Medical privacy...

[Larry Gude]

...I'm going to start a series of polls as there is simply no reason to do just one when several can be justified. The gist of this is medical privacy; are we entitled to it? Should we be? Should everyone be?

For instance, job safety; It's probably better if the pilot isn't on the verge of a massive heart attack or a drunk, but, there is a co-pilot and if my pilot needs a pop or two to steady his nerves, by all means.

Politicians; I think, if nothing else, every single pol should have open, complete records AND be pizz tested every single day, maybe twice, before and after lunch. There is no way in hell so sanctimonious azzhat should be telling us who legally can or can't do a job with or without medical privacy if the people writing the laws are exempt. We'll find out how sincere they are about privacy right quick.

Teachers; that's what started this grand idea.

Now, after thinking this through, you'll be relieved to find, that in the interest of brevity and in order to do my part to help save the planet, I think we can get by with one poll.

For now.

 

[Dougstermd]

...I'm going to start a series of polls as there is simply no reason to do just one when several can be justified. The gist of this is medical privacy; are we entitled to it? Should we be? Should everyone be?

For instance, job safety; It's probably better if the pilot isn't on the verge of a massive heart attack or a drunk, but, there is a co-pilot and if my pilot needs a pop or two to steady his nerves, by all means.

Politicians; I think, if nothing else, every single pol should have open, complete records AND be pizz tested every single day, maybe twice, before and after lunch. There is no way in hell so sanctimonious azzhat should be telling us who legally can or can't do a job with or without medical privacy if the people writing the laws are exempt. We'll find out how sincere they are about privacy right quick.

Teachers; that's what started this grand idea.

Now, after thinking this through, you'll be relieved to find, that in the interest of brevity and in order to do my part to help save the planet, I think we can get by with one poll.

For now.

if records are public we will know what the pizz test results are???

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't...

if records are public we will know what the pizz test results are???

...know. This is a process. Right now, we're gathering wool. We get enough wool, we make a sweater.

Maybe the total records should be private but wiz results, for drugs and alcohol, not medications, should be public?

 

[Kyle]

I could care less about drug testing....

... But if it's a communicable disease it should be made completely public.

In fact... The illness in question should be tattoo'd to the walking incubators forehead to alert surrounding citizens.

 

[RareBreed]

I voted that the records should be public and they should be pee tested only because being politicians, they are putting themselves out in the public. If you have something to hide, don't make yourself public. IMHO

 

[punjabigyrl]

I think that certain professions should have thier records public.

 

[MMDad]

..

Maybe the total records should be private but wiz results, for drugs and alcohol, not medications, should be public?

We should know their general health, but not the total record.

We don't need to know if Hillary has to use Viagra to give Janet Reno the high hard one, if she's done with menopause, which estrogen therapy she's on, or if her mammogram shows benign cysts.

We don't need to know how the exact size of McCains prostate.

We don't need to know how many and how big Obamas 'rhoids are.

We do need to know if they have diseases that will affect their ability to live through their term, and if there are psychological or substance abuse issues.

Every politician should have to go through the same drug testing that the military has to, with the same consequences. There should also be consequences for being drunk on duty like in the military.

Just like the military, if they self refer for a drug or alcohol problem, they should receive treatment and face no punishment. But if they are caught, it's too late for any excuses.

 

[terbear1225]

We should know their general health, but not the total record.

We don't need to know if Hillary has to use Viagra to give Janet Reno the high hard one, if she's done with menopause, which estrogen therapy she's on, or if her mammogram shows benign cysts.

We don't need to know how the exact size of McCains prostate.

We don't need to know how many and how big Obamas 'rhoids are.

We do need to know if they have diseases that will affect their ability to live through their term, and if there are psychological or substance abuse issues.

Every politician should have to go through the same drug testing that the military has to, with the same consequences. There should also be consequences for being drunk on duty like in the military.

Just like the military, if they self refer for a drug or alcohol problem, they should receive treatment and face no punishment. But if they are caught, it's too late for any excuses.

that is about the most reasonable idea I have heard on this board in a long time!!! I think that sounds like a great plan for people in public service as well (including teachers, since that's what started all this)

 

[sux2b44]

I dont think medical record should be public. There are certain items that should not be available to the bublic.

 

[Larry Gude]

Like...

I dont think medical record should be public. There are certain items that should not be available to the bublic.

...what?

 

[Ken King]

...I'm going to start a series of polls as there is simply no reason to do just one when several can be justified. The gist of this is medical privacy; are we entitled to it? Should we be? Should everyone be?

For instance, job safety; It's probably better if the pilot isn't on the verge of a massive heart attack or a drunk, but, there is a co-pilot and if my pilot needs a pop or two to steady his nerves, by all means.

Politicians; I think, if nothing else, every single pol should have open, complete records AND be pizz tested every single day, maybe twice, before and after lunch. There is no way in hell so sanctimonious azzhat should be telling us who legally can or can't do a job with or without medical privacy if the people writing the laws are exempt. We'll find out how sincere they are about privacy right quick.

Teachers; that's what started this grand idea.

Now, after thinking this through, you'll be relieved to find, that in the interest of brevity and in order to do my part to help save the planet, I think we can get by with one poll.

For now.

Larry,

1. As a society, are we to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in our persons, papers, and places?

2. Are there jobs that require that persons should be held to a higher standard as to their medical and mental condition?

3. Do employers have a right to have sober and sane persons fit to perform their jobs?

As I see the answers to all of the above as “yes” and hope that you do also, I ask, how do we balance number 1 with numbers 2 and 3?

As to politicians, no, I don’t think their records should be open to the public nor should they be compelled to provide bodily fluids to be tested for drugs unless there is a specific reason to do so. Who cares if they are ill when they get to or are running for office, we have a process for replacing them should they die and they are just as likely to die from an unforeseen accident as they are from a known medical condition or age. As to testing for intoxicants I don’t think they should be scrutinized any more than anyone else, after all they aren’t flying the plane. Teachers fall into the same category in my mind as well as they aren't driving the busses.

Now, back to politicians, if we could test and identify blatant stupidity and things such as honesty, integrity, and high moral fiber before they get into office I would be all for them taking those tests.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

Larry,

1. As a society, are we to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in our persons, papers, and places? Yes

2. Are there jobs that require that persons should be held to a higher standard as to their medical and mental condition? Yes. Like congress

3. Do employers have a right to have sober and sane persons fit to perform their jobs? yes

As I see the answers to all of the above as “yes” and hope that you do also, I ask, how do we balance number 1 with numbers 2 and 3? add pols to the equation

As to politicians, no, I don’t think their records should be open to the public nor should they be compelled to provide bodily fluids to be tested for drugs unless there is a specific reason to do so. like judging their fitenss for my vote?Who cares if they are ill when they get to or are running for office, we have a process for replacing them should they die and they are just as likely to die from an unforeseen accident as they are from a known medical condition or age. As to testing for intoxicants I don’t think they should be scrutinized any more than anyone else, after all they aren’t flying the plane. they're just crewing teh ship of stateTeachers fall into the same category in my mind as well as they aren't driving the busses.

Now, back to politicians, if we could test and identify blatant stupidity and things such as honesty, integrity, and high moral fiber before they get into office I would be all for them taking those tests. hhmmm...drugs, blatant stupididy...cause and effect?

let's see...

 

[Ken King]

let's see...

Judging their fitness for your vote? Which would you vote for a) the trim fit athletic person with no vices that is Hell bent on increasing taxes or b) the walking heart-attack (overweight, chain-smoking, hard drinking, woman chasing type) that thinks government is out of control with raping the working class of it's hard earned money?

 

[Larry Gude]

See...

Judging their fitness for your vote? Which would you vote for a) the trim fit athletic person with no vices that is Hell bent on increasing taxes or b) the walking heart-attack (overweight, chain-smoking, hard drinking, woman chasing type) that thinks government is out of control with raping the working class of it's hard earned money?

...you're making an assumption as to what one might be looking for in those medical records. Once we'd established that smoking and drinking and cheating might be good for the country, we'd at least know that person was not being black mailed.

 

[Ken King]

...you're making an assumption as to what one might be looking for in those medical records. Once we'd established that smoking and drinking and cheating might be good for the country, we'd at least know that person was not being black mailed.

Naw, I just asked a question, which, by the way, you didn't answer.

Now I'll ask another one, what would you be looking for in someone's medical record that would sway your vote?

 

[Lugnut]

Naw, I just asked a question, which, by the way, you didn't answer.

Now I'll ask another one, what would you be looking for in someone's medical record that would sway your vote?

History of mental illness, long term pain medication prescriptions, Alzheimer symptoms :shrug: There are a LOT of medical conditions I do NOT want to see in a sitting politician.

 

[Larry Gude]

I didn't answer...

Naw, I just asked a question, which, by the way, you didn't answer.

Now I'll ask another one, what would you be looking for in someone's medical record that would sway your vote?

...the question because that's not ALL that would go into my decision.

If someone smokes dope or does drugs and opposes legalization, I wouldn't like that. If someone has any Clinton or Bush DNA in them, I would not like that. If someone is bi-polar or is diabetic or has heart disease or has a history of peeing in the closet when there is a full moon, I need to consider that.

 

[Ken King]

History of mental illness, long term pain medication prescriptions, Alzheimer symptoms :shrug:

But doesn't that describe just about every single politician already in office? They all seem somewhat crazy, they all seem to be on one form of medication or self-medicating, and they all seem to forget what they just said or did.

 

[Ken King]

...the question because that's not ALL that would go into my decision.

If someone smokes dope or does drugs and opposes legalization, I wouldn't like that. If someone has any Clinton or Bush DNA in them, I would not like that. If someone is bi-polar or is diabetic or has heart disease or has a history of peeing in the closet when there is a full moon, I need to consider that.

Okay, no hypocrites, gotcha.

Clinton or Bush DNA? What allele would that be?

Bi-polar, is that like anyone claiming bipartisanship? Heart disease, why, you worried about having to do CPR to get the number of votes to pass a budget or something? Okay, I’ll give you the peeing in the closet during a full moon, that is obviously a need-to-know item.

 

[Lugnut]

But doesn't that describe just about every single politician already in office? They all seem somewhat crazy, they all seem to be on one form of medication or self-medicating, and they all seem to forget what they just said or did.

True enough.

:shrug: That's to be expected when the general public selects a candidate based on hollywood criteria.