Apple Watch is better for you than Obamacare, Jeb Bush says

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited November 2015
During a Thursday stop in Phoenix, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush --?widely expected to challenge for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 --?reportedly said that he would do away with the Affordable Care Act in favor of health tracking on the Apple Watch.




It isn't immediately clear exactly what relationship Bush believes personal activity tracking bears to medical care, and transcripts of his remarks have not been released. The governor's comments were first noted by FOX 10's Steve Krafft.

In photos, Bush can be seen gesturing to his Apple Watch --?which appears to be a space black stainless steel model with black sport band --?during what was presumably a discussion of the Health app.

Buyers can use the Apple Watch to track their daily exercise and movements, such as walking or working out. The Health app provides personalized feedback designed to help wearers lead a healthier, more active lifestyle.

Conversely, The Affordable Care Act --?known colloquially as Obamacare --?is a regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system designed to make medical treatment more affordable and accessible. It includes provisions for expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as new regulations on private insurers alongside numerous other changes.

Apple has used the Watch's fitness tracking capabilities as a major tentpole of its marketing effort, but has been careful to avoid making medical claims. Among other consequences, making specific claims could lead to scrutiny and likely regulatory action from the FDA.
«13456710

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 191
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,054member

    and we all know that this guy is an idiot right? Remember his comment on Net Neutral?

  • Reply 2 of 191
    starbird73starbird73 Posts: 538member
    Not to get to political, but I love Apple products, and not a fan of the current iteration of the Affordable Care Act, but WHAT??!!? I don't see how the two do any of the same things.
  • Reply 3 of 191
    bingo1bingo1 Posts: 25member
    Jeb Bush is a tool!! A watch is better than a health care? He's really comparing Apple with Orange. What a dumb ass.
  • Reply 4 of 191
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,054member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bingo1 View Post



    Jeb Bush is a tool!! A watch is better than a health care? He's really comparing Apple with Orange. What a dumb ass.

    Not even Apple with Orange, but Apple with Agriculture Subsidy Program...WTF.

  • Reply 5 of 191
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    bingo1 wrote: »
    Jeb Bush is a tool!! A watch is better than a health care? He's really comparing Apple with Orange. What a dumb ass.

    He's got the pedigree.
  • Reply 6 of 191
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Better question, how did he get a space black stainless steel with a black sport band. From what I have been told you can not get the space black with sport band. It is not like he bought it with the metal band and bought the sport band separately since they are back order as well. Do you all really think he was up at 3 in the morning and got the first order for the space black. Most are just shipping out and any order not done in the first few minutes show june and july shipping dates.

    Maybe apple is greasing the GOP to make sure they can bring back those billions and Jeb come cheap on cost a watch.
  • Reply 7 of 191
    nick29nick29 Posts: 111member
    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.
  • Reply 8 of 191
    konqerrorkonqerror Posts: 685member

    His point is correct. Any way you look at it, the current healthcare system is unsustainable for an aging population. Data-driven personalized telemedicine, and prevention are the ways we have to go, or else we'll be like Japan.

     

    Nobody gets upset that the telephone operator, office typist, and travel agent have been replaced by technology. Medicine has to undergo the exact same transformation.

  • Reply 9 of 191
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    To give the guy the benefit of the doubt he's conflating retail medical care (tracking my own activity will give me immediate health benefits) versus wholesale (Obamacare's efforts and improving outcomes, making preventive care more accessible and eliminating pre-existing condition bans etc. will improve overall population health: but won't directly impact my sitting on my butt at my desk all day long...).

     

    On the subtle side the Researchkit communication available to my doctors should that be needed would really open up a new and wonderful line of data communication for my health management: again, retail.

  • Reply 10 of 191

    Nice to see the knee jerk political people getting their jabs in already. I'm sure there's more to come. Replacing the ACA with Apple watches is silly, and if that's what he said, I'm sure it was hyperbole. But that doesn't stop people from voicing ridiculous opinions based on their emotions. FWIW, Jeb Bush seems like one of the few popular politicians that aren't on the crazy fringes of their party, and because of this I'm glad he's running.

     

    Back on topic: This is great publicity for the Apple Watch, and impressive that there's a politician who was enough of an Apple fan to be able to get the watch so early. Also, I assume he's making a point about the Apple Watch being a sensible way for health care to be improved and more effective, which is a great observation. 

  • Reply 11 of 191
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Why do people hate the Affordable Care Act?

     

    Answer: They are rich, own a large business that did not offer health insurance before, have a financial stake in a healthcare provider. Or... you just support whatever Fox news tells you to.

     

    If you are a senior, middle class, a poor person or a female the Affordable Care Act is a very good thing for you. In fact for many people who had private insurance before the Act was passed, have much better healthcare now compared to what they had before, because the minimum care standards are higher, plus, there are many more healthcare options and better protection of your rights such as guaranteed coverage for existing conditions.

     

    There are also many cost cutting measures provided by the Act which has slowed the rate of medical costs.

  • Reply 12 of 191
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Nick29 View Post



    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.



    I agree: I'm often pointing out that while our procedures do cost more than in many other places what undoubtedly builds a floor in medical care cost reduction is the challenge that we ARE just that sick a nation: there's studies that have been referenced showing something like 80% of medical expenditures are for the treatment of chronic, largely lifestyle related diseases... search for 

    Big Food vs. Big Insurance

    By Michael Pollan

    The New York Times, September 10, 2009

    He's got references to the studies in his article.

    "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, three-quarters of health care spending now goes to treat “preventable chronic diseases.” Not all of these diseases are linked to diet — there’s smoking, for instance — but many, if not most, of them are.

    We’re spending $147 billion to treat obesity, $116 billion to treat diabetes, and hundreds of billions more to treat cardiovascular disease and the many types of cancer that have been linked to the so-called Western diet. One recent study estimated that 30 percent of the increase in health care spending over the past 20 years could be attributed to the soaring rate of obesity, a condition that now accounts for nearly a tenth of all spending on health care."

     

    Cheaper meds, cutting doctors pay and eliminating nurses won't get us there.

  • Reply 13 of 191
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

    and we all know that this guy is an idiot right? Remember his comment on Net Neutral?



    If he was against the bill that was passed, I fail to see how that’s idiocy.

     

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    Why do people hate the Affordable Care Act?

     

    It’s unaffordable, there’s no care, and it was an illegal act.

     

    Answer: They are rich, own a large business that did not offer health insurance before, have a financial stake in a healthcare provider. Or... you just support whatever Fox news tells you to.


     

    You’re completely and utterly delusional.

     
     If you are a senior, middle class, a poor person or a female the Affordable Care Act is a very good thing for you.

     

    Said literally no one in any of those categories, ever. Try again.

  • Reply 14 of 191
    hydrogenhydrogen Posts: 314member

    He is right ! (Scoopertino) :

     

     

  • Reply 15 of 191
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,728member
    mstone wrote: »
    Why do people hate the Affordable Care Act?

    Answer: They are rich, own a large business that did not offer health insurance before, have a financial stake in a healthcare provider. Or... you just support whatever Fox news tells you to.

    If you are a senior, middle class, a poor person or a female the Affordable Care Act is a very good thing for you. In fact for many people who had private insurance before the Act was passed, have much better healthcare now compared to what they had before, because the minimum care standards are higher, plus, there are many more healthcare options and better protection of your rights such as guaranteed coverage for existing conditions.

    There are also many cost cutting measures provided by the Act which has slowed the rate of medical costs.

    Got to add my 2 cents. It was nice when I was able to get back with BCBS (self paying) after years of being refused due to a pre existing condition.
  • Reply 16 of 191
    At last - AppleCare!
  • Reply 17 of 191
    I'm starting to think that GW Bush has been treated unfairly. He's not the stupid brother!

    BTW, kongerror, Japan has a wonderful health system. Neighborhood doctors, free treatment, why do you think their life expectancy is so long?
  • Reply 18 of 191
    stourquestourque Posts: 364member

    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.

    Hahahaha, you made my day.
  • Reply 19 of 191
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member

    The most pathetic thing is to see people defending such a retarded politician; just because he said something nice about the AW.

  • Reply 20 of 191
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    "illegal act"

     

    How so? The Supreme Court has disagreed on the one facet that got to them for instance, the 'personal responsibility mandate' as the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney termed it....

     

    ?As to mandating a fee supported, federally collected fee (for federally build and managed healthcare in the first case)? That was established as Constitutional when the people who wrote the Constitution established such a system for merchant sailors in the 1790's: If John Adams etc. didn't know what was in their own document who would?

     

    It's passage was certainly legal, and protracted. The issue with Hobby Lobby more a statutory interpretation issue than "legal" in how the ACA bills implementation lined up with RFRA.

     

    ?Oh and at less than 5% of total national health expenditures and that it's saving healthcare money, it certainly was affordable (as the conservative CBO score proved), and it has provided millions access to healthcare. Still waiting for those Death Panels eh?

Sign In or Register to comment.