The government (and private industry) refused to make an affordable operating system, so we did.

[boppers]

We gave them away for free to all takers.
The government (and private industry) refused to make an affordable encyclopedia, so we did.
We gave them away for free to all takers.
The government (and private industry) refused to make an affordable global network system, so we did.
We gave them away for (often) free to all takers.
The government (and private industry) refused to make affordable publishing systems, so we did.
We gave them away for free to all takers.

So, about this healthcare issue....

...how can geeks, and the open source movement, create open, transparent, healthcare? I know (for example) that many simpler medical procedures are published and shared, but what would an open-source healthcare system be like, unfettered by historic private, and public, constraints?

[951-Riverside]

1. Are we talking about Linux or Healthcare? n/t

[boppers]

4. If Linus took on healthcare, how would it be changed?

Pretending a bug (illness) was not related to the system, for example.

[Confusious]

2. Applying open source to healthcare

Is about as logical as applying the free market to healthcare.

[boppers]

5. Do you have an idea for something that *hasn't* failed?

I'm casting for ideas, not demanding a specific system.

[ngant17]

3. It's partly the difference between the software and the hardware

So you haven't really defined which area you are trying to address.

In your examples of an OS and networks, I think you are referring to software like Linux. Its open source helps to protect it from hacking and virus attacks. However, privacy concerns in the health-care field prohibit an "open source" design, I don't want my medical records available to 'third parties'.

OTOH I wouldn't use Wikipedia encyclopedia as a reference, it often has biased entries and it is not a credible source for accurate information. It was started and is managed by an extremist rightwinger.

A good example for a free and universal health-care system is to look at the Cuban health care system. Cuban cardiologists make no more money than a construction worker or any other kind of manual labor. Medical training is free, and in any given year there are about 100 US medical students being trained at the Latin American Medical School (Escuela Latinoamericana de Medicina or "ELAM") in Havana.

So there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Affordable health-care systems are all around us, if we open our eyes and examine them. Only if we have the courage and resolve to duplicate them here.

[boppers]

6. Cuba seems to have a good starting point.

The problem with the Cuban model is getting expensive, corporate, "owned" technology, be it drugs or equipment? They can't even manage to make modern cars, what about an MRI machine?

On the privacy level, I've been pretty horrified by seeing doctors write notes on *paper*. No encryption, no anonimization, just a simple piece of paper, ready to be stolen. Kind of scary.

On wikipedia, I will simply say that anybody can edit it. It's not about the founders anymore, no single human can monitor 3 million articles a second.

[ngant17]

11. The Cuban model is not expensive

because it is free to all Cubans on the island.

The US embargo and boycott has artificially increased the prices of pharmaceutical manufacturing in Cuba.

Also it isn't necessary to compete against European countries which manufacture industrial medical equipment. But the high cost of supplies for spare parts and maintenance is often the result of the US embargo, and the US government had been the reason behind the discontinuation of certain brands of medical supplies and equipment.

I don't know why Cuba would want become a new Japan of the Caribbean and mass-produce automobiles. Historically, Brazil and Mexico are the only Latin American countries that manufacture automobiles, there are no car factories at all in the Caribbean that I know of.

[Swamp Rat]

7. Like forego real doctors who studied "Gray's Anatomy" in favor of wikipediatrics?

:scared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray's_Anatomy

[boppers]

8. What makes a "real doctor"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_subjects_in_Gray's_Anatomy

edit: this is better:
http://tinyurl.com/yjgmdc2

DU can't handle many kinds of URL types.

[Swamp Rat]

9. "Real doctor" = A human being whom I trust to properly set my broken leg.

Who is "NOT a real doctor" = A LINUX geek who writes open source software, and edits the human anatomy section of the Wikipedia database in his spare time.

I hope that clears things up. :)

[boppers]

10. Are the two exclusive?

If somebody knows how to properly set a broken leg, but later learns to use wikipedia, does that disqualify them at that point in time?