Walmart to sell Electronic health records

[jc]

Walmart is going to sell Eclinical Works on dell hardware (SAS
model)..just read on NYtimes.com

[ABC ABC]

Well, they use eCW and partner with Dell.  Check out the good analysis on www.chilmarkresearch.com .  I asked John to look into Vista open source.  Hope he will.  LCN.

[ivhalpc]

On Medieval Barbering, Wal-Mart and One Size Fits All With Health IT

"Years from now I hope that people will laugh at these debates [Free/
Open Source vs Proprietary EMR software] in the same way that today we
think the alchemists where misguided. I hope that laugh will happen in
just a few years, and not 20. Do you remember the Steve Martin
'Medieval Barber' skits in which he does blood letting on customers
then starts talking into the camera, lays out the discovery of the
scientific method then grins into the camera and says 'naaaah!' and
continues doing dreadful things? That's what seems to be going on here
a kind of 'Medieval Barber' type thing that is occurring with many
people in thinking about Health IT. That this proprietary vs. Free/
Open Source is even debated just seems so odd to me...I'll repeat that
it isn't what you see with proprietary EMR systems, it is what you do
not see: rapid innovation, choice, actual scientific comparison, real
privacy, security, derivative works, the right to fix and extend the
software, low or no cost, good service, real progress in medicine.
What you do not see with Wal-Mart and eClinical is the poisoning of
the health IT software ecosystem and the stifling of innovation and
derivative works while we collectively go 'Look over there! Something
shiny!"

http://linuxmednews.com/1236901534/index_html

On Mar 12, 9:59 pm, ABC ABC <vnredcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, they use eCW and partner with Dell.  Check out the good analysis onwww.chilmarkresearch.com.  I asked John to look into Vista open source.
> Hope he will.  LCN.

[ABC ABC]

I read the link.  I agree.  All federal funding should be for open source.  By the way, they did this in Vietnam as of 1/6/09.  LCN

[christy]

Funding should be available to all ....only the better programs (open
source or not) will succeed

On Mar 14, 10:20 pm, ABC ABC <vnredcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read the link.  I agree.  All federal funding should be for open source.
> By the way, they did this in Vietnam as of 1/6/09.  LCN
>

[Gregory Woodhouse]

I agree. Linux hasn't gained broad acceptance as a server platform
because it's open source, but because it's a great OS. Besides, if
open source is given preferential treatment, the likely result is an
anti-open source backlash.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 15, 2009, at 9:02 PM, christy <christina...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[K.S. Bhaskar]

On 03/16/2009 03:53 AM, Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
>
> I agree. Linux hasn't gained broad acceptance as a server platform
> because it's open source, but because it's a great OS. Besides, if
> open source is given preferential treatment, the likely result is an
> anti-open source backlash.

[KSB] I agree. The challenge for open source is that the playing field
is not level, and there is built in biases in favor of proprietary
solutions. No significant player in the FOSS community seeks
preferential treatment.

Regards
-- Bhaskar

_____________

The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose,
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition,
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________

[I, Valdes]

One cannot ever tell if a proprietary EMR software is better because
you are specifically prohibited from studying all aspects of
proprietary EMR software. You may violate a EULA or service contract
and be prosecuted for it by attempting to do so. Because of this it
should be specifically disqualified from receiving federal funding.
Seriously. The 'better programs will succeed' is a something that all
desire, however, since people are deliberately kept in the dark with
proprietary, one cannot ever really know if a proprietary program is
overall better than another one. You can with F/OSS. These aspects are
rarely discussed outside of the F/OSS crowd. For this and many other
reasons such as destroying innovation and derivative works being very
difficult, proprietary EMR's should be disallowed for federal
funding. Another fallacy is the 'one size does not fit all' argument
which I reply to in the article:

"Mandating seat belt use for cars isn't a good thing because 'one size
does not fit all' and people should be allowed to be 'thrown clear' in
a crash. You know that lead paint is pretty good for some applications
and it is just too bad if it poisons children and the environment
around it. Banning lead paint and faulty medications is not a good
solution because it works for some people and 'one size does not fit
all'. Freedom of speech should be, you know, optional because 'one
size does not fit all', the scientific method for finding truth is
really superfluous because 'one size does not fit all'. Proprietary
EMR's should be allowed to be paid for with federal funds because 'one
size does not fit all' even though there is manifest evidence over at
least a decade that they do not work very well in practice for most of
medicine and there is a good deal of evidence over decades that Free/
Open Source ones do."

-- IV