Hillary's health

[R.G.Gray]

Unfit physically and morally!

 

[2A_Tom]

I really hope she makes it til November.

 

[KG1]

Dain Bramage?

Wild Video=> Hillary Has Crazy Eyes at Temple University

Dehydration. Move along...

 

[david890]

Here is an interesting article on this topic: We need unbiased medical exams for presidential candidates - Chicago Tribune

I'm not quite sure how one would go about finding an unbiased doctor to review the president's health (and whether he/she is physically/mentally sound to be president). Wouldn't any doctor be inherently biased based on their personal views? I do, however, think the article raises a valid point. There should probably be an independent review/assessment of the president's health.

Use the same ones who are charged with the President's care once in office: military physicians at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Or Walter Reed MC. Either works for me.

Some info on the White House Medical Unit.

 

[printcraft]

I really hope she makes it til November.

Now the 1st Presidential debate of 2016 kicks off and we welcome hitlary clinton to to stage........

A boy can dream.

 

[ghitch75]

Now the 1st Presidential debate of 2016 kicks off and we welcome hitlary clinton to to stage........

A boy can dream.

his mom and dad are dem's i bet!!

 

[BogWalker]

Use the same ones who are charged with the President's care once in office: military physicians at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Or Walter Reed MC. Either works for me.

Some info on the White House Medical Unit.

Sounds good to me.

 

[jamil]

Use the same ones who are charged with the President's care once in office: military physicians at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Or Walter Reed MC. Either works for me.

Some info on the White House Medical Unit.

Sounds good to me.

I could go along with something like that. Part of filing to run for president, you go get the physical and have some independent non-partisan panel of doctors sign off. No need for them to make the full medical report public. They either pass or they don't.

I kinda think the same thing about taxes. I don't care to know every line item on every form for every candidate. A summary hitting the important stuff, prepared by an independent panel might be good enough.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Health records and financials should not be mandatory.


if there is a concern, hash it out in primaries. If in the general your person bothers you, vote for someone else.

With Hillary, what possibly report would convince anyone she's OK when time and again we're shown she's not?

 

[jamil]

Health records and financials should not be mandatory.


if there is a concern, hash it out in primaries. If in the general your person bothers you, vote for someone else.

With Hillary, what possibly report would convince anyone she's OK when time and again we're shown she's not?

Well, I don't want their health records. I don't want their tax records. It would be good to know they've been certified as physically fit for office. Also, having someone look over their tax records and certifying they have no conflicts of interests is good.

 

[dusty88]

Health records and financials should not be mandatory.


if there is a concern, hash it out in primaries. If in the general your person bothers you, vote for someone else.

With Hillary, what possibly report would convince anyone she's OK when time and again we're shown she's not?

I agree. The health exams would be subject to threats and cronyism with someone like the Clintons.

and there really is no "pass/fail" in a physical

You can report your findings and state if you see a reason someone can't do something, but it doesn't identify everything and can be an incorrect prediction in either direction

We don't need to use 70 year old guys (or gals) as president. There may be a small handful of people who are still vigorous at that age, but out of 300 million people I think we can find someone on the upside of mature that isn't so far down the slope of deterioration.

We already have evidence that one major candidate can't stay conscious when she has a minor illness. She has passed out 3x in public under such circumstances. And people don't care (much). The other major candidate is 70, overweight, and doesn't exercise. People don't care about that at all. What's the point of a physical? I can already tell you that neither of these candidates are in stellar shape.

The one guy that is "can't win", so that tells you how much the voter cares.

 

[Fargo]

I could go along with something like that. Part of filing to run for president, you go get the physical and have some independent non-partisan panel of doctors sign off. No need for them to make the full medical report public. They either pass or they don't.

I kinda think the same thing about taxes. I don't care to know every line item on every form for every candidate. A summary hitting the important stuff, prepared by an independent panel might be good enough.

The Constitution outlines the requirements to be president, they cannot be added to or removed by statute. Requiring med. exams would take a constitutional amendment and IMO would fundamentally alter the separation of powers. Judgments on a candidates medical fitness are currently left to the voters, which is in my opinion where they belong.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So... I'd like to go on record saying I think Hillary has a vision problem. The spacey look in her eyes, having to be guided everywhere, just reminds me of someone who can't see. Does she use teleprompters?

doing some googling:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/05/16/ophthalmologist-weighs-in-on-clinton-glasses-spectacle.html

 

[printcraft]

So... I'd like to go on record saying I think Hillary has a vision problem. The spacey look in her eyes, having to be guided everywhere, just reminds me of someone who can't see. Does she use teleprompters?

doing some googling:

Ophthalmologist says glasses worn by Clinton used to treat double vision | Fox News

When she went down the steps after her last appearance she did it ever, ever so carefully.

 

[hoosierdoc]

When she went down the steps after her last appearance she did it ever, ever so carefully.

and heck in 1975 the marines turned her down for bad eyesight...

 

[printcraft]

and heck in 1975 the marines turned her down for bad eyesight...

Bill has bad eyesight too apparently......

 

[Mikey1911]

Bill has bad eyesight too apparently......

So does Marc Mezvinsky.
(a.k.a. "Mr. Chelsea Clinton")

 

[jamil]

Health records and financials should not be mandatory.


if there is a concern, hash it out in primaries. If in the general your person bothers you, vote for someone else.

With Hillary, what possibly report would convince anyone she's OK when time and again we're shown she's not?

I agree. The health exams would be subject to threats and cronyism with someone like the Clintons.

and there really is no "pass/fail" in a physical

You can report your findings and state if you see a reason someone can't do something, but it doesn't identify everything and can be an incorrect prediction in either direction

We don't need to use 70 year old guys (or gals) as president. There may be a small handful of people who are still vigorous at that age, but out of 300 million people I think we can find someone on the upside of mature that isn't so far down the slope of deterioration.

We already have evidence that one major candidate can't stay conscious when she has a minor illness. She has passed out 3x in public under such circumstances. And people don't care (much). The other major candidate is 70, overweight, and doesn't exercise. People don't care about that at all. What's the point of a physical? I can already tell you that neither of these candidates are in stellar shape.

The one guy that is "can't win", so that tells you how much the voter cares.

The Constitution outlines the requirements to be president, they cannot be added to or removed by statute. Requiring med. exams would take a constitutional amendment and IMO would fundamentally alter the separation of powers. Judgments on a candidates medical fitness are currently left to the voters, which is in my opinion where they belong.

Okay, you guys have talked me out of that.

Admittedly I had not put a lot of thought into it. On the surface it seemed like a reasonable thing, to establish some minimum qualifications to protect citizens from things that candidates can too easily hide from the public, that voters are unaware that their favorite candidate has some physical or mental condition that makes them incapable of performing the duties of the office. It seems a service to make the system more transparent.

The constitutional argument against isn't in itself a reason not to do it. After all, the constitution provides an amendment process. When we say this or that ought to be done to make things "better", there's an assumption that there are details to work out, and maybe in the end, the details and consequences thereof make it impractical. Of course we should assume it should be accomplished within within the rule of law. I realize that a lot of folks think we can just Euro-morph a law onto the books by the whims of oligarchs--the whole premise of the modern interpretation of "living document". But that's not what I intended to imply.

So as far as the details, upon further review, you guys have convinced me it is impractical. I have to wonder at what point is a minimum standard on health or mental capacity, or especially "taxes" even objective? Is it even possible to establish such a thing that is crony-proof beyond whatever benefit it would provide? The more I think about how it could work, the less practical worth is manifest.

So long way of saying, never mind.

 

[hoosierdoc]

What?! Don't you know the first rule of political forum?! Never concede a point!

 

[jamil]

What?! Don't you know the first rule of political forum?! Never concede a point!

Oh. I'm not conceding. I'm denying that I ever truly had the point.