Robot Nurses To Cut Health Care Costs

[amnotanoobie]

This would probably be ideal with tasks such as reminding them with their medication and checking their vital signs. There are just a lot of instances where a person has a heart attack, or some similar condition just to be discovered dead days later.

 

[susan r]

We don't need to lose any more jobs to the Chinese or a robot with "tech support" outsourced to a guy sitting in Pakistan!

 

[Guest]

Im with the 'what would they do' poster.

There is NO practical application with our current level of technology.

Assuming they could have human level intelligence with the diagnosis of many different medical machines, and could be massed produced cheaply....ok.....or in other words is not going to happen with current technology.

With our level of robotics technology....it cant do much for you. Or rather there already exists much cheaper mass produced solutions now for anything it could do...

Answer a door for you? Ever hear of intercom, and electronic remote door releases...these are much cheaper then a robot.

Heart monitoring etc, there are sensors for this, hook it up to wifi with remote call for assistance....already exist, dont need a robot.

I cant argue with the dream, it sounds neat, your personal medical robot.....but i cant ignore reality, we CANT make that with current technology. We need a massive leap in AI to be able to do that.

We cant even teach a robot to see....we can have them measure their surroundings, and then extrapolate a 3d model based on the measurements, and then try to figure out what each blob is etc. Measuring is good, you can get information that humans simply dont have, but you need to combine it with the act of 'seeing'. The simple act of looking at a picture and seeing is far beyond our level of AI.

If we cant teach a robot to see, how do we teach it to be a effective nurse at a reasonable cost.

 

[rambo117]

great... not only are illigal immigrants taking our jobs but now robots. *sigh*

 

[Zingam]

и[citation][nom]rambo117[/nom]great... not only are illigal immigrants taking our jobs but now robots. *sigh*[/citation]

Are you a nurse?

 

[Guest]

No.... Healthcare isn't expensive because there are a bunch of greedy healthcare executives gouging the consumer for their shareholder's benefit because they know that people must have healthcare. No sir, healthcare is expensive because we don't have robots doing it.

/sarcasm

Our founding fathers(not being pussies like us), would've started shooting long before now... We are all willing to slog through a terrible humanitarian crisis by continually voting our crooked 2 party system in/out of office, and every time it doesn't get fixed, we assume it's because we didn't vote for "the other guy". If it's only a 2-party system, then one of them must be right???


OTOH, Anybody who tries to rationalize that it's somehow right and fair for a doctor to charge $800 for a vasectomy, a 15 minute proceduring involving equipment invented hundreds of years ago, is just an idiot, plain and simple. They could do it for $100 and still profit, but since they've all agreed to charge exorbitant amounts, so we are effectively price-gouged...

 

[schneidereit]

[citation][nom]robot_luvr69[/nom]No.... Healthcare isn't expensive because there are a bunch of greedy healthcare executives gouging the consumer for their shareholder's benefit because they know that people must have healthcare. No sir, healthcare is expensive because we don't have robots doing it./sarcasmOur founding fathers(not being pussies like us), would've started shooting long before now... We are all willing to slog through a terrible humanitarian crisis by continually voting our crooked 2 party system in/out of office, and every time it doesn't get fixed, we assume it's because we didn't vote for "the other guy". If it's only a 2-party system, then one of them must be right??? OTOH, Anybody who tries to rationalize that it's somehow right and fair for a doctor to charge $800 for a vasectomy, a 15 minute proceduring involving equipment invented hundreds of years ago, is just an idiot, plain and simple. They could do it for $100 and still profit, but since they've all agreed to charge exorbitant amounts, so we are effectively price-gouged...[/citation]


I was under the impression that Doctors were paid that way for two reasons, one if they weren't, they'd be in debt from medical school (300K+-) for the rest of their god forsaken lives. And two what they're doing is incredibly stressful and they have your penis (in this case) at stake, just like a tugboat captain makes a large amount of money because there's a lot on his shoulders. If that makes any sense.

 

[rambo117]

[citation][nom]zingam[/nom]иAre you a nurse?[/citation]
it was a joke, you know "haha thats funny"

 

[ta152h]

Humans are, by nature, flawed. Robots, being built by humans, will be flawed too, but probably a lot less than humans.

I'd rather have a robot. They'd be more predictable, and I wouldn't have to listen to their stupidity all day. Plus, they wouldn't resent actually doing anything, and wouldn't raid the fridge, except to get you something.

Health care costs are out of control, and all the people that are scared it would cost jobs are probably nurses, or thinking about being one. Here's the reality though, it would create jobs, just not the jobs you gals want. Health care costs are assumed, at least partially, by companies that hire people, and when you lower them, you lower costs. That would allow them to either hire more people, or lower costs for their services.

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to subsidize nurses if they aren't needed. Health care is out of control, so anything that helps should be considered. I'm not sure these devices are the answer though, but even if they work in limited situations, it is something. And while you might not like a mechanical beast instead of a smelly, obnoxious, chatterbox human, there are some that do. Why would you object to someone having that choice, if it really works? I'm not convinced this thing will though; I'm still convinced computers are high speed idiots. But maybe for limited situations. And from there, maybe they can improve it to take on new situations.

 

[davids1]

With robots working as nurses the term blue screen of death will take on a whole new meaning

 

[Andraxxus]

...Nurse... the pillow goes under the head not on the face. Let's ... uh... .> continue.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]asdf78h28ksjk[/nom]Im with the 'what would they do' poster. There is NO practical application with our current level of technology. [/citation]
Which is probably why things like this are in development. Even Angle doesn't have a firm idea of what they'd be doing or how they'd be doing it yet. But if you care to read Rodney Brooks' book Flesh and Machines, he does outline some areas in which household robots might be practical, but haven't yet been put into action. He also discusses other alternatives like "smart homes" controlled by computer, but points out that it'd probably be much less expensive to install a mobile robot than rewire a house for a given set of tasks. He also discusses the role of xenophobia in regards to foreign sources of labor and an aging population in Japan as factors in the Japanese enthusiasm for household robots, so at least he approaches things fairly and has a realistic sense of what probably wouldn't work or be pursued.
Keep in mind that household bots don't need "human level intelligence." or to "see" the same subjective way that people do. You basically need to have a clever algorithm that can take information from the sensors and respond appropriately. Just because humans use sight to vacuum doesn't mean Roomba needs complex human eyes, just the odd bump switch and some infrared proximity detectors. With the right kinds of sensors a remotely stationed machine could act in ways that help a home-bound patient or the elderly be more independent for longer.

 

[matt_b]

The movie i,Robot anybody?

 

[thatcrazyguy]

THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

 

[Guest]

hey.... robot_luvr69.... "Anybody who tries to rationalize that it's somehow right and fair for a doctor to charge $800 for a vasectomy, a 15 minute proceduring involving equipment invented hundreds of years ago, is just an idiot, plain and simple." What "invented hundreds of years ago" So before electricity,? What equipment are you thinking the flint rock?

 

[r3t4rd]

Stupid misleading "Topic". I was hoping for some sexy iRobot full figured nurses. Kinda like that Japanese iRobot Woman. Who cares about anything else? All I get is a "Number 5" looking like robot thing. Heck!, at least "Number 5" was alive, had eyes, and do a "Three Stooges" skit.

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]
You wtch waaaaaay to much sci-fi dude , seriously get a brain , or alife LOL[/citation]

Before you start suggesting people get a life, I believe you should learn some grammar and spelling.

 

[jellico]

If the idiots who currently control our country were serious about healthcare reform, then they would start with tort reform. The biggest expense in the healthcare industry is malpractice insurance. It is the biggest expense because 1) people sue the hospital and the doctor everytime there is an undesirable outcome whether the doctor is to blame or not; 2) the trial lawyers and their powerful lobby are well protected by those in congress (most of whom are, themselves, lawyers).

In an earlier post, Robot_lover was ignorantly complaining about the fee doctor's charge. What he fails to realize is that doctors must pay about 50% of their salary for malpractice insurance, and this is off the top! Lawyers collect 33.3% of all settlements, AFTER expenses. And, it's usually a quick paycheck since the doctor and hospital being sued almost always settle out of court because it is cheaper than trying to fight even an obviously frivolous lawsuit. Additionally, because so many people have this anti-doctor attitude (usually because they are jealous of the money they make... nevermind the astronomical student-loan debt, and the years of ball-busting work they put in to get there), the lawyer bringing the lawsuit had a 2:1 chance of winning if it does go to court.

In the end, the lawyers add NOTHING OF VALUE to the healthcare industry, yet they raise the cost of healthcare by as much as 50%. This is something that congress could do that would work, would receive the support of the majority of Americans, and would have an IMMEDIATE impact on the cost of healthcare. Which begs the question, why is it that no one in power will even consider this?

 

[mowston]

In the US, medical costs are determined by market factors, not on how much it costs to do a procedure (although, obviously costs have to be recovered). Therefore, if enough people are willing to pay $800 for a vasectomy, then it will cost that much. For example, you can have a dog spayed for less than $150, including full anesthesia, removal of internal organs, etc. But people generally aren't willing to pay more than that, so that is the price. (Granted, physicians have higher operating costs (everyone at a human clinic makes more than those at a Vet clinic).)

"Anybody who tries to rationalize that it's somehow right and fair for a doctor to charge $800 for a vasectomy, a 15 minute proceduring involving equipment invented hundreds of years ago, is just an idiot, plain and simple."

 

[jecht]

What his vision doesn't include is robots that walk and talk like C-3PO or Ash (from Alien)

Well, that's a relief. I don't want an Ash anywhere near me, although I'd take a Bishop any day.