "cheaper" to let private providers burden the upfront costs of equipment, land and building management, and short contract management. Shock, horror! Letting "interface companies" extract profit makes services more expensive, and now we're paying more, it's even less affordable to talk about major public capital investment to bring these critical, primary services back in-house. The NHS needs to stand up for itself and politicians need to start talking about 20y plans. Making ends meet today isn't enough. Giving up, adding insurance companies to the mix won't do anything but make it even more expensive.
  - stepbeek 4y ago
    Yes! The UK has viewed private sector efficiency as axiomatic throughout my life. The New Statesmen has a good article on the systemic impact of such decisions in the current issue: https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2022/09/28/dieter-helm-capitalism-works-best-with-a-strong-state/content.html https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2022/09/28/dieter-helm-cap...

LightG 4y ago

Horsesh!t, greeney ... Palantir are controversial for a reason. And so I want to know everything single thing about them even tangentially touching the NHS so I know how to fight against it. But thanks for your input.

sorokod 4y ago

You dismiss the rest of the story but accept that Palantir is controversial. Perhaps you could say something about how the fact that it is Palantir, should not be cause for concern for NHS and its patients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Controve...