Bernie sanders vs Ted Cruz on CNN

[Bob Macadoo]

If health records must be private for candidates.......can't there be an objective health risk score......like an actuary would create if you were getting insurance.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It is clearly in the interests of the state for the public to be well informed on the health of candidates on an ongoing basis. There are numerous examples in US and foreign history of serious illnesses being concealed. We are not talking about ordinary private individuals here but people who wish to be elected to an extraordinarily stressful and responsible job that controls a vast nuclear arsenal. Such a person is too important to have any expectation of privacy. The public will get used to hearing about blood pressure and diabetes in short order.

 

There are many thousands of candidates in the U.S. at the local, state, and federal level who would be subject to your expectation.   Is this a requirement for all candidates in Canada ?   Why would federal law expressly forbid disclosure of such information except for "candidates".   There are any number of discriminatory reasons why such a requirement would never survive a court challenge.   

 

Quote

On financial disclosure, Senator Lindsey Graham intends to introduce a bill to ensure that this be mandatory for the next election and that nobody can pull a Trump again. 

 

Such a bill would quickly die in committee.    Candidates (like then Senator Obama) can even refuse to abide by voluntary election campaign funding limits.

[SpankyMcFarland]

29 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

There are many thousands of candidates in the U.S. at the local, state, and federal level who would be subject to your expectation.   Is this a requirement for all candidates in Canada ?   Why would federal law expressly forbid disclosure of such information except for "candidates".   There are any number of discriminatory reasons why such a requirement would never survive a court challenge.   

 

 

Such a bill would quickly die in committee.    Candidates (like then Senator Obama) can even refuse to abide by voluntary election campaign funding limits.

I would limit it to Presidential candidates and Presidents. These people are obviously not simply private citizens. They may have the fate of the world in their hands. I have yet to see one good argument against my proposal. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I would limit it to Presidential candidates and Presidents. These people are obviously not simply private citizens. They may have the fate of the world in their hands. I have yet to see one good argument against my proposal. 

 

Your proposal is illegal...start with that.   

Are you an American citizen ?  Should American citizens decide what other nations should require of political leaders ?   

I take it that this is not a requirement in Canada either ?

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Your proposal is illegal...start with that.   

Are you an American citizen ?  Should American citizens decide what other nations should require of political leaders ?   

I take it that this is not a requirement in Canada either ?

It's not currently illegal for candidates to release their own records. They are not OBLIGED to do so. That is what I would change. 

My citizen status is utterly irrelevant if the suggestion is good. 

Ditto what Canada does. Must you slavishly copy Canada now? What happened to the exceptional nation?

Candidates have been moving the right direction for many decades. Now the US is sliding backwards. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It's not currently illegal for candidates to release their own records. They are not OBLIGED to do so. That is what I would change. 

My citizen status is utterly irrelevant if the suggestion is good. 

Ditto what Canada does. Must you slavishly copy Canada now? What happened to the exceptional nation?

Candidates have been moving the right direction for many decades. Now the US is sliding backwards. 

 

So let's review...

1)  Canada has no such requirement for candidates, but you think the U.S. should change federal law to require presidential candidates to disclose personal health information...because it's a "good idea".

2)  The exceptional nation moved to protect private health information long before Canada (e.g. HIPAA).

3)  Americans don't much care about foreign candidates private health care data.

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So let's review...

1)  Canada has no such requirement for candidates, but you think the U.S. should change federal law to require presidential candidates to disclose personal health information...because it's a "good idea".

Yes, let's review. It's a good idea. You don't actually have to wait for Canada to do it. 

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

2)  The exceptional nation moved to protect private health information long before Canada (e.g. HIPAA).

3)  Americans don't much care about foreign candidates private health care data.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Yes, let's review. It's a good idea. You don't actually have to wait for Canada to do it. 

 

 

No, it's a bad idea.   It's a bad idea because it would disadvantage and discriminate against candidates with previous or current health conditions, women (e.g. abortion history), those with disabilities, even transgender persons.

Medical records privacy is protected in the U.S. by federal law for several reasons, and public disclosure should always be voluntary.

Edited April 4, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, it's a bad idea.   It's a bad idea because it would disadvantage and discriminate against candidates with previous or current health conditions, women (e.g. abortion history), those with disabilities, even transgender persons.

Medical records privacy is protected in the U.S. by federal law for several reasons, and public disclosure should always be voluntary.

So a transgender person would conceal that fact? Really? And someone in a wheelchair would claim he isn't? That's been done before, of course.

Voters deserve the whole truth regarding anything that might affect performance, e.g. diabetes, hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, cancer. In the past, these have been concealed. FDR was completely unfit for office in his last term. There could be some limit on divulging more minor conditions and sexual/reproductive issues. HIV or HepC should be divulged, though. Voters are sophisticated in these matters. People knew about Cheney's past but he was still chosen as VP running mate twice. 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So a transgender person would conceal that fact? Really? And someone in a wheelchair would claim he isn't? That's been done before, of course.

 

Yes..you answered your own question...in the affirmative.

 

Quote

Voters deserve the whole truth regarding anything that might affect performance, e.g. diabetes, hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, cancer. In the past, these have been concealed. FDR was completely unfit for office in his last term. There could be some limit on divulging more minor conditions and sexual/reproductive issues. HIV or HepC should be divulged, though. Voters are sophisticated in these matters. People knew about Cheney's past but he was still chosen as VP running mate twice. 

 

See...now you are backtracking.   Why would abortions be hidden away given its prominence as a campaign issue ?

Voters deserve nothing about private medical history, unless they want to be subjected to the same "law".

And why is your focus just on the U.S. ?    Has there been a problem ?

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by bush_cheney2004