• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

  • Total voters
    34
chuckiechan said:
I could just imagine it getting corrupted.

And, BTW, when is the last time a president died of natural causes in office? Reagan came closest with Alzheimers, albeit his handlers kept the progression quiet until he was out of office. Who was steering the ship on his bad days?

We are a risk taking country. We run our country on the back of people who take risks. It's not surprising we don't worry about candidate's heath when we see ourselves as invincible.

If we had a crystal ball, a problem we should address is that every one has a "flame-out" stage. For some it's in the 60's others in the 90's. It's not the energy we see on television that counts, it's the energy you have when you roll up your sleeves and get to work that counts.

It's much easier to see a person from the private sector as a super energized person because they have to be one to survive. People in the top tiers of government are invisible and you only see what their handlers let you see.
Click to expand...
We're also a country of minimizing risk, so the ,"If it's not absolutely perfect we shouldn't do it at all." approach doesn't wash.
 
radcen said:
But they went to great lengths to hide it as much as possible. Was their fear justified, or was it warranted?

Personally, I don't think polio would be a big deal. I would be more concerned about heart issues*, etc.

*-I don't count Cheney because I don't believe most people vote for VP other than maybe as a potential successor, which is why a Presidential candidate's health might be a concern to some, but Bush II was in good health.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say "Was their fear justified, or was it unwarranted"...?
 
chuckiechan said:
I could just imagine it getting corrupted.

And, BTW,
when is the last time a president died of natural causes in office
Click to expand...
? Reagan came closest with Alzheimers, albeit his handlers kept the progression quiet until he was out of office. Who was steering the ship on his bad days?

We are a risk taking country. We run our country on the back of people who take risks. It's not surprising we don't worry about candidate's heath when we see ourselves as invincible.

If we had a crystal ball, a problem we should address is that every one has a "flame-out" stage. For some it's in the 60's others in the 90's. It's not the energy we see on television that counts, it's the energy you have when you roll up your sleeves and get to work that counts.

It's much easier to see a person from the private sector as a super energized person because they have to be one to survive. People in the top tiers of government are invisible and you only see what their handlers let you see.
Click to expand...



FDR in 1945.
 
I think some level of understanding is important. I chose something else, as "Yes, but only relevant stuff" is too vague. What would be relevant stuff? Who decides?

If someone has health issues that could result in death, or having to step down, the focus could change to running mate.

It's legitimate to understand that possibility.
 
shrubnose said:
FDR in 1945.
Click to expand...

Frankly I'd like to see a candidate go three full rounds today. It seems to me that not only has the quality of our Presidents been steadily going down, but that the job has become increasingly more demanding.

Edit: no pun intended.
 
Cardinal said:
I think you meant to say "Was their fear justified, or was it unwarranted"...?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that. Good catch.

Anyway, what do you think? I think that by his 3rd election it probably wouldn't have mattered, because he was established and proven by then. In his 1st campaign it probably would have mattered. So, at least initially, I think the fears were justified. People, especially in large voting groups, aren't always rational.
 
radcen said:
Yeah, that. Good catch.

Anyway, what do you think? I think that by his 3rd election it probably wouldn't have mattered, because he was established and proven by then. In his 1st campaign it probably would have mattered. So, at least initially, I think the fears were justified. People, especially in large voting groups, aren't always rational.
Click to expand...

I think that the only reason we're having this discussion is because somebody saw Clinton need help up some stairs and she needs to sit on a pillow.
 
ocean515 said:
I think some level of understanding is important. I chose something else, as "Yes, but only relevant stuff" is too vague. What would be relevant stuff? Who decides?

If someone has health issues that could result in death, or having to step down, the focus could change to running mate.

It's legitimate to understand that possibility.
Click to expand...
That's really the point behind the question. Most people, I believe, don't pay much real attention to the VP (or, look elsewhere completely, which would be the big fear of the candidate and their campaign). But, if the people knew the main candidate's health was iffy, they just might.
 
Cardinal said:
I think that the only reason we're having this discussion is because somebody saw Clinton need help up some stairs and she needs to sit on a pillow.
Click to expand...
That's what prompted it, sure, but if that's all you want to see then I don't know what to tell you. It's hardly an implausible scenario.

Should we presume that you don't have enough knowledge of history and/or human nature to give thoughts on FDR?
 
Dang it. Accidentally voted for the wrong one. I meant to vote for relevant stuff only, like mental health and any kind of heart disease.
 
AGENT J said:
"Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?"

no of course not
like any other job that requires an increased physical or mental load, there should be a health evaluation. If you pass you can be a candidate for the job, if not, then you cant but at no time is that the public's "right to know".
Im a test engineer, i needed to be evaluated for my job to be a candidate but thats between HR and the physicians. At no time is that info for my co workers or anybody else. Even people that do get the information simply get a pass or fail status.
Click to expand...

You contradicted yourself. Citizens will be the ones on the health panel.
 
radcen said:
That's what prompted it, sure, but if that's all you want to see then I don't know what to tell you. It's hardly an implausible scenario.

Should we presume that you don't have enough knowledge of history and/or human nature to give thoughts on FDR?
Click to expand...

I think that the information we have isn't enough to start demanding exhaustive health reports from everybody.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You contradicted yourself. Citizens will be the ones on the health panel.
Click to expand...

no contradiction at all, doctors are also citizens they have ZERO rights to my health status unless i consent or they are my doctor. The health panel will have a job to do but that doesnt change their rights. Just like a police officer, when he is working he has certain privileges he has access to and grey areas he can work. When he is just your neighbor not so much, his rights dont change. In fact cops have gotten themselves into trouble using certain powers when it didn't involve police business
 
Cardinal said:
I think that the only reason we're having this discussion is because somebody saw Clinton need help up some stairs and she needs to sit on a pillow.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Even if she were in a wheelchair that would not be a consideration for me on her ability to do the job. I sit on a pillow at home because it is comfortable and my bones hurt after a while sitting on a hard chair. But I still believe mental and physical health are considerations when electing a person. We the People are your employer and information should be made available to us as part of the decision process of who is best qualified to do the job.
 
AGENT J said:
no contradiction at all, doctors are also citizens they have ZERO rights to my health status unless i consent or they are my doctor. The health panel will have a job to do but that doesnt change their rights. Just like a police officer, when he is working he has certain privileges he has access to and grey areas he can work. When he is just your neighbor not so much, his rights dont change. In fact cops have gotten themselves into trouble using certain powers when it didn't involve police business
Click to expand...

Yep. Contradictio. You said citizens do not have the right to know private medical stuff. Those on the panel are citizens. It is that simple. I know you though...;)

You wont admit it so this is my last post on this subject.
 
Bodhisattva said:
1.)Yep. Contradictio. You said citizens do not have the right to know private medical stuff. Those on the panel are citizens.
2.)It is that simple. I know you though...;)
3.)You wont admit it so this is my last post on this subject.
Click to expand...

1.) correct they factually do not and its not a contradiction my example already proved that fact. they do not have the RIGHT to no, its part of their job, HUGE difference. My job allows me to see top secret material but I dont have the RIGHT to see it. You have yet to show where any "rights" changed le me know when you can ;)
2.)correct it is simple and you are simply factually wrong as already proven
3.) good move since you would wrong, quite while you are behind :)
 
radcen said:
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should have their complete medical history, or rather to paraphrase you, current medical concerns. I do think that random doctors through out the country should be selected, kind of like jury duty, to examine both the current POTUS and any potential POTUS's on a yearly basis. Possibly twice a year. And a non-partisan group should be around to "watch" in order to make sure that no "gifts" (read bribes) are offered for a favorable outcome. Once examined then a public announcement of "fit" or "not fit". Or in lieu of an announcement the candidate could quietly "drop out" of the race or in the case of the current POTUS resign. Our Presidents should be fit both mentally and physically and that should be the law.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) correct they factually do not and its not a contradiction my example already proved that fact. they do not have the RIGHT to no, its part of their job, HUGE difference. My job allows me to see top secret material but I dont have the RIGHT to see it. You have yet to show where any "rights" changed le me know when you can ;)
2.)correct it is simple and you are simply factually wrong as already proven
3.) good move since you would wrong, quite while you are behind :)
Click to expand...

See everybody? Can't admit a simple mistake... ;)

Other mistakes? It is "know" and "quit".
 
Bodhisattva said:
See everybody? Can't admit a simple mistake... ;)

Other mistakes? It is "know" and "quit".
Click to expand...

LMAO see everybody you can't name the right so there's no contradiction, in fact you'll make another post and STILL not list this right you speak of :)
 
radcen said:
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
Click to expand...

A "right" to know? No. Would it be nice? Yes. Technically, we don't even have the vote for President.

Who determines what is "the important stuff? If anything, congress might have a right to know, or a select committee of congress with the President's medical records treated as classified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom