That’s the point; we don’t know what’s relevant, which is why the statement just needs to describe anything and everything.
No, we didn’t need to know about Kamala’s rash, or anything else that is her personal health history that doesn’t impact her ability to serve. It’s not your call. You want her gynecologist’s report, too?
I found this 29-year-old article from the New England Journal of Medicine titled The Health of the President and Presidential Candidates: The Public’s Right to Know. Might be worth a read. Early in it, it includes this historical bit, “Since 1972, when George McGovern was forced to replace his vice-presidential running mate, Thomas Eagleton, after it was disclosed that Eagleton had been hospitalized for depression, the health status of presidential candidates has been seen as fair game by the press.”
And when the Republican candidate is 78 years old and will be the oldest president in history if elected and serves his full term, I want to know quite a bit about his health.
You want to know about his hemorrhoids and his toenail fungus and his flatulence?
Or do you want to know about the conditions that affect the likelihood Vance will have to step in when he drops dead, or whether he’s too senile/demented to hold office?
Yes, given how much he claims to be completely healthy, I want him to release full records.
You just quoted a large chunk of my post. Do you really disagree with ALL of that? Let’s take this sentence by sentence:
If any candidate had a medical condition that didn’t impact their intellectual functioning or day-to-day stamina, and didn’t have a prognosis of meaningful decline over the term of the presidency (“meaningful” being defined as "will impact the candidate’s ability to function effectively), that shouldn’t affect their candidacy.
You don’t agree?
And the public doesn’t need to know the embarrassing details.
I’m pretty sure you do agree with that.
A general statement that indicates “candidate X has a condition impacting GI tract functioning; it is well controlled, does not interfere with daily functioning, and is not expected to worsen in a way that can’t be effectively treated” would be fine.
This precise sentence, I know you disagree with. But I still think it’s more of a matter of degree (or I hope it is). Like I said, I could back off the specificity of the GI tract part. I still want a report from a qualified physician, though, that says in their qualified opinion, the candidate is capable of serving. I think you agree with that, right?
Then I guess we just disagree.
I did so because selectively picking parts could have changed your meaning. It seemed safest to just quote a large chunk.
Also, I’m posting on my phone and it’s tricky to quote pieces.
Yes, of course. I said that already.
I think that strategy backfired - but no matter, I understand your reasoning now. I think we understand each other, and don’t entirely agree, but sorta kinda agree on some of it.
My biggest worry about releasing detailed records would not be a privacy issue, though (although I did feel sorry for Jimmy Carter when the whole world knew about his hemorrhoid surgery). It would be more of a bigotry issue. No reason why a qualified candidate with a colostomy bag couldn’t be a fantastic president. But I don’t know if many in the country would see it that way.
They do take the thing into account (I hope they’re aware of it, anyway) that every part of their being will be scrutinized as a candidate.
It amazes me the ones in modern history that thought stuff could be swept under the rug. And never found out.
Then there’s the one who just didn’t give a crap.
If a hopeful candidate has serious medical issues we should hear about it. All things being equal.
It’s amazing, to me Trump has not had leaking (faucet on high) of his problems. There are obviously things telling (from what I see on his rallys) that he’s not in great shape.
(I’m not in the same room with him. I can only see what I see from television. Heck, he may be perfect, for all we know.)
I often think of Kennedy’s terrible illness. Addison’s.
It has a multitude of symptoms. Although not curable it can be treated with loads of steroids. What would the voters have done had they known?
I need to know who the drug enablers are in this campaign. This lunatic would be in neurology department at any place if he wasn’t a well-loved fuckwad.
I want a collapse, stint at hospital, then medical professional explaining how his behavior is due to a 20-year-old brain aneurism from a tumor previously detected but never revealed due to money.
And, then, they discover that Kevin Kline looks just like him, only a nicer version, and they secretly have him step in for Trump.
No, wait, that only happens in the movies. 
We did not get much in the way of details when Trump was hospitalized with Covid. I certainly would have liked to know more.
Since you mentioned a hypothetical case of a president having a GI condition, it’s well known that Eisenhower had Crohn’s disease, which at the time could only be treated, besides sympatomically, by removing the diseased section(s). They did have cortisone, which JFK also used, but that has terrible side effects with long-term use. This was on top of heart disease, which was also much more challenging to treat at the time.
I had to look that up because I didn’t remember that (I was 14 at the time). Several years later, Reagan was diagnosed with early-stage colon cancer, which was successfully removed.
This was before the Iran-Contra hearings, but I do remember an editorial cartoon where a white-coated man was standing beside a map of Central America, with Nicaragua colored red, and captioned, “The administration has recommended that we remove this polyp.”
I didn’t know that, actually! I have two friends with Crohn’s and so I know it can be pretty incapacitating.
While we’re on the subject, I’m also assuming that her reproductive status is G0P0 (in other words, she’s never been pregnant) but that too is her business.
I personally don’t think a normal pregnancy is an illness.
And unless it was happening during her presidency, not at all relevant.
So her reproductive status is a non-issue.
She did turn 60 today.
Something being “well-known” in the 1950s is nothing like today when something known is more than well-known, it’s reported, analyzed, gummed to death, digested, and excreted 24/7 by anyone with a computer or phone, whether they are an amateur, wacko, politician, or professional pundit. Hell, it’s what we do on this board.