Another day, another story.
Way to promote confidence?
“… the Australia Digital Health Agency does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this website or on any linked site.”
I know, it’s just the usual arse-covering.
One surgeon’s perspective … https://womensagenda.com.au/uncategorised/a-surgeons-very-real-concerns-about-my-health-record/
To the government’s credit, they are now attempting to publicise this (via sponsored posts in Facebook).
To the government’s debit, if you click on the post, the web page does not present arguments for and against and let the person decide. It only presents one side of the argument.
It is called advertising, not informing.
Perhaps there will be more now from the Govt, given ‘Super Saturday’ is over. Nothing new to see here now!
And the pollies all head back to Canberra refreshed for another hard week of …
There was a substantial amount of funds allocated to the implementation (assumes that includes promotion and advertising) of the initative. Perhaps some more of this will now be spent to justify the costs to date of the system. One that appears so devisive. The government on one side (well some of it) and what appears to be every one else on the other.
Is Myhealth looking more like the NBN every day? Many would say it is needed but not the way the Government is delivering it?
There is also value in hearing from those who are not opting out. Fine if you opt out. It is one way to exit the debate if you choose.
Is it best to focus on how to make it a success? Many of the posts so far have a constructive approach to where the risks are. Both sides of the current parliament need to buy into this debate. And with a knife edge as to the winners in the next federal paliament there will be many keen to buy in.
“The government is leaning on public servants or journalists who publish unfavourable analysis, surveilling public servants to plug embarrassing leaks, and persecuting whistleblowers. Is it any wonder people aren’t very inclined to trust the government …”
“People don’t fear that My Health Record won’t be useful. They’re worried that their medical data might be misused, or involved in a data breach, and they’re not satisfied with the answers they’re getting.”
Strangely enough, I have different concerns. There will be privacy and security concerns about any centralised database. There’s only so much that can be done about that. If the benefits are substantial enough, then the risks might be worth taking. From what I’ve seen, MyHealthRecord is not implemented well enough to yield sufficiently substantial benefits.
Governments world over of all persuasions persecute and prosecute whistleblowers with great zeal and purpose to make examples of them. One might think it easier if governments just did the right thing, or at least were honest about what they were doing. Seems not the case in their unique value system.
The most effective way to eliminate whistleblowers is to eliminate the need to blow whistles.
I have opted out but I am not exiting the debate because if this had been done right then there could have been benefits. That may still be possible some way in the future.
Is the government interested in that? Is the government listening to any of the criticism? If the government is leaning on journalists and whistleblowers to keep them quiet then it sounds to me like “business as usual” and whether it is a success does not depend on us.
Was there ever any public consultation about this system? In particular now that it is “opt out” so that the vast majority of Australians will be in the system without making an informed decision or giving informed consent?
From news corp so it is click bait first and maybe some real news, but.
Perhaps the wrong person to ask here? I can’t answer for the government, but I do take time to correspond or meet with the local members on the key issues that I can’t get resolution for. If you don’t ask?
Our local federal MP at present is being very quiet on both the NBN and Myhealth. But so is the federal opposition and cross bench. Hopefully it will liven up on both fronts in two weeks time.
Yes it’s a pain there are three levels of government. And worse that the states despite the commonwealth remain one step separated from being independent nations. Hence the clash of powers and responsibilities. Health is just one area of concern.
I haven’t gone near that site yet but I’m sure if you “opt-out” you have to log your details so therefore become someone who “opted-out” of the govt masterplan… what happens to that data? Will opt-outters now be considered dissenters?
Whether you want in or out, the Govt, without really thinking it through properly, has created an enormous honey pot and thrown us all in it. Hackers Delight!
By the sounds of things, you’re in the debate until about 30 years after you die (according to phbriggs2000’s comment above)… but 30 years of changing Govt will most likely change that also.
Ouch… And I agree with your view of the LNP phobia of Labor created programs.
A keen insight that hadn’t occurred to me.
It appears government has rolled over to public opinion.
That’s a small improvement but they would need to go further than that.
Currently Section 70 of the MY HEALTH RECORDS ACT 2012 allows government access for “prevention” and “detection” of breaches of the law. In other words, overarching surveillance and pre-crime. This is not investigation in the presence of reasonable suspicion that you have committed a breach of the law, before they access your record.
It is true that no court order is required today. However does it really get much better if a court order is required? All some government body needs to do is satisfy a court that it is “reasonably necessary” for “prevention” or “detection” of a breach of the law that they permanently conduct surveillance across all records and we are no better off.
Let’s see whether there is even a time limit specified in the amended legislation for how long a court order could be in force.
That is without even considering the implications of “protection of the public revenue”. If that is interpreted generally to include “cost savings” then, again, the government can justify permanent pervasive surveillance of health records.
This is symptomatic of how governments (Lib or Lab, makes no difference) just can’t help themselves. Public health outcomes should have been paramount in this system. General law enforcement, national security and public revenue should never have been written into the legislation.
Which has been my main objection all along.
Notwithstanding all the risks and concerns, a database of the population’s health could be enormously valuable. Instead of pursuing that value, successive governments went for cheap.
In MyHealthRecord, we have a time-dependent collection of incomplete data, in formats incompatible with effective management and analysis. The foundations are weak. Rather like the NBN, if we’re to make it work well, we’ll need to demolish much (if not most or all) of what’s been built and begin again.
Doing it well was never going to be cheap or quick. In the beginning, I saw an estimate of $100 billion over 15 years (not doing it the way Deloitte envisaged). To that, we can now add throwing away what’s already been spent (and the time that’s been wasted).
Is the value worth the cost? I’d say potentially yes. But we need politicians with the courage to admit the costs and risks.
Chuckles. In our land if a pollie has the courage to admit the costs he is doing nothing but giving the opposition fodder to attack him. Then if everything does not go perfectly the opposition will also attack the foolhardiness of moving ahead with the known risks. So what are the chances that could happen with our political parties enthralled with nothing but their own self interests?
Which is why they can’t afford to have their failure recognised and will never admit their willful waste of public monies.
Which is why there is huge fanfare whenever a new program is announced and never a post implementation review to see if it actually did what it was supposed to do.
If you want to know who has confidence that they are right AND cares enough to stick around and prove it vote for the one who builds a proper PIR into their plans.
But you have to be prepared to pay the fine under the compulsory voting laws.