Look:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5313266.html
I think he did. And by doing so, he provided the framework to allow profiling of people based on the way their glasses look/are made.
Bad. Very bad.
Barry
Look:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5313266.html
I think he did. And by doing so, he provided the framework to allow profiling of people based on the way their glasses look/are made.
Bad. Very bad.
Barry
No. Did he have access to her medical records? If not, then there is no HIPAA violation.
I agree that he's an idiot, but I don't see any other violation here.
Wasn't there something on the books pre-HIPPA that elected officials' health information is available to the public? I wonder if that's still true?
You know what, it doesnt matter; NO one should use the "appearance" of an eyeglass/correction to imply a performance-impeding affect.
Period.
B
Mike is 100% correct in both his statements.
And Berry, when it comes to politics. Those boys play by a whole different set of rules. None of which apply to us commoners. I'm not saying he is right or wrong. I'm just saying they live in a world that you and most of us have never experienced. Its called No Holds Barred.
If our government would fight a war (escalate and dominate) in the manner that they run for office, we would not have years long drawn out events with other countries. We would have only short little skirmishes.
Clearly, that this not completely a HIPPA issue, I understand. But NO layperson should be granted a public forum to IMPLY brain/neurological problems from the APPEARANCE of a pair of glasses.
B
I don't think he violated HIPAA (correct spelling), unless he had access to her medical records somehow. He is a complete idiot though, which is worse than violating HIPAA.
This is normal politics. During the Obama-McCain 2008 presidential campaign, many Democrat leaders, pollsters, etc (and specifically DNC Chairman Howard Dean) went on national TV news talk shows and said that they probably would not bring up any health concerns about McCain due to his age, or due his bouts with skin cancer. Of course, by saying they wouldn't bring it up, they were bringing it up, and also giving a cue to the media to bring it up for them.
The Democrats and the media did something similar to Romney in 2012 by continually insisting that they would not bring up the issue of him being a Mormon, and that they did not think that Mormonism is a cult, even though some people claimed it was. Whenever they were on TV, they never missed a chance to proclaim that they would not raise these things as an issue during the campaign.
There is plenty of scum to go around on both sides.
Nice pun. Probably the fact that she spent 30 days in the hospital for treatment of a blood clot near her brain had something to do with it.Originally Posted by Barry Santini
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1231669
He should have insulted her on the "Obamacare" prism job; it's cut wrong and considering her high profile I would have had a pair for her done overnight without the need for the stick-on.
Survey says Nerve #?
She was in the hospital for 4 days, not 30 days.
Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 05-15-2014 at 09:53 AM.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
When I do a fresnel, they are perfect! Not this techy-do-do crap
He should have insulted her on the "Obamacare" prism job; it's cut wrong and considering her high profile I would have had a pair for her done overnight without the need for the stick-on.
Survey says Nerve #?
B
My mistake. Karl Rove claimed she was in the hospital for 30 days, and that was reported in the media before it was corrected to be only 4 days.
Political theater. Each side will throw anything that polls negatively against an opponent against the wall to see if it sticks.
Rove is far to savvy to do something like this without an attorney or 2 giving their blessing imo.
My thought was the temporary double vision necessitating a fresnel prism was related to a damaged (3rd?) cranial nerve when her head hit the floor.
Any doc want to chime in?
I doubt he got an attorney to bless it. Why would he need to? As far as strategy, it was actually a bad idea to mention it this early since stuff that is thrown out there too early becomes an old news later on that the press will refuse to report during the heat of the campaign. Often times, candidates will leak their own dirty laundry early on to get it out of the way so it is not a surprise right before election day.
No kidding.
I think what he was reported to have said by the New York Post, goes a little further than implication: “Thirty days in the hospital?” Rove said, according to the report. “And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”
It's important that everyone understands that folks who wear Fresnel prisms, or any prescribed prism for that matter, rarely have, or have ever had a traumatic brain injury. In my office, where I work with prescribed prisms almost daily, TBIs are involved in about 2% of the cases.
It's got to be a really close call though, she's not currently an elected official, and hasn't announced yet.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
The way she's polling (and Rove is all about polls) me thinks he wants to see a primary challenger which means he needs to get someone thinking about it now!
I don't think she has to be a candidate, just only a "public figure."
I realize that when you're a public figure you cede a certain amount of your right to privacy, but this is way over the line. Rove isn't sharing something that he knows is true, he's just making stuff up to score points and cast a potential candidate in a negative light. Nobody deserves widespread speculation of and discussion about their personal healthcare matters, regardless of whether they're a public or private figure.
Rove was clearly wrong about a couple of things, including his claim that she was in the hospital 30 days (it was 4 days). He also did not have enough information amount her condition to speculate about how serious it was, and it was not accurate to draw conclusions about her long term condition based on her glasses. He did later retract some of his mistakes.
But I am not sure what line you are talking about? Both parties do dirty tricks like this, especially when it relates to speculating about the health of presidential candidates (if she decides not to run for president, then it doesn't matter anyway). You may have forgotten that many raised questions in 2008 about the age health of John McCain because of his bouts with skin cancer (he is still alive and kicking in the US Senate). The good thing for Hilary is that it is much better to get these things out in the open early on, so no surprises if they are raised during the last few weeks of complaining.
Here is a current story about another politician that probably crosses the legal line:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,5883421.story
Discussing a public figure's general health is somewhat appropriate. Delving into details that have not been released by the person, and worse, making up facts and details of their health issues, is far over a line of general human decency. I see it as different than McCain, too. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that a basal cell carcinoma is nothing that will affect a person's functioning. Claiming someone has a TBI questions not only function, but intelligence, ability to reason, decision making, etc. It's a much more spurious accusation that skin cancer.
That is absolutely horrible. Thankfully those actions are being condemned by both parties involved in the political fight.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks