Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I didn't say that, either...regardless of how many times you lie and say I did.
Ummm......you were telling us he was fit right up until the day he handed off to Kamala. Just to set the record straight.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I didn't say that, either...regardless of how many times you lie and say I did.
Ummm......you were telling us he was fit right up until the day he handed off to Kamala. Just to set the record straight.
Originally posted by: Jerry Ice 33
Ummm......you were telling us he was fit right up until the day he handed off to Kamala. Just to set the record straight.
What I said was, I called you out on a lie. I never said he was "as sharp as a tack," which is a phrase you lying MAGAs luvvvv to attribute to me. That's the sort of limp-dicked stupid shit Boilerboob does all the time, so you should stop doing it. You're not the idiot he is.
But that idiot Jerry-phrase aside, I NEVER said he was or wasn't fit. What I actually said--repeatedly--was that only a doctor who examined him AND had access to his medical records would or SHOULD make that evaluation. Not MAGA. Not Fox Nooze. And sure as fuck, not you or the rest of your Trumper pals.
That's what I've been saying all along. We don't know either way. We may never know. MAGApigs specialize in being certain of all sorts of shit without evidence. The portrait of Biden as a feeble old man was just another of those "certainties."
I'm tired of debating this with you--I've already refuted and schooled you multiple times.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
What I said was, I called you out on a lie. I never said he was "as sharp as a tack," which is a phrase you lying MAGAs luvvvv to attribute to me. That's the sort of limp-dicked stupid shit Boilerboob does all the time, so you should stop doing it. You're not the idiot he is.
But that idiot Jerry-phrase aside, I NEVER said he was or wasn't fit. What I actually said--repeatedly--was that only a doctor who examined him AND had access to his medical records would or SHOULD make that evaluation. Not MAGA. Not Fox Nooze. And sure as fuck, not you or the rest of your Trumper pals.
That's what I've been saying all along. We don't know either way. We may never know. MAGApigs specialize in being certain of all sorts of shit without evidence. The portrait of Biden as a feeble old man was just another of those "certainties."
I'm tired of debating this with you--I've already refuted and schooled you multiple times.
Well since 1) multiple outlets and medical professionals are saying he had this cancer for years now and 2) he had to hand off to Kamala for the election, we'll just say Jerry/Tom/David/Boiler and rest of the World: 1, Kevin: 0 and end it at that.
Having cancer doesn't make a President unfit for office. Don't be MAGA-stupid.
And gee, all the idiots you mentioned are rabid MAGAs who think that Trump won the 2020 election and is a stable genius--so my opinions outweigh theirs.
Stage 4 cancer pretty much takes you of a full time job.
Originally posted by: tom
Stage 4 cancer pretty much takes you of a full time job.
And Doctor Tom knows how far along Biden's cancer was last year!!!
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Having cancer doesn't make a President unfit for office. Don't be MAGA-stupid.
Biden's cancer and when he got it is nothing more than a diversion from the exposure of him being mentally incapable to fullfill the duties as President and from the cover up by the White House staff, the corrupt DemocRats and the lying media. The auto pen question/debacle is another aspect of the cover up and brings to light the question as to who was really acting as President. As I stated numerous times in the past, Biden was/is brain dead and was a puppet who is so befuddled he was unable to know where he was, what he was doing and could not utter a complete, coherent sentance.- the perfect poster boy for the DemocRat party.
Isn't there a contradiction, or incongruity, or something, when a prominent figure such as an entertainer's, TV or movie star's, or POTUS's medical information is splashed all over the news, and a lowly nobody citizen faces a five-figure fine and possibly jail for even looking at the medical record of any person, let alone broadcasting it? Most of us are familiar with HIPPA which is intended to protect persons from such disclosure when we go to the doctor or are hospitalized.
We all want to know. We are all curious about our favorite celebrities. Where is the line drawn? Does a president HAVE TO accept such disclosure, and at what point?
And nobody needs to lecture me about a right to know the health status of those who lead our nation. But is there such a right, and aren't there boundaries?
I know the POTUS gets a routine health checkup every so often, the results of which are normally publicized in the press. But how much detail is told, and does the president sign off on such disclosure. Does that mean if he has a TIA or a bout with HTN or a URI or a UTI, or an STD is there no privacy? Is he required to disclose everything?
Just wondering, always have. They were so strict about it at work. Our associated medical center often had celebrities of stage and screen as patients, usually for some serious cancer since the medical center was recognized as having world renown cancer expertise in some categories. Once one of the young doctors happened to tell me he was on the medical team caring for a certain actor. I was immediately in a state of being star struck and told the doctor "Oh, tell him I really enjoyed him in such and so movie." YIKES, I knew better, just forgot for a moment. And the doctor turned pale and never mentioned it again, 'cause he knew that if it was known that he let on to somebody NOT on his care team about him, that actor could file a complaint and there would be big trouble for everybody.
It happened years ago at another hospital in town when a popular TV news anchor was attacked in her home, died at the hospital of her injuries. A well regarded local MD, not on the anchor's care team, was found to have looked in her electronic medical record along with a couple of nursing staff while the anchor was in surgery. (The computer system flagged the 'unauthorized viewing'.) The MD had his license suspended for some months, and the nursing staff people were disciplines, some terminated. And none of them had contacted the media. Later the anchor's mother sued the hospital and the MD. I don't know the outcome of that.
Sorry to go on so long. Still, thje initial question, where is the line, if any, drawn on presidential privacy of medical data?
Candy
You don't go to bed healthy and wake up with stage 4 cancer.
Pristate cancer in people over 70 is a slow progression disease. People who are smarter than Kevin agree that he had this disease for several years.
Why didn't he reveal his PSA levels like other presidents?
Lets see the list of people who visited him at the beach house. Were any of tnem doctors? Why is this a secret from the man who pledged the most transparent presidency?
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
Isn't there a contradiction, or incongruity, or something, when a prominent figure such as an entertainer's, TV or movie star's, or POTUS's medical information is splashed all over the news, and a lowly nobody citizen faces a five-figure fine and possibly jail for even looking at the medical record of any person, let alone broadcasting it? Most of us are familiar with HIPPA which is intended to protect persons from such disclosure when we go to the doctor or are hospitalized.
We all want to know. We are all curious about our favorite celebrities. Where is the line drawn? Does a president HAVE TO accept such disclosure, and at what point?
And nobody needs to lecture me about a right to know the health status of those who lead our nation. But is there such a right, and aren't there boundaries?
I know the POTUS gets a routine health checkup every so often, the results of which are normally publicized in the press. But how much detail is told, and does the president sign off on such disclosure. Does that mean if he has a TIA or a bout with HTN or a URI or a UTI, or an STD is there no privacy? Is he required to disclose everything?
Just wondering, always have. They were so strict about it at work. Our associated medical center often had celebrities of stage and screen as patients, usually for some serious cancer since the medical center was recognized as having world renown cancer expertise in some categories. Once one of the young doctors happened to tell me he was on the medical team caring for a certain actor. I was immediately in a state of being star struck and told the doctor "Oh, tell him I really enjoyed him in such and so movie." YIKES, I knew better, just forgot for a moment. And the doctor turned pale and never mentioned it again, 'cause he knew that if it was known that he let on to somebody NOT on his care team about him, that actor could file a complaint and there would be big trouble for everybody.
It happened years ago at another hospital in town when a popular TV news anchor was attacked in her home, died at the hospital of her injuries. A well regarded local MD, not on the anchor's care team, was found to have looked in her electronic medical record along with a couple of nursing staff while the anchor was in surgery. (The computer system flagged the 'unauthorized viewing'.) The MD had his license suspended for some months, and the nursing staff people were disciplines, some terminated. And none of them had contacted the media. Later the anchor's mother sued the hospital and the MD. I don't know the outcome of that.
Sorry to go on so long. Still, thje initial question, where is the line, if any, drawn on presidential privacy of medical data?
Candy
OK - Here is my question to you - Do you feel that it is more important to inform Americans the actual physical and mental condition of an acting President - or is it more important to Americans that they are not made aware that the person that is the President has physical and mental issues because the condition of their health should remain private?
