3 ms·

Seems privacy is less of a concern in countries with privatized healthcare, I don't understand that last sentence. Is it some kind of political shibboleth?

moonchrome 4y ago
I'm just saying that considering society is providing for your healthcare, collecting socially valuable medical data doesn't seem like an unreasonable exchange to me - but I'm in the minority on that one I think.
bertil 4y ago
The original author answered, but I don’t think that answer is appropriate. I initially read it as a comment on how most large studies are based on national health care data in socialist countries (Scandinavia mostly, occasionally the UK’s NHS) because they are clean, consistent, and population-wide without imbalanced social class sampling. They also cover decades, making all sorts of key studies possible. Those are countries (the UK is the notable exception) where privacy is key and embedded in how those databases are structured and handled. In practice, those studies are possible because the health services only give information anonymized and relevant given an expressly spelled out research plan from a recognized team. That allows research without the semi-permanent health data leaks that health insurance companies have grown accustomed to. This is not a counter-balance for a free service: people in countries with national healthcare consider that they pay for top-of-the-line care through taxes. Just like people who pay for it indirectly through private insurance, they don’t believe that they deserve any less privacy for being prudent. The reason the data is shared is because this is seen as a valuable opportunity to support research. Any privacy breach would be far less acceptable, as such abuses don’t really happen in other aspects of their lives.
ericd 4y ago
I'm half convinced that a lot of the concern about privacy in the US is driven by orgs for whom the lack of transparency that permeates healthcare is a very helpful economic moat. IME, trying to get healthcare data is nightmarish, and companies try to extract incredible rates for sharing any of it.

moonchrome 4y ago

I'm just saying that considering society is providing for your healthcare, collecting socially valuable medical data doesn't seem like an unreasonable exchange to me - but I'm in the minority on that one I think.

bertil 4y ago

The original author answered, but I don’t think that answer is appropriate. I initially read it as a comment on how most large studies are based on national health care data in socialist countries (Scandinavia mostly, occasionally the UK’s NHS) because they are clean, consistent, and population-wide without imbalanced social class sampling. They also cover decades, making all sorts of key studies possible. Those are countries (the UK is the notable exception) where privacy is key and embedded in how those databases are structured and handled. In practice, those studies are possible because the health services only give information anonymized and relevant given an expressly spelled out research plan from a recognized team. That allows research without the semi-permanent health data leaks that health insurance companies have grown accustomed to. This is not a counter-balance for a free service: people in countries with national healthcare consider that they pay for top-of-the-line care through taxes. Just like people who pay for it indirectly through private insurance, they don’t believe that they deserve any less privacy for being prudent. The reason the data is shared is because this is seen as a valuable opportunity to support research. Any privacy breach would be far less acceptable, as such abuses don’t really happen in other aspects of their lives.

ericd 4y ago

I'm half convinced that a lot of the concern about privacy in the US is driven by orgs for whom the lack of transparency that permeates healthcare is a very helpful economic moat. IME, trying to get healthcare data is nightmarish, and companies try to extract incredible rates for sharing any of it.