Have you bought your grossly overpriced, battery-suckingApple toy watch?

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/7/2015 9:12 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/6/2015 4:41 PM, Mort wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
Isn't that exacty the reason. The medical profession should be
intrested in peole that are fit and healthy too


They are, but the government and the insurance companies are not.
If a
Physician marks an insurance form with the diagnosis: "preventative
check-up",then Medicare and most insurance companies pay ZERO.
They
will not pay for preventative exams and tests to, e.g. diagnose
diabetes, but they will pay for the leg amputations or the kidney
dialyses that are needed after damage from diabetes.


Not long ago I was discussing that very point with Senator Schumer.
He
expressed a great deal of frustration over that very point.
Holy cow! I just sumatrized a conversation with a Senator in two
sentences.

--
PeterN

Paying for wellness care is a good policy for an insurance carrier,
IMO.
But paying for all preventative visits can lead to abuse. To keep
this
photography related, I hope there wasn't a camera nearby when you
were
having that conversation with Schumer. He would have knocked you
over
trying to get in front of it.

You just don't agree with his politics.

Or his ethics, like most politicians.

On 5/6/2015 5:07 PM, Mort wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2015 16:41:24 -0400, Mort wrote:

Whisky-dave wrote:
Isn't that exacty the reason. The medical profession should be
intrested in peole that are fit and healthy too


They are, but the government and the insurance companies are not. If a
Physician marks an insurance form with the diagnosis: "preventative
check-up",then Medicare and most insurance companies pay ZERO. They
will not pay for preventative exams and tests to, e.g. diagnose
diabetes, but they will pay for the leg amputations or the kidney
dialyses that are needed after damage from diabetes.

Not all, though. My medical insurance carrier waives the copayment
for an annual physical by my primary physician and sends me a $25 gift
card for having that physical. There is no charge for the blood work
prior the physical.



You are quite fortunate. Most policies, private and government, do not
offer such nice coverage.


Medicare pays for one diagnostic pgisical a year. The problem is that
abuse of diagnostic proceedures, exists. The simplest example is
cardiograms. Some of the Medicare rules seem downright stupid, util you
realize they loweer the potential for abuse. One is the two proceedure
rule. As an outpatient, I cannot have two procedures in the same visit.
I have to come back the following day. There is little done to control
in hospital abuse. I recall my father-in-law getting billed for visits
from a mental health specialist, while he was in a coma.


--
PeterN

On 2015-05-04 14:06, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:23:57 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-05-04 12:09, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 09:43:58 -0400, Mort wrote:

nospam wrote:
how is your phone going to track your heart rate


I use a low-tech, battery-free method. I put a finger onto the pulse at
a wrist. It works every time.

Isn't it amazing that nurses, like my wife, spent decades determining
heart rate without the benefit of a phone app?

I'm amazed that you can't see that this is not merely to get heart rate.

Having spent over five decades of marriage to a nurse, and the same
amount of time as a distributor of specialty medical products
(including very sophisticated monitoring equipment), I'm well aware of
the data that is collected and what conclusions that are made from it.

My response above was only about the ability to determine pulse rate
with a finger and a regular wris****ch. That was the standard method
for many years, and the results were charted.

Nobody is disputing that. What seems to be lacking is forward vision.
It's not like all that data in the past was shared with multiple medical
research teams in real time on various projects - which is but one
spinoff of the technology.

On 5/7/2015 12:46 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/7/2015 9:12 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/6/2015 4:41 PM, Mort wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
Isn't that exacty the reason. The medical profession should be
intrested in peole that are fit and healthy too


They are, but the government and the insurance companies are not. If a
Physician marks an insurance form with the diagnosis: "preventative
check-up",then Medicare and most insurance companies pay ZERO. They
will not pay for preventative exams and tests to, e.g. diagnose
diabetes, but they will pay for the leg amputations or the kidney
dialyses that are needed after damage from diabetes.


Not long ago I was discussing that very point with Senator Schumer. He
expressed a great deal of frustration over that very point.
Holy cow! I just sumatrized a conversation with a Senator in two
sentences.

--
PeterN

Paying for wellness care is a good policy for an insurance carrier, IMO.
But paying for all preventative visits can lead to abuse. To keep this
photography related, I hope there wasn't a camera nearby when you were
having that conversation with Schumer. He would have knocked you over
trying to get in front of it.

You just don't agree with his politics.

Or his ethics, like most politicians.

Specifics?



--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

how is your phone going to track your heart rate


I use a low-tech, battery-free method. I put a finger onto the pulse at
a wrist. It works every time.

Isn't it amazing that nurses, like my wife, spent decades determining
heart rate without the benefit of a phone app?

yet another one who completely misses the point.

having a device (whether it's a watch or a fitness band) continually
monitor heart rate and other things opens up a whole new world of
possibilities, but luddites like yourself would rather halt progress
and live in the past with primitive methods.

WTF are you talking about? I missed no point. I referred to the
past, and my observation was correct.

What I observed in the past has nothing to do with what I observe now
or expect in the future.

if so, then you wouldn't have posted.

Do you really understand what a "Luddite" is? Being aware of what was
done in the past is in no way in opposition of new technology. I
spent decades as the owner of a company that distributed medical
devices employing new technology from lasers to monitoring equipment.

irrelevant.

By your inane thinking, any who remarks that they took photographs in
the past with a non-digital camera is a Luddite.

nope.

in the past, that's all there was, so there was no choice.

today there's a choice, and if someone uses a non-digital camera *now*,
they're a luddite. there is no reason to use a film camera anymore
except for hipsters who think it's somehow cool.

As usual, you have jumped in only to create a baseless argument.

i'm not the one who jumped in. you did, just to troll.

In article , Mort
wrote:

yet another one who completely misses the point.

having a device (whether it's a watch or a fitness band) continually
monitor heart rate and other things opens up a whole new world of
possibilities, but luddites like yourself would rather halt progress
and live in the past with primitive methods.


Far from being a Luddite, I have built and used advanced electronic
equipment,and have published three world firsts in the Medical
literature. Aside from the name-calling, please explain to me why the
average healthy person needs to monitor his/her heart rate. After that,
please tell me what percentage of Apple watch buyers actually purchase
it chiefly to monitor their heart rates.

what difference does that make?

health bands is a huge and growing industry.

why are luddites like you against progress?

In article , Mort
wrote:


Why? Why? Why in the world should healthy people track their heart
rates? The rates are quite variable to begin with, and oftentimes
change with various activities.

that's the whole point.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

yet another one who completely misses the point.

having a device (whether it's a watch or a fitness band) continually
monitor heart rate and other things opens up a whole new world of
possibilities, but luddites like yourself would rather halt progress
and live in the past with primitive methods.


Far from being a Luddite, I have built and used advanced electronic
equipment,and have published three world firsts in the Medical
literature. Aside from the name-calling, please explain to me why the
average healthy person needs to monitor his/her heart rate. After that,
please tell me what percentage of Apple watch buyers actually purchase
it chiefly to monitor their heart rates.

A "Luddite", in nospam's world, is a person who doesn't jump on every
new device or app that comes down the pike. He doesn't understand
that not everyone thinks that the newest thing is necessarily needed
or wanted by everyone.

more of your twisting. i never said it was wanted by everyone.

I have no intent to purchase an Apple watch. I don't have any
objections to the technology involved, but I don't have any need or
interest in owning this particular bit of new technology.

lots of people won't be buying it. so what? nobody said everyone is
going to get one. more of your twisting.

Another thing that nospam doesn't understand is that some people enjoy
doing things a particular way even if it isn't the most technically
advanced way. I gave up using a film camera some time ago, but I do
understand why some people enjoy using one and processing their own
film. I don't consider them Luddites for doing so, but nospam does.

more of your twists. i never said they can't do it the old fashioned
way. they can, but it's more work they no longer need to do.

There's some hypocrisy involved when the person who shouts "Luddite!"
all the time refuses to acknowledge the presence and use of the
technically advanced keyboard concept of the "shift" key. Like the
actual Luddites, it's easy to imagine him ripping this keycap off
keyboards in a gesture of resistance to change.

ad hominem.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Why? Why? Why in the world should healthy people track their heart
rates? The rates are quite variable to begin with, and oftentimes
change with various activities.

You sort of answered your own question. Athletes, which admittedly
most people aren't, need to continuously see what % of max heart rate
they are training at. If the Apple watch is as accurate as the
chest-band type monitors, that's one less thing they need to use when
training.

not just athletes.