This is the sort of thinking that I like....

[Mike O]

What with all the naysayers worrying about the economy collapsing, I was encouraged that there are some leaders that are thinking about solutions.

 

Creating Jobs through IT investment

 

International Business Machines Corp.'s chief executive, Samuel Palmisano, advised the Obama transition team last month that $30 billion in government investments in expanding broadband access, computerizing health-care records and improving the electrical grid could create more than 900,000 U.S. jobs.

Will it work? I can't be certain. Even IF Mr. Palmisano is off by 50% that's a step in the right direction ($30B net 450,000 jobs). I'd rather see an investment of this sort than continuing to bail out industries stuck in the 20th century.

 

It's time to move on and quit trying to patch up mistakes of the past.

 

Mike O

 

[Twisties]

What with all the naysayers worrying about the economy collapsing, I was encouraged that there are some leaders that are thinking about solutions.

 

Creating Jobs through IT investment

 

International Business Machines Corp.'s chief executive, Samuel Palmisano, advised the Obama transition team last month that $30 billion in government investments in expanding broadband access, computerizing health-care records and improving the electrical grid could create more than 900,000 U.S. jobs.

Will it work? I can't be certain. Even IF Mr. Palmisano is off by 50% that's a step in the right direction ($30B net 450,000 jobs). I'd rather see an investment of this sort than continuing to bail out industries stuck in the 20th century.

 

It's time to move on and quit trying to patch up mistakes of the past.

 

Mike O

 

+1

[russell_bynum]

Government doesn't solve problems...it subsidizes them.

 

Word is out that Uncle Sam is spending money like a teenager with a credit card, and now everyone is jumping in line saying "me too!!"

[Harry_Wilshusen]

HMMMM.

 

I wonder what IBM sells.

 

Harry

[Marty Hill]

Plenty of everything I hope.

Sam P is a very sharp guy.

[Francois_Dumas]

Right-o, Mike O

[Boone60]

I have an extremely difficult time reading what Doctors write. Computerized health records sounds like a good thing, and I believe that this action will save lives as errors are reduced.

[Twisties]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing that computerizing/automating these systems is a good idea. I just don't like the idea of IBM going to Uncle Sam with their tin cup out begging for money to do it.

 

IBM's Net income for July-September 2008 was $2.8 Billion. Why do they need a govt handout?

[Twisties]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing that computerizing/automating these systems is a good idea. I just don't like the idea of IBM going to Uncle Sam with their tin cup out begging for money to do it.

 

IBM's Net income for July-September 2008 was $2.8 Billion. Why do they need a govt handout?

 

You haven't read the piece.

[russell_bynum]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing that computerizing/automating these systems is a good idea. I just don't like the idea of IBM going to Uncle Sam with their tin cup out begging for money to do it.

 

IBM's Net income for July-September 2008 was $2.8 Billion. Why do they need a govt handout?

 

You haven't read the piece.

 

Why do you believe that?

[Boone60]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing that computerizing/automating these systems is a good idea. I just don't like the idea of IBM going to Uncle Sam with their tin cup out begging for money to do it.

 

IBM's Net income for July-September 2008 was $2.8 Billion. Why do they need a govt handout?

 

You haven't read the piece.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

The article states that IBM was asked for the analysis. They didn't approach the govt with a tin cup begging.

[Twisties]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing that computerizing/automating these systems is a good idea. I just don't like the idea of IBM going to Uncle Sam with their tin cup out begging for money to do it.

 

IBM's Net income for July-September 2008 was $2.8 Billion. Why do they need a govt handout?

 

You haven't read the piece.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

The article states that IBM was asked for the analysis. They didn't approach the govt with a tin cup begging.

 

What he said for one thing. For another because much of the investment would be in areas IBM doesn't directly work in, though they might win a piece of the pie in supporting some of it. For another because the form of this analysis is not in the form of money for nothing as a bailout, but undecided. Could be government contracts on a open bid system, could be incentives in tax code or just about anything. All the analysis says is that government investment in these areas could perform useful work and create jobs. How it's to be done was not addressed, and nothing in it whatsoever suggests any form of a handout to IBM.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

The article states that IBM was asked for the analysis. They didn't approach the govt with a tin cup begging.

 

Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to.

 

 

What he said for one thing. For another because much of the investment would be in areas IBM doesn't directly work in, though they might win a piece of the pie in supporting some of it.

 

Building Datacenters, Servers, storage, software, consulting....yep...all stuff that I'm sure IBM would be thrilled to "help" us with.

 

 

All the analysis says is that government investment in these areas could perform useful work and create jobs.

 

I'm sure it'll be great. Every other time the Govt has tried to implement a streamlined IT system, it has worked very well, come in under budget, and not been cumbersome to use at all, so I'm sure this time would be no different.

 

 

[Twisties]

No indication that government would build, design or operate any of these systems. Very unlikely actually. The recommendation is to get money into these areas somehow.

 

The point here is that the government IS going to spend some money. The question is how.

 

So I ask you GIVEN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY, how would you prefer they do it? It's an honest question.

[Mike O]

No indication that government would build, design or operate any of these systems. Very unlikely actually. The recommendation is to get money into these areas somehow.

 

The point here is that the government IS going to spend some money. The question is how.

 

So I ask you GIVEN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY, how would you prefer they do it? It's an honest question.

 

Patiently waiting as well.

 

Mike O

[russell_bynum]

No indication that government would build, design or operate any of these systems. Very unlikely actually. The recommendation is to get money into these areas somehow.

 

So the govt is just going to hand out money willy nilly without any oversight? I think the results would be better that way, but somehow I seriously doubt it would ever go down that way.

 

The point here is that the government IS going to spend some money. The question is how.

 

So I ask you GIVEN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY, how would you prefer they do it? It's an honest question.

 

I refuse to accept the premise that the govt is required to piss away money by mucking around where they don't belong.

 

 

But if it's going to happen I'd like to see Border Patrol staffed and equipped to secure the borders. Then deport as many of the people who are not here legally as possible.

[Mark K]

It goes way beyond that. My former boss's wife is on the faculty of the UofU in medical informatics, so I've had the opportunity to chat with her a fair bit on the matter. It allows things like much more accurate of dosing, much better trend tracking/charting, much better ability to spot trends, much greater opportunity to develop and apply expert systems.

 

 

OTOH, there are others who have taken a look at it more from the consumer side, and aside from saving us filling out forms in duplicate, it may actually increase the cost and/or decrease the quality of care.

 

Copied from this article.......

 

"Robert Miller, an economist at UCSF, found that when doctors' offices successfully install computerized health record systems (not a sure thing, by the way, like all complex IT), they end up collecting more for their services, not less. That's because the systems make it easy to increase payments by checking off more boxes for the routine tasks doctors perform in the course of an office visit. Miller also found that most doctors never use many of the much ballyhooed features of these systems--like reminding patients to come in for care--simply because they are too difficult."

[Matts_12GS]

 

What he said for one thing. For another because much of the investment would be in areas IBM doesn't directly work in, though they might win a piece of the pie in supporting some of it.

 

Building Datacenters, Servers, storage, software, consulting....yep...all stuff that I'm sure IBM would be thrilled to "help" us with.

 

Yeah, and if they can't do it themselves, they surely know someone who will for a small slice of that pie. Government contracting processes, no competes, etc. Remember all the pissing and moaning about GWB and the Haliburton contracts? What makes you think that crossing out Haliburton and inserting IBM makes it better?

 

Darth Cheney wouldn't like that you know...

 

All the analysis says is that government investment in these areas could perform useful work and create jobs.

 

 

I'm sure it'll be great. Every other time the Govt has tried to implement a streamlined IT system, it has worked very well, come in under budget, and not been cumbersome to use at all, so I'm sure this time would be no different.

 

 

Remember Carnivore anyone? That was successful wasn't it?

 

This came from a google search, linky

 

The FBI performed only eight Internet wiretaps in fiscal 2003 and five in fiscal 2002; none used the software initially called Carnivore and later renamed the DCS-1000 (search), according to FBI documents submitted to Senate and House oversight committees. The FBI, which once said Carnivore was "far better" than commercial products, said previously it had used the technology about 25 times between 1998 and 2000.

 

The FBI said it could not disclose how much it spent to produce the surveillance software it no longer uses, saying part of its budget was classified. Outside experts said the government probably spent between $6 million and $15 million.

 

Maybe I shouldn't gripe too much, 25 uses for 6 million dollars is about typical for government efficiency.

 

What leaves me perplexed is how so many of the same folks who whine about the possibility of an innocent person having a cell call from Aunt Gertie in the old country monitored, but are willing to Big Blue Brother access to all your medical records...

 

Seems inconsistent to me.

[ghaverkamp]

Remember Carnivore anyone? That was successful wasn't it?

 

This came from a google search, linky

 

Carnivore was unsuccessful because by the time it was publicized, it was already dated, difficult to put into place, and generally impractical. For all the press Carnivore received, it was nothing more than an off-the-shelf network protocol analyzer with a VBish front-end layered on top to limit the options.

 

Carnivore's been replaced by more permanent and integrated wiretap (electronic and voice) technology that actually carries out the Carnivore fears that weren't.

 

The FBI performed only eight Internet wiretaps in fiscal 2003 and five in fiscal 2002; none used the software initially called Carnivore and later renamed the DCS-1000 (search), according to FBI documents submitted to Senate and House oversight committees. The FBI, which once said Carnivore was "far better" than commercial products, said previously it had used the technology about 25 times between 1998 and 2000.

 

The FBI said it could not disclose how much it spent to produce the surveillance software it no longer uses, saying part of its budget was classified. Outside experts said the government probably spent between $6 million and $15 million.

 

Maybe I shouldn't gripe too much, 25 uses for 6 million dollars is about typical for government efficiency.

 

 

Carnivore was a joke, and the only reason it could be called better than commercial products was because it dumbed down the interface to make it so that any agent, rather than a more technically skilled technician, could configure an email interception within the DOJ's (flawed) various categories of unprotected and protected (by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and by the Fourth Amendment) wiretaps.

 

What leaves me perplexed is how so many of the same folks who whine about the possibility of an innocent person having a cell call from Aunt Gertie in the old country monitored, but are willing to Big Blue Brother access to all your medical records...

 

Seems inconsistent to me.

 

From a legal perspective, there's little to no inconsistency. Medical records are created by medical practitioners for the use of medical practitioners. People may want them kept private, but those records generally belong to the medical practitioners, not to the patients.

 

From a broader perspective, there's not necessarily an inconsistency, because the mere act of promoting and providing funding for the creation of electronic records in no way implies government ownership of those records. In some proposed mechanisms for doing so, in fact, greater use of technology would permit more control over access to those records than exists today, both today's records that are already kept electronically and those kept in paper files.

[sgendler]

It seems to me that if you want to create a bunch of jobs in technology for american workers, there are a whole bunch of H1B visa holders that could go home, for a start. If we can't replace those folks with local labour, then there's hardly much point in trying to create another million jobs unless you plan to dump a huge sum of money into technology education and are looking at a 7-10 year timeline.

[russell_bynum]

It seems to me that if you want to create a bunch of jobs in technology for american workers, there are a whole bunch of H1B visa holders that could go home, for a start. If we can't replace those folks with local labour, then there's hardly much point in trying to create another million jobs unless you plan to dump a huge sum of money into technology education and are looking at a 7-10 year timeline.

 

Yep.