It's not YOUR data to decide
You made a sort of half assed fake counter argument there, Joe, a sort of "sure its great but". Oh fook off, transparently false attempt to argue this.
The plan: take "aggregate" data, build outcome models from that data, the models overrule the doctors decision, NHS saves money by not paying for expensive procedures that the model says it doesn't need to pay for, even if the doctor says it does.
They'll just end up paying data modellers like Palantir instead.
The doctor knows better than generic model, second guessing doctors prior decisions.
That data gets used for uses it was never intended for. Stuff like: "Why should insurance company cover people living unhealthy lives? [+play one person off against another], they get the data anyway, lets pass identifiers, but just for this particular case and not for other cases....".
Stuff like "wouldn't it be great if the police had a list of everyone who might be a drug user, we have that data anyway, its just another query, and the police can already RIPA query that database anyway, so lets make it official".
Stuff like, "if we cancel this health policy, how many people of [opposition demographic] do we kill?". The analysis the Republicans were running when trying to cancel Obamacare and keep all the Republicans on board. Hey, sure we kill 60,000 but they're mostly Democrats, here, look at our data models.
Stuff that causes the basic purpose of healthcare to be subverted from caring for health, and instead becomes about what gains [group] can get from mining that PRIVATE DATA.
Germany, you've never experienced German healthcare clearly, it's expensive and fragmented, and try to get a cancer specialist and you run around one polyclinic to another to get the bits and pieces of healthcare needed. A clinic here for the CT scan, a clinic there for the cancer specialist, a clinic for the medicine, run run run. Chase chase chase.
Germany life expectancy, 81.57 years, UK 81.52 years, no difference. All that extra money (and you claim data) makes no difference.
If German aggregate data is so useful, WHY NOT USE THAT? They are a similar european demographic complete with a Lidl food diet and similar health care. If *anonymous* aggregate data is so useful, then a similar *anonymous* dataset will be fine. Germany: insanely overpriced, inefficient system, overfunded by taxes. The taxes are so high, 50% of the people cannot afford to move out from their mothers home. Clearly an out of balance economy there.
Singapore, you get that its 50% subsidy for a kids visit and yet still hundreds of dollars, for something as trivial as a pulled elbow? Or you can live with the pulled elbow if you cannot afford it. They have nothing, nobody goes to Singapore for their hospital treatments, they head to Thailand. Singapore: all smoke and mirrors hyper inflated economy, pretends to be hi-tech run by data and robots and is actually run by cheap labour from neighboring Asian countries. Why not just say, you're data driven and run by robots and import Polish labor like before, if you want the smoke and mirrors economy?
You hold up two of the crappiest overpriced systems available as models to be pursued.
UK has a Pharma industry because it has NHS and a stable marketplace. If you strip billions from NHS, you will lose your Pharma industry.
It's private data, you do not get to argue the pros and cons of accessing people's private data, without them being in the argument. THEY decide on a case by case basis whether YOU can use THEIR private data.
Opt in, or undermine healthcare.