Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What Cardiologists Think About the Apple Watch's Heart-Tracking Feature (sfgate.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the pros-and-cons dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: The newest Apple Watch can now flag potential problems with your heartbeat -- a feature that's been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and that Apple is marking as a major achievement. But some doctors said that including heart-monitoring tools in such a popular consumer product could prompt unnecessary anxiety and medical visits. Physicians say the watch could be good for patients who have irregular heart rhythms but may not realize it. Some people who have atrial fibrillation, the condition for which the watch is screening, don't always have noticeable symptoms. In an ideal situation, someone who doesn't know they have a problem could get a warning from their watch and take that data to their doctor.

But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason. "People are scared; their heart scares them," John Mandrola, a cardiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, said. "That leads to more interaction with the health-care system." An extra visit to your doctor may not sound like a bad thing, but Mandrola said it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted. And doctors might wind up facing a crowd of anxious Apple Watch users getting false signals -- something physicians have already had to deal with as fitness trackers that monitor heart rates have become popular.

90 comments

  1. Doctor visits maybe harmful? by khchung · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted.

    The same could be said for any visit to any doctor for any reason, so that means any visit to the doctor may be harmful?

    Sound like a problem with American doctors than with anything else.

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, one more reason for single payer.

    2. Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a perfect world, and the more tests you do, the more false positives will turn out. The more interventions you do, the more complications will happen. This is not an American doctor problem. This is a human problem. Gods do not suffer from this same dilemna.

    3. Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask your doctor if knowing about your health is right for you.

      Symptoms of firing your doctor include: Telling you not to care about your health.

    4. Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypochondriacs waste resources and drive up costs for everyone.

    5. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      This would in fact suggest the opposite. In a single payer system where the people visiting the doctor don't bear the direct costs, there's no incentive not to go to the doctor outside of the time spent going to the doctor. If you can't get instant access, why would you ever not go outside of a dislike of doctors or hospitals?

      If you make people pay for it directly, they might be a bit more remiss to see a doctor over a reading from their gadget. I don't know much about the watch beyond some headlines, but presumably it can store the data and take several readings over time. If a person gets an odd reading once, they'll probably shrug it off. If it's consistent, maybe they are willing to pay for a doctor visit.

      It's the same problem as when price controls are instituted in a shortage. People over-consume which makes the shortage worse, and there's no economic incentive for anyone on the outside to solve the problem. You're better off letting prices adjust and people will buy less in the face of higher direct cost and you'll get a better distribution of available goods. Meanwhile, increased prices single suppliers to bring more goods into that market (they want to sell where they can get more) which helps increase supply to meet the larger demand.

      In a nationalized system the amount of health care is already established in advance, or has some other limitations in place. If there isn't an overwhelming demand for it, it will work reasonably well, but pressure to keep costs in check will mean that it's unlikely to be largely underutilized and capable of absorbing a large sudden spike in demand. If you get something like this that creates a sudden amount of demand, there's nothing there to cause consumers to self-regulate their behavior (outside of not wanting to deal with long waits for a limited resource) and the bureaucracy will not be able to react fast enough to the demand spike to do anything about it in the short term.

    6. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      To the point, however, more data isn't bad. It needs to be appropriately identified and indemnified. Didn't wear your watch? Uh oh. Lots of possible data points to miss.

      These aren't EKG quality, and given their wearing position, are unlikely to be at that level. But they can detect a few things, and send alerts. Maybe they do blood sugar one day. Trauma. Propensity to become reactive to media currently being viewed for political analytic effect.

      The boundaries are undefined, but I don't believe a preponderance of cardiologists wants to ignore valid data.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did ignoring the doctors work out for Steve?

    8. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by willy_me · · Score: 1

      How foolish. Even with a single payer system those seeking heal care bear a cost. The costs can vary depending on the system but at the very least - it costs a pile of time. There is always an incentive to not seek medical attention.

      The argument for gadgets is that costs associated with prevention (like extra visits to the doctor) are far less then the costs associated with a late diagnosis. If only 1 in 100 of the visits turns out to be a valid concern it can not only save lives but also reduce overall health care costs.

      Consider the difference between the cost of a week-long hospital stay and the cost of a month-long hospital stay. You really want an early diagnosis because treatment can cost a fortune. A trip to the doctor costs 30 minutes.

    9. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 1
      where the people visiting the doctor don't bear the direct costs, there's no incentive not to go to the doctor outside of the time spent going to the doctor. If you can't get instant access, why would you ever not go outside of a dislike of doctors or hospitals?

      Wow, I want to go to your doctor! It sounds like you have such a good time with him/her.

      Although I do see your point. If people could go to the doctor everyday, they surely would. Unless, of course, they had a job. Or a hobby. Or liked to do, well, anything other than go to the doctor.

      Not sure why they would do anything else, though. There's just something about spending 2 hours in a waiting room (regardless of my appointed time), and another hour in the exam room, that just does it for me. Maybe it's the magazines. I don't get Woman's Day at home, but boy do I churn through it at the doctor's office. Once, they even had Cosmo, and I got a Woodrow Wilson from the cleavage on the cover that I thought would never go down. Oh yes, the doctor's office is what I imagine heaven is like, only better. I especially like the finger in my butt that the doctor assures me that I need.

      Come to think of it, I'm not really sure if it's his finger. I mean, he makes me turn around and look the other way.

      I need to end this. I need to take a shower. The shame. I need to wash off the shame. If i use a little extra soap, it'll come off. You'll see.

      I get your point, though. If only I could, I would live at the doctor's office.

      If only I could.

      Stop me before I totally do it. Stop everyone!

    10. Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it struck me as an odd comment. I mean, suppose 9 in 10 alerts are false positives (which I'd assume is an absurdly high number). The cost for a false positive in this sort of situation is relatively low: patients go in, get some simple tests, confirm they're fine, and go home. There are no ongoing costs to the patient or the system.

      But what about that 1 in 10 who isn't a false positive? If we assume that they wouldn't have otherwise had their heart problems noticed until years later after the symptoms had grown severe enough to become noticeable in more significant ways, I'd wager that catching the problem at such an early point would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in the long run. After all, what would have otherwise taken heart surgeries, expensive medications, and numerous visits to fix could instead—at least in some cases—be addressed by a handful of visits and some adjustments to lifestyle. You'd be able to prevent so much harm from ever happening that you'd save a tremendous amount of time and money for each true positive.

      Even if it's just 1 in 10 that it gets right, the benefit for that 1 would almost certainly be FAR more than enough to outweigh the cost of the 9. And, as I said earlier, I sincerely doubt it gets as many as 9 out of 10 wrong.

    11. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah but all those false positives are clogging up the doctors office, thatâ(TM)s were the problem is people that need the care canâ(TM)t get in because weâ(TM)ve made healthcare on the us artificially unavailable

    12. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue with heart problems (such as atrial fibrillation) is that if you donâ(TM)t know you have it by experiencing the symptoms (ie. dizziness, chest pain, etc.) then it might not actually be a problem. Many people live with irregular rhythms and other heart "problems" that have little to no effect on lifespan or performance. For those "problems", early detection is meaningless. But once people self-diagnose the problem, other tests can have false positives or mis-gauge the severity, and people could end up having procedures that carry signifcant risk. (Such as an ablation.) Basically the Apple Watch can detect dangerous things you should already know (âoeI passed out!â) and hidden things that are actually fine and not worth treating.

    13. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by shilly · · Score: 2

      Which is why single-payer systems typically have gatekeeping mechanisms, such as GP referrals.

      This is a solved problem.

    14. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      How did ignoring the doctors work out for Steve?

      If they didn't care about his health: no different if he had listend to them. Gee, your straw man needs a doctor. But don't ask me, ask a doctor who actually cares about their patients.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yeah but all those false positives are clogging up the doctors office, thatâ(TM)s were the problem is

      No, the problem is that people who didn't catch the problem early enough are clogging up the office on an ongoing, continual, significant basis. False positives would be a drastic improvement to that situation if they helped reduce the ongoing appointments.

    16. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by tepples · · Score: 1

      In single-payer, who's the gatekeeper to the GP/PCP?

    17. Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? by shilly · · Score: 1

      No need for one. The problem of patients needlessly taking GPs' appointment slots is much smaller than the problem of patients on a GP's list who don't come to the practice when they really should. The UK runs free-at-point-of-use GP service where patients have no co-pays etc and can see the doctor as many times as they need to, in theory, and until the Tories decimated primary care in the last 8 years (taking it from an average 9% of NHS spend down to 6%), many practices were routinely able to provide an appointment within 48 hours to patients on their lists. I worked with a bunch of practices in an inner city who were struggling to provide good access to GP appointments for their patients, and the issue was not a lack of resource but about how they ran themselves. They all were able to achieve good access swiftly, and then they focused attention on ensuring they were bringing in the people who really needed proactive care: the frail elderly, people with mental health issues (often living chaotic lives), mums with young children, people with unstable chronic diseases, etc.

    18. Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful? by emmjayell · · Score: 1

      Follow the trail of money to the overly expensive tests done on relatively inexpensive machines, funded by your premiums to in$urance companies and your copayment$.

    19. Re:Doctor visits maybe harmful? by BigDukeSix · · Score: 1

      Apparently there is no such thing as a 'false positive' in Europe. Maybe you geniuses could show us stupid Americans how you pull that off. Thanks in advance.

  2. Potentially life saving checkup too burdensome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess I'll just die then

    1. Re:Potentially life saving checkup too burdensome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a regular Apple customer?

      Go for it!

  3. Speaking for me and mine by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    It seems likely a simple majority of people would rather risk a false positive and an unnecessary visit to the doctor, than have a significant arrhythmia go undetected.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Speaking for me and mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you don't understand. Collectively, you will overburden the healthcare system. And that's not about you and your loved ones. It's about providing gender reassignment surgery for troubled teenagers. And delivering Narcan to street bums.

    2. Re:Speaking for me and mine by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true brainwashed idiot who buys Fox News agitprop. Hook. Line. Sinker.

    3. Re:Speaking for me and mine by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

      WTF?

    4. Re: Speaking for me and mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like somebody who has never, ever, watched the Fox News channel.

    5. Re:Speaking for me and mine by shmlco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Collectively, you will overburden the healthcare system."

      We have a "concern" to that effect from a single doctor who hasn't been anywhere near the device in question. In fact, the software that does the heart analysis and ECG won't even ship with the product on launch, but will arrive later.

      And yet there's "concern" that some as yet unknown number of "false positives" could overwhelm the health care system. As opposed to potentially reducing the number of emergency room visits due to heart attacks, the number of heart surgeries required due to late treatment of symptoms, and even deaths.

      On the flip side, the head of the American Heart Association was on stage during the introduction, thrilled with the announcement and the advantages it would provide.

      Let's see... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... hmmm.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    6. Re:Speaking for me and mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure that simple majority will be excited to have an operation to install a pacemaker for their asymptomatic arrhythmia that they didn't know they had and has no effect on their lifespan or performance.

  4. mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason.

    Well, and that's a problem when you mandate coverage, set insurance rates, socialize costs, and have third-party payer systems: people don't apply good judgment and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it because they end up not having to pay for it.

    1. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Why is that a problem? We (in the US) would have more money for healthcare and education subsidies if we stopped mass-incarceration, enforcement of victimless crimes, and military thuggery in countries we have no business intervening in.

      The US needs MORE access to healthcare, not more rationing via economic means.

    2. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Well, let's be realistic here.... The funding going for things like mass incarceration and military exercise in foreign countries won't just get fully redirected to healthcare and education subsidies if you put a stop to those things. It's a powerful "selling point" to get a point across, but government funds often go to one area because of a complex underlying situation. It's not just a general pot that all the money piles up in until they decide how to divvy it up.

      If you believe some of the reports about the Pentagon, alone? It claims they "lost" over 9 trillion dollars. The funds just "vanished" with no records to show where they might have gone. And while sure, Trump and others promised to "investigate"? How much uproar have you heard lately about any of it? Yeah, not much. They'll basically stall until it's forgotten about and move on. If you could just reclaim THAT money, you'd have all sorts of options of other places you could spend it. But truthfully, SOMETHING happened to it -- and probably had a lot to do with cash payments to various foreign leaders to make deals happen or not happen around the world.

    3. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually claiming that the Pentagon lost 9 trillion dollars since Trump has been president?

      I have heard some ludicrous accusations lobbed at the Trump administration, but that is by far the most ridiculous.

    4. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... people don't apply good judgment and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it because they end up not having to pay for it.

      In what universe do people not end up not having to pay for it? Socialist Europe/Canada where they pay less per capita (literally the same rate as we pay for Medicare/Medicaid taxes)? In the US, any plan that 50% of people can actually afford has the patient paying 100% of the bill for the first couple thousands and then between 30%-100% of the bill (depending on the service) until several more several thousand dollars for the out of pocket max and unless it's on of a small handful of "free" services--better hope that arrhythmia occurs around the same time as your yearly doctor checkup. Otherwise, prepare to be fucked. Oh, and hope that your insurance doesn't decide it's medically unnecessary because, again, prepared to be fucked.

    5. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by rworne · · Score: 0

      If you are going to promote your Left Think Platform, you cannot cherry-pick the planks. You need to accept the other planks as well.

      ICE is out and open borders is in.
      All refugees welcome and Amnesty for everyone.
      Strict price controls on pharmaceuticals.
      Progressive taxation on high income individuals - say doctors and specialists.

      Now we will be the world's doctor too - the only barrier is getting here somehow - perhaps the EU will export them?

      How long will this last before it consumes itself and all we have left is Dr. Lexus?

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    6. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      We (in the US) would have more money for healthcare and education subsidies

      We don't need more money for healthcare or education in the US; we are already paying several times as much as countries that are doing better than we are.

      if we stopped mass-incarceration, enforcement of victimless crimes, and military thuggery in countries we have no business intervening in

      I'm all for ending that. Unfortunately, last time I voted for a guy that promised to end some of these government abuses and move money from crony capitalist schemes and military spending to social and infrastructure spending, I ended up with a president that created kill lists of Americans, followed the advice of Keynesians, engaged in even more unwise military adventures, massively increased the cost of my medical insurance, created moral hazards all over the place, and for good measure accused me of having white privilege and not having built my business. So, not doing that again. (I left the Democratic party after being a lifelong Democrat.)

    7. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      We're fucked (humans), here in the UK we have an extremely decent guy running the Labour party, it's not in power, he probably won't win, even if he does win there will be endless shitheads causing problems for him and all the media will rail against him as it already has. He nearly won the last election despite the media putting in the boot but too many people let TV and newspapers do their thinking for them. Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and they will vote for the best liar who tells them they will get more money. They won't get more money, the richest people will, same as always.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    8. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and they will vote for the best liar who tells them they will get more money. They won't get more money, the richest people will, same as always.

      Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.

      But Americans need object lessons in real-world socialism and fascism again, now that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone. So go for it! It's not my life you're wrecking.

    9. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, this is the stupidest post I've read on the internet today. It's a high par to pass but you passed it.

      Your argument is: GP wants single payer healthcare. Some stupid straw man you've invented says that some people who want single payer also want open borders. OMFG GP SI TEH MORAN single healthcare means open borders.

      Your post has everything:

      * reactionary bigotry about anyone who disagrees on any aspect of politics
      * aggresive stupidity
      * entire armies of straw men
      * ignoring that places other than America exist
      * flagrant disregard for reality
      * angrily making shit up

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Americans and Brits take socialism to mean different things, in the US socialism seems to mean communism. I'd rather have his style of socialism any day over the dystopian capitalist dog eat dog world that is the US today with it's absurdly expensive health costs, insane prison population etc.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by samkass · · Score: 1

      I ended up with a president that created kill lists of Americans, followed the advice of Keynesians, engaged in even more unwise military adventures, massively increased the cost of my medical insurance, created moral hazards all over the place, and for good measure accused me of having white privilege and not having built my business. So, not doing that again. (I left the Democratic party after being a lifelong Democrat.)

      Go home, Russian troll.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    12. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      God no. What we have is a duplictius, anti-semitic arsehole.

      Anti semitic: no he's never said anything anti semitic. However the party under him, with him at the helm takes a strong stance against well founded accusations of antisemitism and a very gentle stance towards the anti-semites. At some point if you keep standing in the way you're part of the problem.
      He's also cut from the same cloth as David Cameron, underneath. Cameron was the kind of arsehole prepared to put party before country which is why he held the referendum. Corbyn knew then and knows now that a lot of people, and the poorest especially (and many man of his voters) will be fucked by Brexit. He eventually camd down in favour but refused to share the remain platform with the Tories becase he was more concerned with putting party before country and that old party rivalry was just to important.

      He's also a massive hypocrite. He was one of the most rebellious backbenchers when he had little power. Now he has power, he's really keen on using the whip and there are growing talks of delselection. Oh and the whole "we need a higher tax bracket but it should start just above what I'm earning".

      Ha also. His little usual tour in front of his cheering crowds at Glastonbury. FFS. Yes he was all like rah rah policies rah to waves of cheers. Except I note that his single biggest policy: "we will follow the results of the referendum ant take Britain out of the EU" got no mention at all. Because it wasn't a politics tent it was a bloody Trump style rally.

      Labour party, it's not in power, he probably won't win, even if he does win there will be endless shitheads causing problems for him and all the media will rail against him as it already has. He nearly won the last election despite the media putting in the boot but too many people let TV and newspapers do their thinking for them.

      Yeah I remember the media campaign against Corbyn at the beginning. It was pretty disgusting. Lots of blatat misqoting and quoting out of conext, borderline lies etc. I was actually pretty pro corbyn for a while. I do actually like quite a lot of his policies, some of them a great deal. But I've come ot really dislike the guy.

      He also seems to be somewhat stuck in the past with a vision of british industry which is barely more than teams of men in cloth caps looking serious and bashing rivets. We do have industry. That isn't it. Pretending otherwise isn't going to make it come back.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by rworne · · Score: 1

      So you are telling me the leftist agenda does not promote (sources below are from left-leaning sites, and one centrist site):

      Socialized/single payer medicine
      Open borders
      Controlling "Big Pharma"
      Progressive taxation, especially on the rich

      Because this is what the far left is pushing right now.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    14. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.

      What I do know is that plenty of countries have single payer healthcare and don't have open borders.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Americans and Brits take socialism to mean different things, in the US socialism seems to mean communism.

      I was born in Europe, and unlike you Brits, have first-hand experience with the tender mercies of socialism, democratic and otherwise.

      I'd rather have his style of socialism any day over the dystopian capitalist dog eat dog world that is the US today with it's absurdly expensive health costs, insane prison population etc.

      Ah, yes, the ignorance and anti-Americanism so typical of educated Europeans. As I was saying: I encourage you to vote for Corbyn and see what happens!

    16. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Of course he's not anti-semitic, get real, what trash newspapers are you reading? And if you haven't noticed anyone who criticises Israel is immediately dubbed anti-semitic, take that crap with a pinch of salt.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    17. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      US has tens of millions of people in poverty, if telling the truth is anti-American then yes I'm anti-American. US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news. US population is the Turkey who votes for Xmas.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    18. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Go home, Russian troll.

      Actually, I moved to the US to get away from European authoritarians.

      Now let's look at you: in 2011, you decided to move to Goldman Sachs, a company that had made billions from the taxpayer funded bailout at the time and lied about it to Congress, a company that was in bed with Hillary Clinton and paid her massively inflated speaking fees, getting reassurance and insider information. And then you joined Credit Suisse and moved to an enclave of the super rich and since that was long before his election, you don't even have Trump's election as an excuse. And Hillary, of course, was in bed with Swiss banks and the Swiss government too.

      So spare me your self-righteous trolling about "Russian trolls". You are part of the corrupt, privileged elite of Americans that voters rebelled against, and good for them. I almost regret that I didn't vote for Trump. Almost.

    19. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually claiming that the Pentagon lost 9 trillion dollars since Trump has been president?

      I have heard some ludicrous accusations lobbed at the Trump administration, but that is by far the most ridiculous.

      Reading comprehension fail.

      It's people like you that make civil discourse so damned difficult. Worse: there's a tremendous overlap between those with faulty reading comprehension, and those who can't admit when they're clearly wrong and would rather stop talking about facts at that point.

    20. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.

      What I do know is that plenty of countries have single payer healthcare and don't have open borders.

      Sure, but the dirty little truth behind that? Those countries are surrounded by other first-world nations that happen to be majority-white. So they cannot be called "racist" for enforcing their own borders.

      Accusations of "racism" without evidence is a favorite tactic. If it doesn't work there is no real penalty for the accuser. If it does work, it immediately puts the recipient on the defensive. It usually accomplishes its obvious goal of shutting down reasoned discourse.

    21. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      You mean crony capitalism.

      Without government powers, the things you identified would not happen.

    22. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      US has tens of millions of people in poverty

      In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016. The US poverty rate has been below 20% since the early 1960's.

      But the actual situation is a lot bleaker because "poverty" is measured relative to median income, which is considerably lower in the UK. If measured against US standards, 40% of the UK is low income. On top of that, the US has numerous benefits for people "in poverty" that aren't counted against their income. The upshot is that the US poverty rates actually greatly overestimate actual poverty.

      US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news.

      Having lived on both sides of the big pond, it's clear that it's Europeans who are brainwashed. You illustrate that with your absurd beliefs.

      Brits in particular are so brainwashed that they actually trust the BBC. At least, as the same survey shows, they are not trusting their government anymore.

    23. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just consider this: any private buisness would be absolutely *salivating* at the prospect of more customers. Only in socialist systems does that become a problem.

    24. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by rworne · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.

      Funny because I just posted a bunch of links to it.

      This country does not have open borders, has universal health care, and has an ongoing problem with abuse of the system by foreigners:

      Japan has a socialized medical system where people get insurance through their employers or from the government. It's a really good system as well - top notch medical treatment, safe, effective prescription drugs, and costs (unlike in the U.S.) are much lower.

      The problem:
      You need to be a resident of Japan (or have something more than a 90-day tourist visa) in order to "buy into" the system via insurance and/or taxes. There's an ongoing problem with medical tourism in that country. People come in for the express purpose of gaining (or faking) residency, promptly getting expensive medical treatment, and leaving without paying anything into the system.

      example here

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    25. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Funny because I just posted a bunch of links to it.

      Thing is I don't really care whay your idea of the "leftist agenda" is. It's clearly blatantly stupid so precise the details of the stpidity are unimportant.

      This country does not have open borders, has universal health care

      WTF? S is the leftist agenda both together or not? Make up your mind.

      People come in for the express purpose of gaining (or faking) residency, promptly getting expensive medical treatment, and leaving without paying anything into the system.

      We have the Daily Fail complaining about that here too. Turns out it's actually negligible.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by rworne · · Score: 1

      At least I post sources and stay on topic.

      You contribute nothing except ad-hominems.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    27. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      At least I post sources and stay on topic.

      Wow you have no shame!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    28. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      In light of that and the history of socialism

      The history of being infinitely better for 95% of the population than capitalism - right up until the government is overthrown by the CIA.

    29. Re: mandated coverage and socialized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Left does promote there of those four things. They are right to do so. Access to a single payer system will lower overall cost of treatment, and eliminate the need for private insurance for most people. It would not ban private insurance or health care - the vapid will still see implants and face lifts after all.

      The other two are pretty clear. Progressive taxation means if you make a million and one dollars, you will pay more taxes on that million and first dollar than a regular Joe pays on his twenty thousand and first dollar. Rich people and landowners benefit more from things like IP law protection and military protection of overseas resources and trade than the car camper and RV crowd do.

      As for open borders, no one is saying to not have a border where passports/ID get checked. Most of us, on both sides, want to be able to sell US made products like corn, locomotives and pig organs to other countries without our companies having to pay tariffs. So what we want is to have a more open market for our products. Clinton wanted a borderless market for US energy to be sold to Latin America. She never wanted or sought to abolish the visa system or allow unlimited immigration.

      But one side, the "lower taxes and less regulation" is always the solution side, wants people to believe that the other side said crazy shit like that so people ignore what they actually said.

      #sad

    30. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The history of being infinitely better for 95% of the population than capitalism - right up until the government is overthrown by the CIA.

      Seriously? The people of the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, all those countries were "infinitely better off" than with capitalism?

      Your level of ignorance isn't just astounding, it is offensive.

    31. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Trump has nothing to do with this except for a comment from him at one point that he wanted to investigate the missing funds.

      https://www.reuters.com/articl...

    32. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      US has tens of millions of people in poverty

      In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016.

      Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'l have to go to the Census to find that) - you are comparing two different definitions of poverty.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    33. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'll have to go to the Census to find that)

      It's right there in the first figure.

      you are comparing two different definitions of poverty

      Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty. Conversely, if you count in kind benefits in the US (which is needed to make it comparable to Europe), the US poverty rate drops even further.

      So the actual discrepancy between US and UK poverty is even larger than the official numbers suggest (ditto for Germany).

    34. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'll have to go to the Census to find that)

      It's right there in the first figure.

      Nope, it says 12.3% right there. You are not making any points.

      you are comparing two different definitions of poverty

      Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty.

      And if you use the UK standard "starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations." So the US loses as do you - oh BTW: Trump is poor.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    35. Re:mandated coverage and socialized costs by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Nope, it says 12.3% right there. You are not making any points.

      I gave the number for 2016 (just like UK). Notice how the figure was updated just Saturday?

      And if you use the UK standard "starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations."

      You're still confusing absolute and relative poverty, and you obviously don't understand the different ways of measuring even relative poverty.

      So the US loses as do you

      If that belief makes your life tolerable, I encourage you to hold on to it.

  5. Like cardiologists are going to turn down business by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Now pull the other one.

  6. Stay stay staying alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please go to a doctor if your apple watch says you might have a problem. Say grace to Steve Jobs if you stay alive because of this. Just once, ok.

    Ron was here

  7. Perfect for the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This device fits the way Muricans generally think, i.e. "As long as I get mine and don't have to be considerate about anyone else, then that's just great. Who cares if I choke up the healthcare system with false positives. I won't bother me."

  8. Improvement by spinitch · · Score: 1

    I think the main caution was provide some education on how to use vs slapping on and freaking out over a non std reading. Kind of expect medical professionals to figure out how to deal with users of these devices and Apple will also cooperate. In other words, No shit Sherlock. Early detection should save lives. The improvement in tracking should help reduce false negatives over time. A HRM is good for people awareness of their conditioning. Of course can do with a second hand watch and your fingers but much less convenient. Hard to do while moving.

  9. Doctors scared they lost revenue stream is all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doctors survive on FUDing you into paying for bullshit tests you don't need!

  10. Must complain by Kohath · · Score: 1

    No one will read the article unless it's about people complaining.

    1. Re:Must complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the bitchlike complaining there Kohath, you bitch.

  11. apple doesnt care about your heath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they care about taking your money

    1. Re: apple doesnt care about your heath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They care about keeping you healthy enough to keep earning money for them to extract from you.

  12. Sure, that’s what cardiologists say by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    But what does Cardi B say?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. tl;dr by beckett · · Score: 1

    Similar effect as other fitness trackers, tags: doctor, heart, apple, watch

  14. The Mixed Message by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    On my first child, we did the new parent thing, went to the training sessions the Ob recommended, learned various facts and warning signs. One of which is "if the fever is above , come to the ER immediately, it's the law." So a couple years go by, and as it happens the kid gets a fever, it's shooting up over 105, we rush him to the ER. Anyway, doctor sees the kid, the kid throws up, temp comes down. Doctor diagnoses him with a stomach bug, and chastises me for an unnecessary ER visit in the most condescending way possible. And I sit there thinking "yeah I knew this, but I did what your own staff said to do. Asshole."

    So I read the paragraph and it simultaneously says yeah if you have atrial fib and don't know it, it's helpful. But also, they fear all the people rushing to their doctor unnecessarily. So which is it? I'll tell you which, if it says you may have a problem, go to the goddamn doctor and let him tell you it's not. Then when you get the condescending lecture, think real loudly what an asshole he is.

    1. Re:The Mixed Message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conflict of (1) Real people appraising real events with a sane balance of caution and disregard; and (2) The United Lawyers of America, who are paid not to.

      At this point I imagine bottles of asprin say "If you have a headache while using this product, consult a physician. Do not use if you are susceptible to mortality."

    2. Re:The Mixed Message by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      At this point I imagine bottles of asprin say "If you have a headache while using this product, consult a physician. Do not use if you are susceptible to mortality."

      At this point any over-the-counter medication has so many warnings and cautions on the label that the label wraps all the way around the bottle with warnings.

      If you want to find out how many of the pill you should take (the actual usage recommendation) you need to peel the label back and scan the REST of the warnings wrapping down the BACK of the label to some small print at the very bottom that says how many pills to take.

  15. If Apple had cured cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd have assholes coming out of the woodwork bitching about how bad that is for society. People bitch and moan about shit all the time. Why should some subset of doctors be any different.

    1. Re: If Apple had cured cancer by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 1
      You'd have assholes coming out of the woodwork bitching about how bad that is for society. People bitch and moan about shit all the time. Why should some subset of doctors be any different.

      Goddammn assholes and their bitching and moaning! People are TOTALLY moaning and bitching ... bitching and moaning ... all the time. ABOUT SHIT! About shit I tell you! I mean, can you imagine? People bitching and then people moaning, and doing it about shit and doing it about shit all the time, and assholes coming out of the woodwork, THE WOODWORK, I mean hello, how about some Super Glue for the laws of physics you assholes broke ... I mean ... sigh ... I just ... I just ... I don't know man, sometimes I'm just like "Why do people have to be bitching about shit and moaning about shit and if they have to do it, like, why does it have to be all the time ...maybe go watch a movie or read a book or something ... you know?"

      Assholes.

  16. What a horrible argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lately the same argument has been made against cancer prophylaxis. This is really short-sighted thinking. They're not going to keep people from trying to find out if they're at risk, and they're certainly not going to cut any costs to the health system by pushing people to skip prophylaxis and stop asking questions. Every missed opportunity at early detection means extra spending on therapy and care.
    Risk of "unnecessary treatment" is not an argument. If a treatment is unnecessary, just don't do it. Give them globuli instead.

  17. Ruke #314,012 of Human Nature by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 1
    It's always the other guy who gets too much healthcare.

    Our visits are always legitimate, even if they turn up nothing, it's better to be safe than sorry.

    Other people need too much peace of mind, though. Damn other people! They are they so worried about themselves? I don't get it? I mean, I'm not worried about them! Why are they???

    If other people go to the doctor too much, I might be able to get an appointment when I have a (totally legitimate, mind you) concern,

    Oh no, now I'm worried about me. If other people go to the doctor more than they do now, I might be effected in some way.

    No, no, this is not good at all. Not good at all. What about me? Huh? Have any of you stopped being selfish for a moment and thought about me? Or have you thought about yourselves? Huh? Answer me!

    Ban this Apple Watch. People should utilize healthcare perfectly like I do and if they don't, we certainly shouldn't encourage them to use it even more imperfectly!

    I'm outraged.

    1. Re:Ruke #314,012 of Human Nature by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Our visits are always legitimate, even if they turn up nothing, it's better to be safe than sorry.

      Unfortunately not. The trouble is that visits can and do turn up false positives. Those false positives inevitably end up with treatment which does come with risks.

      We're starting to slowly wake up to this with poulation scale screening for certain diseases. They've always been tilted in favour of low false negatives because hey, who wants to miss cancer? The trouble is the overall outcomes are not actually the best like that.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  18. Seems a strange article... by internet-redstar · · Score: 1
    ... my brother is a cardiologist.

    He's much in favour of this and will buy this new Apple watch. So at least there is some disagreement in the medical community with respect to this very strange 'false positive' claim before the product is actually available.

    Personally, I still won't buy this wrist-hanging, freedom imposing, fashion showoff piece of redundancy. I have the time on my Huawei phone, and there's nothing wrong with my heart :-)

  19. Wow, the first wrist ecg ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody else has ever put ecg in a wristwatch. Wow Apple you rule!

    Erm, are we sure?

  20. New challenge for doctors by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Doctors follow a philosophy of do no harm. It will be very challenging when patients presenting no other symptoms other than an abnormal ECG seek treatment. Many if not most of these people would otherwise have led normal lives untreated, but now may demand treatment which likely will cause harm. At best initially, our already overburdened health care system will groan under the weight.

    Ultimately though, vast numbers of ECG readings and other electronic health records may ultimately serve as training examples for machine learning technology that will lead to life saving outcomes for many who can afford the new technology.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  21. Be wary by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Be wary of doctors making a diagnosis based on very little information.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  22. As if TV ads don't do the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The medical system seems concerned about this, but they are not at all concerned about trips to the doctor brought on by TV ads that tell you what you might have and what drugs might fix it. Maybe it's because the ads are suggesting (patented) drugs, which means money in their pocket.

  23. socialism/ist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.

    A lot of people use the word "socialism" and "socialist", but that may not be what they actually are. What does Corbyn mean by his use? And you yours?

    Are the Scandinavian countries socialist? France? Germany? Canada, with (e.g.) its single-payer healt care system?