CLINTON and TRUMP Must Disclose BOTH MEDICAL and TAX Records - The PUBLIC Needs to Know

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 2:49 PM GMT
    The public clamor for TRANSPARENCY is getting more and more sonorous. I firmly believe that this is good for the country. Our major political candidates MUST VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSE their DETAILED MEDICAL RECORDS and their TAX RETURNS. Let the electorate be the JUDGE of who's qualified to be this country's leader. Our presidential candidates should not have the right to pick-and-choose what part(s) of their medical records and tax returns should be released to the public for evaluation.

    This requirement will serve several purposes, among which are as follows: (1) the public/voters, not the presidential candidates, will be the ultimate judge of what information is relevant or irrelevant for their consideration with respect to the presidential candidates' MEDICAL RECORDS and TAX RETURNS; (2) it will put an end to groundless speculation, fiction-writing, fabrication, innuendos, conspiracy theories, lies, and the like; and (3) both candidates will have the same level of expectation where neither candidate will be allowed to wiggle out of their respective disclosure obligations.

    Thus, both Clinton and Trump must disclose their medical records. Likewise, both Clinton and Trump must disclose their tax returns. No if's or but's.

    The following article is instructive:

    "But here's the reality: Both of these campaigns are somehow being judged by a different set of standards. Why else could both get away with disclosing less than what we have come to expect from candidates for governor, much less the presidency? . . . In the aftermath of Clinton's pneumonia disclosure, the campaign now says more medical records are forthcoming. Great. Let's see if they meet the standard McCain set for candidates who are older or who have a pre-existing medical condition. Speaking of meeting standards, there's also Trump's tax returns, which should be released, plain and simple. Presidential candidates have done it for the past 40 years and an ongoing tax audit is no excuse. Trump likes to say he's released his financial disclosure forms and that's enough, but it isn't. It's just a vague and incomplete snapshot of financial health, sort of like a doctor's letter is a snapshot of someone's physical well-being. There are some things more important than your own personal tax audit -- or some potentially embarrassing disclosures in a medical report -- and the presidency is one of them. This is not about personal business anymore; it's about the country deciding who will be able to keep us safe in a dangerous world. Any candidate should want to provide voters with as much pertinent information as possible when making that decision. When you decide to run for president, your life becomes an open book -- and everyone who runs knows it. Secrecy is not an option."

    See http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/opinions/clinton-and-trump-disclose-borger/index.html (proffering that Clinton and Trump must disclose medical and tax records as a matter of obligation).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 4:38 PM GMT
    Forty years of tradition pretty well establishes reasonable expectation for producing tax records.

    Not sure how I feel about medical records. Certainly it seems reasonable that we get some assurance that as far as a doctor knows, the candidate won't be dying within four years by a currently known cause or succumbing to a Reagan-esque dementia, during their stay at the White House. Beyond that, I'd think tradition more so follows the expectation of HIPAA privacy rules. We don't really care about Trump's penis size, he doesn't have to disclose that medical fact and we would hope he wouldn't. Orange Penis. Ick No one really wants to see that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 5:15 PM GMT
    In a related story, here's a very good example of the difference between alt-right bullshit and real reporting....

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/12/media/ny-times-editor-jail-donald-trump-taxes/Dean Baquet, the top editor at the New York Times, said he'd publish a story on Donald Trump's taxes even if it means risking jail time.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 5:29 PM GMT
    theantijock saidForty years of tradition pretty well establishes reasonable expectation for producing tax records.

    Not sure how I feel about medical records. Certainly it seems reasonable that we get some assurance that as far as a doctor knows, the candidate won't be dying within four years by a currently known cause or succumbing to a Reagan-esque dementia, during their stay at the White House. Beyond that, I'd think tradition more so follows the expectation of HIPAA privacy rules. We don't really care about Trump's penis size, he doesn't have to disclose that medical fact and we would hope he wouldn't. Orange Penis. Ick No one really wants to see that.


    By "detailed medical records" I meant information that is relevant to the candidate's ability to perform his or her job. For example, a history of STDs is not a disqualification for the presidency. Nor is a physical handicap that does not render the candidate incapable of performing his/her role as commander-in-chief. For example, several of our past presidents had a learning disability (e.g., Jefferson, Eisenhower, JFK. George Washington, Woodrow Wilson), a hearing impairment (Clinton and Reagan), a mobility issue (Roosevelt), epilepsy (James Madison), and depressive disorder (Lincoln). See http://www.abilitycenter.org/blog/disability-trivia-presidents-with-disabilities/.

    But a history of recurrent mental illness or mental incapacity that is not under medical or psychiatric supervision ought to be relevant, recognizing that the president of the USA has the code to the nation's nuclear arsenal. A diagnosis of psychopathology/psychopathy/sociopathy may be relevant to the extent to which the condition affects the candidate's ability to perform his job. Likewise, a diagnosis of terminal cancer may be relevant as it relates to succession issues (although we all know that there's a fixed presidential line of succession).

    I understand HIPAA, but that law protects the patient. If the patient decides to disclose his/her own medical information, it's up to him/her to do so. In this case, I'm suggesting that the candidates voluntarily disclose medical information that may be relevant to the presidency--the determination of what is or isn't relevant ought to be subject to an objective, non-arbitrary standard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 6:18 PM GMT
    theantijock saidIn a related story, here's a very good example of the difference between alt-right bullshit and real reporting....

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/12/media/ny-times-editor-jail-donald-trump-taxes/Dean Baquet, the top editor at the New York Times, said he'd publish a story on Donald Trump's taxes even if it means risking jail time.


    The NYTs can be trusted and belived as much as anything coming out of the women's mouth. Albeit, it's great for curing constipation. Simply sit on dunny, open NYT and poof, out it pops.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 6:28 PM GMT
    Medical records within limits seems reasonable but even that could be easily misconstrued, most certainly taken out of context.

    With aging comes declines, be that hearing, vision, various bodily functions, but also with aging comes benefit which can work to advantage for a president. Cognitive neuroscience shows us that regions of the brain improve with age.

    For instance, emotions become better under control. You'll notice how well that's worked for Trump. Older adults score higher than younger on issues of conflict resolution and compromise, qualities essential to such high office. The older person might not recall details as clearly but sees a bigger picture, having that much more experience to draw on, to be able to make those associations, to understand connectedness.

    With new understandings of brain plasticity and being able to measure brain activity, we now know that older people tend more so than younger to use both hemispheres of the brain rather than relying more so on just one. In older we find more activity in the in anterior regions of the brain wherein lies some of the higher functions such as consciousness & decision-making.

    So its not as if we should be voting for some super hero youth embodied by someone with enough experience for the job. Not having lived the life, you don't have the experience, yet having the experience comes with other issues of aging. That's just life. But that's not television which Trump embodies: False image.

    So to place someone's medical records under such scrutiny can in itself work against itself--especially in this hypercritical, hypocritical world--instead of getting useful information to quiet the mind, we wind up with a lot of mind boggling noise.

    Taxes we can place onto a columnar sheet. The body and mind is somewhat more complex.

    ell_br.gif

    various references used quickly to self-double-check my thinking on this...
    http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2014/october/gutchess-aging-brain.html
    http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s4/chapter01.html (excellent site by the way)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cingulate_cortex
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14295

    Sep 13, 2016 8:10 PM GMT
    The New York Times is an ultra leftist corporate rag who will cover up all the wrongdoings of the Wicked Witch of Wall Street while at the same time accusing Donald Trump of covering up potentially questionable behavior on his tax forms. A classic example of leftist hypocrisy.