Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is directly asking Sen. Mitch McConnell, the state’s most powerful figure in Congress, to disclose more about his condition after three weeks of silence from the 84-year-old since he was hospitalized in Washington.
The letter released Wednesday from Beshear, a Democrat who is considered a potential presidential candidate in 2028, to the former Senate Republican leader says “Kentuckians have grown increasingly concerned about the current state of your health and well-being, and ability to hold office.”
McConnell, whose physical condition has visibly declined in recent years, was hospitalized June 14. He has not released a public statement, photos or videos since. Aides have disclosed nothing specific about his condition, other than to say last week that McConnell “continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.”
That lack of detail has fueled rampant speculation about his prognosis and whether he will return to the Senate when it reconvenes next week. The firestorm was enough that Republican Senate leaders on Tuesday made public statements saying they had talked to McConnell and that he was alert and discussing current events.
McConnell is retiring at the end of his term in January, and the campaign to elect his successor already is underway. Kentucky’s Senate succession law, which Republican legislators have twice changed during Beshear’s tenure, does not give the governor a role in picking a temporary successor should McConnell’s seat become vacant before his term ends.
Under the latest change in 2024, if the seat becomes vacant before Aug. 3, there would be a special election to pick a replacement, perhaps held concurrently with the general election in November. The special election winner could take office nearly immediately. The general election winner would be sworn in as part of the new Congress in January.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
HIPAA. Apart from anything else, the hospital would stop them. You don't get to visit someone in the hospital unless the patient wants you to.
Walking around in a hospital and seeing that other people are there isn't a HIPAA violation. Asking someone to prove they are alive, or have certain medical conditions is not a HIPAA violation. Sharing your own medical info is not a HIPAA violation.
A hospital sharing personally identifiable medical information with an outside party beyond some very strict scenarios, is a violation of HIPAA.
You must have had different HIPAA training than I did.
We were told we couldn't even acknowledge whether or not a person was a patient without permission from the patient.
Walking around a hospital is one thing. Walking into a patient's room to confront them is something completely different. A hospital would have a responsibility to prevent that from happening.
Yeah, probably. I was on the IT side of things, we had very specific training on what was PII, what wasn't PII, who that info could be shared with, and had to roleplay example scenarios of what would be a HIPAA violation and what wouldn't.
Your example...
How I stated that situation would be covered by HIPAA
A healthcare provider, saying to a random caller, "He (Mitch in this case) is at this hospital" would identify a person, and match them to a location, and that would be a breach of HIPAA. That random person going on the news, or sharing that info with other people would NOT be a HIPAA violation.
That's all fine, but none of that relates to what I was responding to.
I was responding to this:
HIPAA would definitely require the hospital to prevent a democratic senator from going into the hospital with a camera.
Even if they got to the lobby with the camera, they damn sure shouldn't be permitted to point the camera at any patient regardless of whether he was a traitorous scumbag senator or just a regular person.
Just about everyone in the USA goes into the hospital with multiple cameras in their pockets.
Taking pictures of people in the hospital without their consent is probably against the law, but it's definitely not a violation of HIPAA on the hospital's part if someone (not employed by the hospital) does it.
What we're talking about is someone going into a patient's room in which the patient presumably doesn't want them there. The hospital would definitely have a responsibility to prevent that.
Definitely. Not a HIPAA violation though.
I think it would be if the hospital did nothing and just let someone walk in with a camera and take pictures of a patient. They have a responsibility to control access to information because of HIPAA.
However, if someone does it and the hospital tries and fails to stop it, it wouldn't be a HIPAA violation.
I think it would only be a HIPAA violation if the intruder was able to take pictures of paperwork or PII that was visible and left by hospital staff.
I’ve called hospitals to see if someone was there and that’s normal practice. If my loved one is incapacitated why would you think the hospital can’t tell anyone? You’re sticking up for special treatment of the worst criminals and traitors.
And yes, a journalist can go into a hospital and use their fucking brains, for once. They can get a damned good idea if he’s alive in there. Yet they don’t. Because they aren’t fucking journalists. They are influencers.
If the hospital actually gave you this info without you being authorized to have it, then they broke the law. Happens all the time, but the person identified at the hospital would have a pretty strong lawsuit in this scenario.
We recently(ish) went through this with my Grandmother-in-law. She was hospitalized, her abusive and estranged daughter called and confirmed that she was in the hospital, and then went over to Grandma's place and started "taking her inheritance." IE, stealing grandma's shit while she was dying. Grandma actually survived her hospital stay, and we sued for a bit of restitution.
In the U.S. the difference is whether or not the hospital has permission from the patient.
If the patient has not given permission for the information to be released, then the hospital isn't allowed to release it. There's no gray area there.
I'm not sticking up for special treatment for criminals and traitors. I'm saying that everyone gets to say what information is released about their healthcare. As it should be.
For actual criminals, the police can get a warrant to get information.
And yes, a journalist can try to get information, and the hospital has a responsibility to do everything they can to prevent that.
The question was:
And my answer was the hospital. Because the hospital has a responsibility to protect the privacy of all their patients.
Know any hospitals they enforce that at? The ones I've been to, if you know the room number you can go up
The hospitals you know must be pretty bad.
Where I work you can go to the lobby or the gift shop, but you can't get into a patient area without permission. The doors won't open for you.
Same goes for hospitals where I've visited family. I have to call in from the panel at the door to get someone from the nurse's station to let me in.
You won't hear any argument on them being shitty hospitals. The only door in the entire facility with that kind of security is the icu entrance.
I’ve never experienced this in any state I’ve been in and I’ve been to plenty of hospitals. Not once.
Not for a sitting senator…
There it is. Oh he’s special/above us all and apparently we should just expect that shit treatment.
Room number and name. You can't just say I want to go to room 203.
Last time i went i got the room so wrong it didn’t even exist, they never asked for clarification or a name they just gave me a name tag and sent me along.
This is every single fucking hospital I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been wrong entirely about a room number and they just let me through anyways.
That’s funny they just let me in the hospital and I can see with my own eyeballs people in their rooms and I can see their paperwork on their beds, clearly.
So is it that he gets special treatment or just the right treatment and the rest of us are just expected to be treated like shit on a shoe in a hospital?
Well, shitty hospitals exist. That doesn't mean that what they're doing is right.