ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th October 2017, 02:39 PM   #1
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,751
Should congressmen have to disclose their health status?

The Capitol Hill pharmacist says some congressmen and senators (without naming them) are getting Alzheimer's medications.
Quote:
“It makes you kind of sit back and say, ‘Wow, they’re making the highest laws of the land and they might not even remember what happened yesterday.'”

Is that something voters are entitled to know about?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/11/...drug-delivery/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 02:48 PM   #2
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
No, not entitled.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:12 PM   #3
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,330
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No, not entitled.
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required. We are our representative's employers, so why should we not be entitled to the same information as any other employer is?

I'd say drug test the lot of them too!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 11th October 2017 at 05:13 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:19 PM   #4
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,283
Don't mind Bob. Bob says silly things sometimes, like people that make life and death decisions for millions of people need not be sane.
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:26 PM   #5
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required. We are our representative's employers, so why should we not be entitled to the same information as any other employer is?

I'd say drug test the lot of them too!
Voters are not employers. Representatives are not employees or contractors. Voters are voters and representatives are representatives.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:28 PM   #6
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,330
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Voters are not employers. Representatives are not employees or contractors. Voters are voters and representatives are representatives.
perhaps in your alternative world, in the real world, the voters pay their wages and they work for us.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:31 PM   #7
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
perhaps in your alternative world, in the real world, the voters pay their wages and they work for us.
Does not make them employees. Clergy are not employees of parishioners, either.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:33 PM   #8
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 6,884
Kind of like the seller's disclosure when you buy a house.
You need to know that you are getting what you pay for, or in this case getting what you vote for.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"I find that a complete lack of self-awareness really helps to numb the pain." A. Trumpkin
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:35 PM   #9
Ray Brady
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Clergy are not employees of parishioners, either.
Of course they are. Clergy are employees of a church. A church is comprised of its parishioners. There's a reason "minister" derives from the word for "servant".
Ray Brady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:37 PM   #10
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Ray Brady View Post
Of course they are. Clergy are employees of a church. A church is comprised of its parishioners. There's a reason "minister" derives from the word for "servant".
And the parishioners are not employers.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:41 PM   #11
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,330
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Does not make them employees.
They are hired by, fired by, and paid by the voters. They have no higher authority, but the Voters that they represent, and they are there to represent those voters. Yes they are our employees.

Quote:
Clergy are not employees of parishioners, either.
Non sequitur and derail attempt noted.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:45 PM   #12
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
They are hired by, fired by, and paid by the voters. They have no higher authority, but the Voters that they represent, and they are there to represent those voters. Yes they are our employees.



Non sequitur and derail attempt noted.
It isn't a non sequitur. It is another role we're someone has a role in relation to a multitude. Athlete and fans would be similar. Voters have no authority beyond their vote. Representative authority is derived from the law.

Voted into office is just that. It isn't hired or fired. That is why we call in winning and losing an election and not hired/fired.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:51 PM   #13
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,330
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It isn't a non sequitur. It is another role we're someone has a role in relation to a multitude. Athlete and fans would be similar. Voters have no authority beyond their vote. Representative authority is derived from the law.

Voted into office is just that. It isn't hired or fired. That is why we call in winning and losing an election and not hired/fired.
It is a total non sequitur, and you are continuing to do so.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:52 PM   #14
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,193
Representatives have a responsibility to their constituents. Continuing to try to serve (and perhaps get re-elected) when one is knowingly impaired is a shirking of that responsibility.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:55 PM   #15
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Representatives have a responsibility to their constituents. Continuing to try to serve (and perhaps get re-elected) when one is knowingly impaired is a shirking of that responsibility.
A representative is permitted to shirk. They can be removed by procedure for shirking or not shirking.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:03 PM   #16
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,193
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A representative is permitted to shirk. They can be removed by procedure for shirking or not shirking.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they should, especially if they take seriously the responsibility of the office to which they were elected.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:13 PM   #17
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 14,123
I'm pretty sure HIPAA prevents insurance companies and health providers, including pharmacies, from disclosing health information to employers without authorization. The congresscritters are employees of the federal government, even though many of them profess to hate it. So no, that's not allowed.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:19 PM   #18
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,486
The voters can demand whatever they want from a candidate.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:26 PM   #19
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,863
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required. We are our representative's employers, so why should we not be entitled to the same information as any other employer is?

I'd say drug test the lot of them too!
Oh stop this nonsense.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:27 PM   #20
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,863
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required. We are our representative's employers, so why should we not be entitled to the same information as any other employer is?

I'd say drug test the lot of them too!
Where did you get your law degree?
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:00 PM   #21
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,751
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Does not make them employees. Clergy are not employees of parishioners, either.
What? Most Protestant churches are run by boards chosen by parishioners, and the boards hire and fire the minister. The church pays the minister, who is literally an employee of the church. (Can't speak for the Catholics, but I think the Pope sends you a guy.)

And public officials are certainly public employees. They do work for us, we pay their salaries, and we have a regular chance to fire them at the polls.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:06 PM   #22
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What? Most Protestant churches are run by boards chosen by parishioners, and the boards hire and fire the minister. The church pays the minister, who is literally an employee of the church. (Can't speak for the Catholics, but I think the Pope sends you a guy.)

And public officials are certainly public employees. They do work for us, we pay their salaries, and we have a regular chance to fire them at the polls.
You seem to mix repeatedly the results of elections as an act of an employer. Voting for a board is a vote. Voting for a rep is a vote. It is not an employment decision.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:15 PM   #23
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,863
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The voters can demand whatever they want from a candidate.
Let's demand they start walking on water.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:25 PM   #24
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,898
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required. We are our representative's employers, so why should we not be entitled to the same information as any other employer is?

I'd say drug test the lot of them too!

Only if you have a physically demanding job. That exam is probably required by, or because of, insurance companies.

I've never been given a medical exam for any job I've ever had, including construction and my current physically demanding job. Not a physical exam, not psychological.

Testing Congress-critters will solve nothing. I'm sure they have a list of doctors who will approve them for the right amount of cash.

P.S. - You guys always fall for the same derail. Every thread.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:54 PM   #25
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,074
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required.

I don't think that's generally true.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 09:08 PM   #26
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,283
I love seeing threads get "bobbed"

Circular reasoning is circular.
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 09:35 PM   #27
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The Capitol Hill pharmacist says some congressmen and senators (without naming them) are getting Alzheimer's medications.



Is that something voters are entitled to know about?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/11/...drug-delivery/
Yes!!! Among a long list of other things!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:54 PM   #28
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,200
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Why not, employers are entitled to have a health report on a perspective employee to determine if they are medically capable of performing the tasks required. We are our representative's employers, so why should we not be entitled to the same information as any other employer is?

I'd say drug test the lot of them too!
So nice, John Jones had to quote it twice!

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Only if you have a physically demanding job. That exam is probably required by, or because of, insurance companies.

I've never been given a medical exam for any job I've ever had, including construction and my current physically demanding job. Not a physical exam, not psychological.

Testing Congress-critters will solve nothing. I'm sure they have a list of doctors who will approve them for the right amount of cash.

P.S. - You guys always fall for the same derail. Every thread.
Weird, I have to do one every year and I work in a call center.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 06:02 AM   #29
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
Weird, I have to do one every year and I work in a call center.
Just out of curiosity, do you have to do it, or is it something that you do because otherwise you pay more for your insurance benefits?

We also do a yearly health screening, but it's (nominally) voluntary. The results of the health screening affect the premiums we pay on our insurance (based on the number of identified risk factors), but any employee can decline (which is treated as having the maximum number of risk factors-no discount to your premiums). According to law, forcing the screening would be illegal (as I understand it).

Not sure if that holds true everywhere; I'm sure for some jobs there are mandatory screening requirements either due to hazards of the job (i.e.-regular screenings of nuclear workers, say) or something similar. But mandatory screenings are a HIPPA violation.

Full disclosure: I work for an insurance company, so this is something we're involved in for not only ourselves but companies we provide coverage for. As a caveat, I work IT rather than in claims or legal, so I'm just giving the information as it was explained to us (and as our company policy dictates). I could be wrong (it has happened before ).
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 07:01 AM   #30
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,193
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I love seeing threads get "bobbed"

Circular reasoning is circular.
More mobius strip thinking.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 07:18 AM   #31
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,680
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The Capitol Hill pharmacist says some congressmen and senators (without naming them) are getting Alzheimer's medications.

Is that something voters are entitled to know about?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/11/...drug-delivery/
Five bucks on this being a gambit to try to force out more Supreme Court justices.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:04 AM   #32
bytewizard
Graduate Poster
 
bytewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The Capitol Hill pharmacist says some congressmen and senators (without naming them) are getting Alzheimer's medications.
And obviously forgetting to take them.
bytewizard is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 01:28 PM   #33
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 6,884
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Only if you have a physically demanding job. That exam is probably required by, or because of, insurance companies.

I've never been given a medical exam for any job I've ever had, including construction and my current physically demanding job. Not a physical exam, not psychological.

Testing Congress-critters will solve nothing. I'm sure they have a list of doctors who will approve them for the right amount of cash.

P.S. - You guys always fall for the same derail. Every thread.
Kind of like the sell-by date on a jar of mayonnaise - you would like to know that you are getting what you pay for. Although I think mental and psychological evaluations would be more useful. I am not so worried about congressional blood pressure, sociopathic narcissism is a bigger concern.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"I find that a complete lack of self-awareness really helps to numb the pain." A. Trumpkin
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 03:11 PM   #34
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,486
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
: rolleyes : Let's demand they start walking on water. : rolleyes :
Go for it, if you think it has a better chance of getting you the candidates and the policies you prefer.

My point is that senility is already screened for, by the voters, at election time. All the pharmacists is doing is telling us about a risk the voters have already considered. He should probably just do his job and keep his mouth shut.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 08:39 AM   #35
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,193
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My point is that senility is already screened for, by the voters, at election time.
Really? So what happened to that screening in the presidential election of 1984?
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 08:41 AM   #36
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,486
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Really? So what happened to that screening in the presidential election of 1984?
The screneers decided the risk was acceptable.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 09:15 AM   #37
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,669
There are some pretty serious privacy issues here; I'm surprised that the pharmacist was indiscreet enough to mention the Alzheimer's drugs.

My feeling is that the current system works well enough. If someone starts acting or talking erratically (like John McCain did earlier this year), it's going to quickly become necessary politically for them to disclose their health issues.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:05 PM   #38
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,751
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There are some pretty serious privacy issues here; I'm surprised that the pharmacist was indiscreet enough to mention the Alzheimer's drugs.

My feeling is that the current system works well enough. If someone starts acting or talking erratically (like John McCain did earlier this year), it's going to quickly become necessary politically for them to disclose their health issues.
He didn't name anybody. Nobody's privacy was violated. McCain is one of the highest-profile Senators. But for an average no-name congressman who doesn't make a lot of public appearances, it could go under the radar for a long time, especially if his staff protected him. But he's still voting.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:15 PM   #39
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
He didn't name anybody. Nobody's privacy was violated. McCain is one of the highest-profile Senators. But for an average no-name congressman who doesn't make a lot of public appearances, it could go under the radar for a long time, especially if his staff protected him. But he's still voting.
Nothing in the Constitution requires their vote be based on any analysis. Whether it is because of Alzheimer's or laziness is irrelevant.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:20 PM   #40
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,647
Looks as though Diana Feinstein's age...84...will be an issue in the upcoming Democratic Primary.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.