|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/22/04 - 09:29 Post subject: Disclosure of Presidential Health
| Cappy wrote: | I think there is some obligation for the POTUS to report his health to the American people. I think a cliff notes version is fine, not too much detail
What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 09:37 Post subject:
If a condition/ailment would impede his/her ability to rule the country, yes. If not, no.
Reagan's Alzheimer's should have been disclosed.
If Bush ends up having a serious heart condition that could result in a massive MI at any time, that should be disclosed.
If they have asthma or Chron's disease, who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 09:39 Post subject:
I'm inclined to agree that a public cliff notes version of a standing president is sufficient.
I'd expect a presidential candidate to be much more forthright and comprehensive in reporting their health. I would not, however, make it obligatory.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:02 Post subject:
We have a limited right to know. There are laws in place to handle any problems as they occur.
We should know chronic conditions and that is it.
Anyone at any time could drop dead. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:13 Post subject:
For discussions sake. FDR had polio, but it didn't affect his ability to govern. I don't think many people knew about it at the time. I am not sure if he disclosed it or not
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:14 Post subject:
| Sahara wrote: |
I'd expect a presidential candidate to be much more forthright and comprehensive in reporting their health. I would not, however, make it obligatory. |
Just curious, do you think it should be obligatory for the Prez, whoever it is at the time? I'm trying to decide whether I agree with the non-obligatory part for the other candidate, I do think they should have to disclose. I wanna know what kind of "product I'm buying" so to speak. I believe Cheney was pretty upfront about his back in 2000, yes?
I also agree with Elkid. Anything non-life threatening or potentially disabling, I don't really care about per se.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:23 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | For discussions sake. FDR had polio, but it didn't affect his ability to govern. I don't think many people knew about it at the time. I am not sure if he disclosed it or not |
He was in a wheelchair; people noticed. Though some think he didn't have polio, but Guillain-Barre syndrome. That said, he was fine one day, paralyzed the next. He didn't have any of the truly severe CNS symptoms. Different times: no one really knew what polio was about then, and with a lack of media and limited transportation means, there wa a lot more you could "hide" than now from both the world and the nation. Today we do know what Alzheimer's or a serious heart condition means.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:31 Post subject:
FDR was rarely photographed or filmed in his chair. Remember TV was not around yet, had TV been around it would have been different.
Americans are kind, trusting people, and supportive. People got worked up because JFK was Catholic, JFK did a fine job. Perception is not necessarily reality.
Heck the ADA had made great strides for the Handicapped of this country. Unless health has a detremental affect on the mind. Let them lead.
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:50 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
Just curious, do you think it should be obligatory for the Prez, whoever it is at the time? I'm trying to decide whether I agree with the non-obligatory part for the other candidate, I do think they should have to disclose. |
I think that the prez is obliged to provide cliff notes. Personally, the types of statements I would find perfectly acceptable are (not a comprehensive list)...
"I'm overall healthy"
"I have a serious medical condition that will be treated"
"I have a medical condition that is immediately life threatening"
If it is a condition that would cause intellectual incapacity, I'd want to know what it is. Otherwise the precise medical condition doesn't concern me that much once the person is already in office. That's just me.
I think that the non-obligatory nature of candidates is moot. It's good marketing to disclose that information but should not be a requirement. You know how it goes, if a candidate doesn't supply this info they would/do get crucified by the opponent and/or media.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 10:58 Post subject:
Wait until the day a president discloses "I'm pregnant".
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 11:00 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Wait until the day a president discloses "I'm pregnant". |
w00t!
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 11:01 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Wait until the day a president discloses "I'm pregnant". |
I don't see it happening anytime soon. In all likelihood, a female president would be past childbearing age (granted, i hear more about women in their 40's becoming pregnant).
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 11:04 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | I don't see it happening anytime soon. In all likelihood, a female president would be past childbearing age (granted, i hear more about women in their 40's becoming pregnant). |
I don't see it happening any time soon, either. Which is why it could happen. By then women will probably be having babies in their 50s, following the current reproduction trends.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 11:15 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
I don't see it happening any time soon, either. Which is why it could happen. By then women will probably be having babies in their 50s, following the current reproduction trends. |
No argument here.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 11:46 Post subject:
I think we have a right to know. I agree I care most about chronic, life threatening heal problems, though that could lead to spinning the information. :”We didn’t need to disclose that the President was being treated for a heart problem because with treatment it was not life threatening”. Also think any candidates running have an obligation to share the same information.
|
|
|
|
