What I find interesting in that all the time Android had their smartwatches around, NO ONE gave it any serious thought whatsoever. Apple watch just gets introduced, and folks are paying attention to it and ideas are coming out from it.
Why is Android watches stillborn? Because they're crap. Period. Everyone, except for Fandroids, know Android watches are barely any more useable than a standard analog watch. Fandroids will simply revert to their tired and worn-out excuse that Apple Watch is only popular due to marketing and nothing more. Wrong... again.
The "marketing" argument is certainly one of the most pathetic ways haters rationalize Apple's success. Even though Apple doesn't need it, I really wish they would do more marketing. Despite their success, I don't think Apple gets nearly enough credit! For instance, each component of the Apple Watch is amazing, from the encapsulated SoC, to a heart rate monitor equal to the best dedicated heart rate monitors on the consumer market, sapphire crystal that is thick enough to prevent shattering yet seamlessly integrates into the watch's curves, top of the class strap quality and selection, Taptic feedback, very easy to use UI (with force touch), secure personal ID for Apple Pay (and soon HomeKit), etc. Most people are able to intuitively recognize the value of Apple's products, but this usually gets a response of 'ohh, it's nice." With the relative lack of concrete information about why Apple's products are so good, haters are able to fill that void with silly rationalizations, which get perpetuated by world of mouth. That said, Apple has been making a ton of progress in controlling the message about their products, for which I think Tim Cook deserves a lot of credit.
Now that's close to an outright misstatement: I downloaded and read multiple public drafts of the legislation in publicly available pdf files over the months the House and Senate modified and crafted the two bills.
?Anyone who was interested had to expend close to zero effort to snag a copy for their own reading. Anyone who didn't was just being lazy or just didn't care.
One of those Republican talking points that fails at first glance right up there with Death panels and pulling the plug on Grandmas. Or what might be my favorite "Socialized Medicine". Which must have Mitt Romney and his Heritage Foundation puppet masters spinning in their oak lined lairs.
I think you have some good points here.. but I think you are throwing a large net here over wealth. I don't think it is about how much money you have. Some people just don't believe in the funding of any public system no matter if they are rich or poor. Healthcare, education, police, fire.... oh except the military of course. Which I always found to be weird.
I think it's more a matter of the fact that most people only think about their own situation. So when they're healthy and don't need to use healthcare much, they won't support any system which they feel supports "freeloaders". However, if/when they get a serious illness and can't afford the costs, then they'll do an about face and suddenly want a system that covers everything. No ability to think about anyone but themselves.
No Bush fan, but the point is health care vs. medical care. Only YOU can take care of your health. Massive medical costs come from people who don't give a damn about their health (smoking-related diseases, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sedentary lifestyle, 0 exercise). Buying everyone an Apple Watch would be much cheaper than paying for everyone's medical needs (impossible anyway) Socialized medicine is an illusion, unless the U.S. is essentially subsidizing 99% of your defense budget, allowing for temporary socialism in western and northern Europe. Its unsustainable in the long term.
Right... I live Canada and I've lived in the US for many years (I've also spent time in the UK). US healthcare is a mess even when you have money to be properly insured (which thankfully I do). But, if you don't. like some of my friends in the US, it is beyond crappy to criminally dangerous. Funny, how health care in the US even if you include those with the best care is not even the best even though it cost more than double everyone of those "socialists" countries. If you exclude the well insured, the health result for the rest of the US citizens is like a mid range developing nation, for the bottom rung it is third world like.
An unhealthy lifestyle increases your probability of getting sick, but there are also a huge number of people who get sick regardless of what they did.
Guess it sucks for those poor people (an increasingly big part of the population) who didn't abuse their body and got sick, or got into an accident, before 65 and can't afford insurance (because it has quadrupled in cost in 20 years while wages have flatline); guess they should just die then... If preventative medecine before 65 would have extended their lives, screw them, they don't deserve it (sic)
Ayn Rand would be very proud of your declaration.
A friend I know had cancer in the US at 40 and was bankrupted by it, before it killed him and left his family destitute.
When you say private insurance, what do you mean? You find an insurance broker and have them create a specialized medical insurance package just for you?
The ACA is a bargain for many people, especially those who have been sick with cancer and other types of expensive illnesses. Before the ACA, insurance companies could deny coverage so these people either died or they got welfare level coverage. Now they can be covered. The rates are based on age, younger people pay less and older people pay more. This has been a boon for underpaid graduates, working people without coverage, and everyone except rich people who complain about paying for anything. If Gallup asked people if they favored the ACA, 90% of them wouldn't know what that was. They don't like it because it has our current President's name attached to it and don't understand what it does in the first place. Individual insurance is always more expensive and I'd bet that most people who get insurance through their workplace think they are part of ACA. Except for small companies, they aren't. Add all the negative, rich Republican negativity and of course people already have their minds made up without even investigating it. It's been great for my 30 year old daughter who's seeing her coverage go up while her premium goes way down.
As for the Apple Watch being a better way to handle medical needs, Jeb Bush needs to get his head examined. Oh wait, maybe there's an app for that!!!!
What I meant is I'm a business owner who provides insurance for myself and certain employees. ACA has been a nightmare. Small companies have insurance that aren't part of ACA.
ACA a bargain? Maybe for a very small amount of people. The overwhelming majority are paying more for less coverage. That's the reason why there has been such a high public backlash over ACA, not because it has Obama's name on it. Another factor for the backlash is the lie about you can keep your doctor. I don't know what state you live in but ACA has been really bad for people in California. I won't get into details, but a simple google search will reveal how bad ACA is for the majority of people in this country.
That's as socioeconomically myopic comment as you're gonna see. He just went from middle-class families struggling to make ends meet who depend on the ACA, to the one-percenter flashing their gold rose Apple Watch on Rodeo Drive.
Nice job, Bush. Such an idiot--runs in the family, obvi.
This is true, because the cost of health insurance continues to increase. I still have the same coverage I have had for 15 years and it has gone up every year at about the same rate of increase due to a number of factors. Just because people who were already paying for their insurance had their rates go up doesn't mean that all or any of the increase was due to the Affordable Care Act.
I'm not sure why you have less coverage. It should be the same or better. Otherwise why did you not continue with your old coverage as I did?
Most people had their rates go up by at least 50% or more. That's not a normal increase from a previous year. It's due to ACA. I couldn't keep my own plan because I was dropped as was ever other person on the plan in California due to ACA. The replacement plan I was offered was 70% higher with less coverage. Read this:
Jeb sounds a little better than "he would do away with the Affordable Care Act in favor of health tracking on the Apple Watch". He's not comparing apple watches and obamacare like they're interchangeable categories. He's saying health care should be private again, and devices like the apple watch will be capitalized on in the private sector as opposed to the public sector that can't even do a website right.
That quote, and the post, wasn't about the ACA: while my post a couple up was, and that one supports the legislation as I do in general.
I was just reaching for humor.
...mostly because this message thread lacks a premise, especially when it is based on a sound bite in which J.Bush didn't say anything about replacing ACA with the Apple Watch... he said that in 5 years, a device (like the one he's wearing) will be able to provide a lot of people with an amazing amount of personal choices & responsibility of their own health. And that ACA should be repealed and should instead provide more choices for the individual on their health (care). At no time did he say he would replace ACA with an Apple Watch.
Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation in a long time but Jeb Bush is an idiot and God help us if he or Hillary Clinton become the next president.
I downloaded and read multiple public drafts of the legislation in publicly available pdf files over the months the House and Senate modified and crafted the two bills.
?Anyone who was interested had to expend close to zero effort to snag a copy for their own reading. Anyone who didn't was just being lazy or just didn't care.
You're absolutely right! All the naysayers could talk about was how darned huge the document was, when in fact it included a lengthy table of contents, every page of actual content contained only about 100 words heavily indented, with much of the text consisting of line numbers along the side. What the negative publicity did was convince the public that it was a daunting a task to read... so don't bother... take our word for it, it's awful! Well, it wasn't a difficult read, and the total length of the content was close to that of a supermarket romance novel.
I think it's more a matter of the fact that most people only think about their own situation. So when they're healthy and don't need to use healthcare much, they won't support any system which they feel supports "freeloaders". However, if/when they get a serious illness and can't afford the costs, then they'll do an about face and suddenly want a system that covers everything. No ability to think about anyone but themselves.
These are the same people who criticize Fed aid programs like Welfare or Food stamp. I know these program funding came from working people's tax, but again, we never know one day we'll end up like those people and need the same aids. I don't have problem with these Fed programs, but people who find loophole and abuse these: get paid in cash and stay on Fed aids to be rich.
ACA to me a good thing, many of people I know are either self employed or employed by small business that offered no med insurance or had pre-condition. They're more than thrilled when ACA passed.
Or you fit into none of those demographics and just think that adding a massive government bureaucracy on top of an already convoluted, medical insurance scheme with already existing layers of government oversight/interference, will do nothing good to change the economics of medical care.
The Affordable Care Act was just a symbolic beaurocratic gesture for true believers. The central planning zealots keep telling us to have faith in government despite all evidence to the contrary. I think 'faith' is a poor substitute for empirical data, but that's what keeps political teams' memberships up. Science never fills up church pews or keeps political celebrity fans engaged.
The burden of proof is on it's architects, and so far it's been an underwhelming, completely misleading piece of garbage. It was beyond distasteful for the President to lie about being transparent about its entire contents, and then to hide the bill until it was already a done deal. That's pure political corruption and it rests squarely on Team D this time. So you can bury your head in the sand or wake up to the fact this was nothing but a shallow money grab under some guise of charity.
Redefiler: Sounds to me like you're the True Beliver - Fox News Version. Which means you will be disinclined to read this but here goes: Obamacare: 7 Common Arguments Against The Affordable Care Act, Debunked For example, Common Argument #2: It's illegal. President Obama and the Democrats shoved this through Congress and crammed it down the American people’s throats. Response: The bill passed with a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives (twice). It was then signed into law by a democratically-elected president (who won election with the largest number of popular votes in history, and totally rocked the Electoral College against McCain/Palin) and was upheld by the Supreme Court (which declared - in John Roberts formulation that the mandate was a tax). You can debate the quality of the bill, but you can’t seriously argue that it wasn’t enacted through established American democratic norms.
?Look, believewhat you want, but for folks like me this awesome Jimmy Kimmel YouTube clip puts it all into perspective when it comes to understanding folks like you. Especially the last lady's remarks about "Do I look stupid?"
We don't need a watch to tell us what our health profile is. How can a watch diagnose diabetes, cancer, alcoholism, a cold, a flu, a disease like AIDS? Bush is an a$$hole. Ask him if he's replaced his healthcare with the Apple watch?
Comments
What I find interesting in that all the time Android had their smartwatches around, NO ONE gave it any serious thought whatsoever. Apple watch just gets introduced, and folks are paying attention to it and ideas are coming out from it.
Why is Android watches stillborn? Because they're crap. Period. Everyone, except for Fandroids, know Android watches are barely any more useable than a standard analog watch. Fandroids will simply revert to their tired and worn-out excuse that Apple Watch is only popular due to marketing and nothing more. Wrong... again.
The "marketing" argument is certainly one of the most pathetic ways haters rationalize Apple's success. Even though Apple doesn't need it, I really wish they would do more marketing. Despite their success, I don't think Apple gets nearly enough credit! For instance, each component of the Apple Watch is amazing, from the encapsulated SoC, to a heart rate monitor equal to the best dedicated heart rate monitors on the consumer market, sapphire crystal that is thick enough to prevent shattering yet seamlessly integrates into the watch's curves, top of the class strap quality and selection, Taptic feedback, very easy to use UI (with force touch), secure personal ID for Apple Pay (and soon HomeKit), etc. Most people are able to intuitively recognize the value of Apple's products, but this usually gets a response of 'ohh, it's nice." With the relative lack of concrete information about why Apple's products are so good, haters are able to fill that void with silly rationalizations, which get perpetuated by world of mouth. That said, Apple has been making a ton of progress in controlling the message about their products, for which I think Tim Cook deserves a lot of credit.
Jeb Bush: "My brother recommended that I get this here Apple Watch to use the internets. Its an amazing doohickey! But I refuse to pay for AppleCare."
"and then to hide the bill until"
Now that's close to an outright misstatement: I downloaded and read multiple public drafts of the legislation in publicly available pdf files over the months the House and Senate modified and crafted the two bills.
?Anyone who was interested had to expend close to zero effort to snag a copy for their own reading. Anyone who didn't was just being lazy or just didn't care.
One of those Republican talking points that fails at first glance right up there with Death panels and pulling the plug on Grandmas. Or what might be my favorite "Socialized Medicine". Which must have Mitt Romney and his Heritage Foundation puppet masters spinning in their oak lined lairs.
I think you have some good points here.. but I think you are throwing a large net here over wealth. I don't think it is about how much money you have. Some people just don't believe in the funding of any public system no matter if they are rich or poor. Healthcare, education, police, fire.... oh except the military of course. Which I always found to be weird.
I think it's more a matter of the fact that most people only think about their own situation. So when they're healthy and don't need to use healthcare much, they won't support any system which they feel supports "freeloaders". However, if/when they get a serious illness and can't afford the costs, then they'll do an about face and suddenly want a system that covers everything. No ability to think about anyone but themselves.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"
Just look at the UK they vote out the coalition with what is effectively the NAZI party.
I hope the asteroid hits soon, we have proved that we don't actually deserve to be here.
No Bush fan, but the point is health care vs. medical care. Only YOU can take care of your health. Massive medical costs come from people who don't give a damn about their health (smoking-related diseases, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sedentary lifestyle, 0 exercise). Buying everyone an Apple Watch would be much cheaper than paying for everyone's medical needs (impossible anyway) Socialized medicine is an illusion, unless the U.S. is essentially subsidizing 99% of your defense budget, allowing for temporary socialism in western and northern Europe. Its unsustainable in the long term.
Right... I live Canada and I've lived in the US for many years (I've also spent time in the UK). US healthcare is a mess even when you have money to be properly insured (which thankfully I do). But, if you don't. like some of my friends in the US, it is beyond crappy to criminally dangerous. Funny, how health care in the US even if you include those with the best care is not even the best even though it cost more than double everyone of those "socialists" countries. If you exclude the well insured, the health result for the rest of the US citizens is like a mid range developing nation, for the bottom rung it is third world like.
An unhealthy lifestyle increases your probability of getting sick, but there are also a huge number of people who get sick regardless of what they did.
Guess it sucks for those poor people (an increasingly big part of the population) who didn't abuse their body and got sick, or got into an accident, before 65 and can't afford insurance (because it has quadrupled in cost in 20 years while wages have flatline); guess they should just die then... If preventative medecine before 65 would have extended their lives, screw them, they don't deserve it (sic)
Ayn Rand would be very proud of your declaration.
A friend I know had cancer in the US at 40 and was bankrupted by it, before it killed him and left his family destitute.
This happened a few years ago.
He didn't smoke, was a health nut all his life.
I won't comment more because it will make me mad.
Just look at the UK they vote out the coalition with what is effectively the NAZI party.
They're not Nazis, their uniforms aren't nearly as good...
They look like some ill fated British bull fighters.
When you say private insurance, what do you mean? You find an insurance broker and have them create a specialized medical insurance package just for you?
The ACA is a bargain for many people, especially those who have been sick with cancer and other types of expensive illnesses. Before the ACA, insurance companies could deny coverage so these people either died or they got welfare level coverage. Now they can be covered. The rates are based on age, younger people pay less and older people pay more. This has been a boon for underpaid graduates, working people without coverage, and everyone except rich people who complain about paying for anything. If Gallup asked people if they favored the ACA, 90% of them wouldn't know what that was. They don't like it because it has our current President's name attached to it and don't understand what it does in the first place. Individual insurance is always more expensive and I'd bet that most people who get insurance through their workplace think they are part of ACA. Except for small companies, they aren't. Add all the negative, rich Republican negativity and of course people already have their minds made up without even investigating it. It's been great for my 30 year old daughter who's seeing her coverage go up while her premium goes way down.
As for the Apple Watch being a better way to handle medical needs, Jeb Bush needs to get his head examined. Oh wait, maybe there's an app for that!!!!
What I meant is I'm a business owner who provides insurance for myself and certain employees. ACA has been a nightmare. Small companies have insurance that aren't part of ACA.
ACA a bargain? Maybe for a very small amount of people. The overwhelming majority are paying more for less coverage. That's the reason why there has been such a high public backlash over ACA, not because it has Obama's name on it. Another factor for the backlash is the lie about you can keep your doctor. I don't know what state you live in but ACA has been really bad for people in California. I won't get into details, but a simple google search will reveal how bad ACA is for the majority of people in this country.
I could care less what Jeb says.
That's as socioeconomically myopic comment as you're gonna see. He just went from middle-class families struggling to make ends meet who depend on the ACA, to the one-percenter flashing their gold rose Apple Watch on Rodeo Drive.
Nice job, Bush. Such an idiot--runs in the family, obvi.
This is true, because the cost of health insurance continues to increase. I still have the same coverage I have had for 15 years and it has gone up every year at about the same rate of increase due to a number of factors. Just because people who were already paying for their insurance had their rates go up doesn't mean that all or any of the increase was due to the Affordable Care Act.
I'm not sure why you have less coverage. It should be the same or better. Otherwise why did you not continue with your old coverage as I did?
Most people had their rates go up by at least 50% or more. That's not a normal increase from a previous year. It's due to ACA. I couldn't keep my own plan because I was dropped as was ever other person on the plan in California due to ACA. The replacement plan I was offered was 70% higher with less coverage. Read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/
Thanks mstone.
Jeb sounds a little better than "he would do away with the Affordable Care Act in favor of health tracking on the Apple Watch". He's not comparing apple watches and obamacare like they're interchangeable categories. He's saying health care should be private again, and devices like the apple watch will be capitalized on in the private sector as opposed to the public sector that can't even do a website right.
That quote, and the post, wasn't about the ACA: while my post a couple up was, and that one supports the legislation as I do in general.
I was just reaching for humor.
...mostly because this message thread lacks a premise, especially when it is based on a sound bite in which J.Bush didn't say anything about replacing ACA with the Apple Watch... he said that in 5 years, a device (like the one he's wearing) will be able to provide a lot of people with an amazing amount of personal choices & responsibility of their own health. And that ACA should be repealed and should instead provide more choices for the individual on their health (care). At no time did he say he would replace ACA with an Apple Watch.
If he was against the bill that was passed, I fail to see how that’s idiocy.
It’s unaffordable, there’s no care, and it was an illegal act.
You’re completely and utterly delusional.
Said literally no one in any of those categories, ever. Try again.
Let me guess, Republican?
I downloaded and read multiple public drafts of the legislation in publicly available pdf files over the months the House and Senate modified and crafted the two bills.
?Anyone who was interested had to expend close to zero effort to snag a copy for their own reading. Anyone who didn't was just being lazy or just didn't care.
You're absolutely right! All the naysayers could talk about was how darned huge the document was, when in fact it included a lengthy table of contents, every page of actual content contained only about 100 words heavily indented, with much of the text consisting of line numbers along the side. What the negative publicity did was convince the public that it was a daunting a task to read... so don't bother... take our word for it, it's awful! Well, it wasn't a difficult read, and the total length of the content was close to that of a supermarket romance novel.
I think it's more a matter of the fact that most people only think about their own situation. So when they're healthy and don't need to use healthcare much, they won't support any system which they feel supports "freeloaders". However, if/when they get a serious illness and can't afford the costs, then they'll do an about face and suddenly want a system that covers everything. No ability to think about anyone but themselves.
These are the same people who criticize Fed aid programs like Welfare or Food stamp. I know these program funding came from working people's tax, but again, we never know one day we'll end up like those people and need the same aids. I don't have problem with these Fed programs, but people who find loophole and abuse these: get paid in cash and stay on Fed aids to be rich.
ACA to me a good thing, many of people I know are either self employed or employed by small business that offered no med insurance or had pre-condition. They're more than thrilled when ACA passed.
Really disappointing AppleInsider... baiting your readers like that with an obvious red meat headline. IMO- very amateurish.
Or you fit into none of those demographics and just think that adding a massive government bureaucracy on top of an already convoluted, medical insurance scheme with already existing layers of government oversight/interference, will do nothing good to change the economics of medical care.
The Affordable Care Act was just a symbolic beaurocratic gesture for true believers. The central planning zealots keep telling us to have faith in government despite all evidence to the contrary. I think 'faith' is a poor substitute for empirical data, but that's what keeps political teams' memberships up. Science never fills up church pews or keeps political celebrity fans engaged.
The burden of proof is on it's architects, and so far it's been an underwhelming, completely misleading piece of garbage. It was beyond distasteful for the President to lie about being transparent about its entire contents, and then to hide the bill until it was already a done deal. That's pure political corruption and it rests squarely on Team D this time. So you can bury your head in the sand or wake up to the fact this was nothing but a shallow money grab under some guise of charity.
Redefiler: Sounds to me like you're the True Beliver - Fox News Version. Which means you will be disinclined to read this but here goes: Obamacare: 7 Common Arguments Against The Affordable Care Act, Debunked For example, Common Argument #2: It's illegal. President Obama and the Democrats shoved this through Congress and crammed it down the American people’s throats. Response: The bill passed with a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives (twice). It was then signed into law by a democratically-elected president (who won election with the largest number of popular votes in history, and totally rocked the Electoral College against McCain/Palin) and was upheld by the Supreme Court (which declared - in John Roberts formulation that the mandate was a tax). You can debate the quality of the bill, but you can’t seriously argue that it wasn’t enacted through established American democratic norms.
?Look, believe what you want, but for folks like me this awesome Jimmy Kimmel YouTube clip puts it all into perspective when it comes to understanding folks like you. Especially the last lady's remarks about "Do I look stupid?"