PDA

View Full Version : Obama orders hospital visitation rights for gays, lesbians




bobbyw24
04-15-2010, 07:11 PM
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a rule that would prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to gay and lesbian partners.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:5lNoAUH4R0KJ6M:http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j88/bee_lush/HumanRightsCampaign.gif

The president's Thursday memo said, "There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. ... Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides."

Gay and lesbian Americans are "uniquely affected" by relatives-only policies at hospitals, Obama said, adding that they "are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

Obama requested that the regulation make clear that any hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, which includes the vast majority of U.S. hospitals, must allow patients to decide who can visit them and prohibit discrimination based on a variety of characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html

ChaosControl
04-15-2010, 07:13 PM
Will this cover non-married straight couples as well?

bobbyw24
04-15-2010, 07:14 PM
Will this cover non-married straight couples as well?

I would hope so, but then again some one will say, well they can get married . . .

specsaregood
04-15-2010, 07:16 PM
I would hope so, but then again some one will say, well they can get married . . .

And some would say they prefer the government having nothing to do with their relationship.

furface
04-15-2010, 09:07 PM
Is this really a problem? It sounds like grandstanding. I think anybody who wants to hang by the bedside of an unconscious person is free to do so unless members of the family object or they get in the way.

Anti Federalist
04-15-2010, 09:12 PM
Who the fuck is a hospital to say who can visit, outside of safety and health considerations?

sofia
04-15-2010, 09:14 PM
barry wants his gay lover Reggie Love (http://www.globemagazine.com/story/372)to be able to visit him when the time comes....

Bruno
04-15-2010, 09:15 PM
"Obama requested that the regulation make clear that any hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, which includes the vast majority of U.S. hospitals, must allow....(Fill-in-the-blank)"

If they can do this, they can do anything they want to the hospitials.

specsaregood
04-15-2010, 09:16 PM
Is this really a problem? It sounds like grandstanding.

In a way it is, people can plan ahead so that it isn't a problem with power of attorney and all that.



I think anybody who wants to hang by the bedside of an unconscious person is free to do so unless members of the family object or they get in the way.
And say your homosexual long time lover wants to be at your bedside, but your family resents you being gay and wants to forbid it? Such things have happened.

silus
04-15-2010, 09:17 PM
Uhh...how could hospitals deny someone visitation to someone they care about????

sofia
04-15-2010, 09:18 PM
this is the hospital's call.....not Big Government's

AlexMerced
04-15-2010, 09:39 PM
yeah, these rules should be decided by private hospitals, although technically hopsitals funded by public money shouldn't have any rules that exclude any group of people

WHile I don't think public programs should exist they shouldn't exclude anyone who pays into it, although if you opened up welfare and medicaid to people who pay into it, you'd have chaos which points out the reason why they shouldn't exist in the first place.

If you gonna use everyones money, it should be available to everyone

nate895
04-15-2010, 09:41 PM
Who the fuck is a hospital to say who can visit, outside of safety and health considerations?

It's their property....

aravoth
04-15-2010, 09:42 PM
Will this cover non-married straight couples as well?

it's actually company policy. not the government's business.

the company I work for will allow it. It'll even allow you to put your girlfriend on your employer paid insurance.

AlexMerced
04-15-2010, 09:43 PM
It's their property....

well again, we have differentiate between public and private hospitals, and those accepting public money... I hate to say I agree if you take public money you are subject oversight... which is why people shouldn't take public money nor should it be given out

But if you take it... enjoy the consequences

aravoth
04-15-2010, 09:44 PM
well again, we have differentiate between public and private hospitals, and those accepting public money... I hate to say I agree if you take public money you are subject oversight... which is why people shouldn't take public money nor should it be given out

But if you take it... enjoy the consequences

Exactly, if you take medicare for example. They give the hospital a shit ton of money, which they use to expand, making them dependent on federal debt to survive. If they fall out of compliance, they loose the government nipple, then they shutdown. That simple really.

nate895
04-15-2010, 09:46 PM
well again, we have differentiate between public and private hospitals, and those accepting public money... I hate to say I agree if you take public money you are subject oversight... which is why people shouldn't take public money nor should it be given out

But if you take it... enjoy the consequences

If we are talking about a government system, then it should be up to the values of the community. If the community doesn't believe in doing that, and they are the ones giving them money (I really don't accept the idea that Medicare and Medicaid payment for services somehow enslaves the business owners anyway), then they should set the rules, not the POTUS.

Anti Federalist
04-15-2010, 09:50 PM
It's their property....

No, not gonna buy that.

The medical establishment has been in bed with government since before the Harrison Narcotics Act.

They are one of largest receivers of my extorted tax dollars.

They are one of the single largest lobbying groups.

And then they think they can play petty "god games" like a bunch of two bit Napoleons, and not just on this issue but many others as well.

If this was some truly independent, small, free enterprise being dictated to by government, I'd agree.

But the medical establishment trying to play the "it's our property" line, oh hell no.

Screw 'em, you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

AlexMerced
04-15-2010, 09:51 PM
If we are talking about a government system, then it should be up to the values of the community. If the community doesn't believe in doing that, and they are the ones giving them money (I really don't accept the idea that Medicare and Medicaid payment for services somehow enslaves the business owners anyway), then they should set the rules, not the POTUS.

Well, although the community at the federal level is too big and diverse in opinion at federal the peoples will becomes so aggregated the only thing ethical is to open up all public projects.

On the local level in small communities that can affect the decision made in their lives I would agree with you. At the federal level I as an individual have much less influence and am competing with 1,000,000s of other opinions. So again, it depends where the funds come from.

If the local community gave the money that one thing, but if you getting money from medicare/medicaid then you've just given yourself to a new monster.

Point being, The Federal Government needs to be dismantled, then the next battle will shrink state local governments so that way small communities can make these decisions.

John E
04-15-2010, 10:12 PM
Is this really a problem?

Actually, yes, it was a problem for some lady and her lover who were vacationing down south (florida?). The lover became ill and died at the hospital and the lady wasn't able to visit in the final hours because she wasn't recognized as a spouse (I think they were legally married but my memory might be fuzzy there).

Is it a huge issue? no, probably not. But its one where common sense hasn't kicked in yet.

John E
04-15-2010, 10:18 PM
AS for the private / community comments...

what if they were black instead of gay/lesbian? should they be denied the right to see their loved ones in their final hours like the lady I mentioned above? The "store" owner has the right to deny service to a particular person but do they have a right to deny service to a class of people?

I feel in such a case that denying visitation to the lesbian/gay couple is doing some harm to them where-as allowing that person to visit does no harm to the hospital / store / community because that person could very well sit in the waiting room or on the property line if you wanted to get real technical about it.

edit to add:

That's a problem that we as a sociaty are still dealing with ... people here are saying "why label people by race, we should be treating everyone equally regardless of color" but then we go ahead and do things like this where by gay/esbians can't do something short of getting some type of protected status.

AlexMerced
04-15-2010, 10:23 PM
AS for the private / community comments...

what if they were black instead of gay/lesbian? should they be denied the right to see their loved ones in their final hours like the lady I mentioned above? The "store" owner has the right to deny service to a particular person but do they have a right to deny service to a class of people?

I feel in such a case that denying visitation to the lesbian/gay couple is doing some harm to them where-as allowing that person to visit does no harm to the hospital / store / community because that person could very well sit in the waiting room or on the property line if you wanted to get real technical about it.

edit to add:

That's a problem that we as a sociaty are still dealing with ... people here are saying "why label people by race, we should be treating everyone equally regardless of color" but then we go ahead and do things like this where by gay/esbians can't do something short of getting some type of protected status.

I agree, people don't take prejudice against gays as seriously as that of race, when it's not different, but the solution is freedom.

Fox McCloud
04-15-2010, 10:36 PM
Who the fuck is a hospital to say who can visit, outside of safety and health considerations?

well, you are on their property and they should have the right to accept/deny anyone they want for any reason at all.

Anti Federalist
04-15-2010, 10:37 PM
well, you are on their property and they should have the right to accept/deny anyone they want for any reason at all.

See post 18 Fox.

;)

John E
04-15-2010, 10:49 PM
Besides the points raised in post #18,

A business open to the public at large, has to expect that will service the public at large, without discrimination of race, creed, origin, sexual preferences, hair style, Body Mass Index #, or fill in the blank here.

When you open a business that caters to THE PUBLIC, that is your decision. You don't get to complain because you don't like people with blond hair.

Fox McCloud
04-15-2010, 10:55 PM
See post 18 Fox.

;)

I really don't see how that's really that relevant, to be honest, and it's a very dangerous ideology to follow, as well, because if you make a statement such as that, you can easily justify just about any industry or set of people being regulated by the government.


Besides the points raised in post #18,

A business open to the public at large, has to expect that will service the public at large, without discrimination of race, creed, origin, sexual preferences, hair style, Body Mass Index #, or fill in the blank here.

When you open a business that caters to THE PUBLIC, that is your decision. You don't get to complain because you don't like people with blond hair.

incorrect; if I don't want to hire or server people with pink hairs and polkadotted socks, that's my personal choice--it's silly to do so, yes, but never the less, it's their property; if you can sue for being expelled from their property (for whatever reason) then this implies you have a right to a portion of their property, which you do not.

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 11:27 PM
Focus.

The federal government should have no say in this matter.

It should be up to the states. Covered within the states constitution. Hospitals are not federally owed property. At least not yet.

I'm sure I'll get the riot act over civil rights.

If you believe in a limited federal authority then you can't pick and choose the issues that you support.

I've got no problem with gay couples having "partners" granted full rights.

I believe if there is a problem then it can be solved on a local level.

Hospitals are not private. They receive both state and federal funds.

State law needs to prohibit federal funding of hospitals.

Reason
04-16-2010, 01:47 AM
YouTube - BREAKING: Pres Obama Orders Same-Sex Couples Hospital Visitation Rights! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ogA5zzi5c)

silus
04-16-2010, 02:03 AM
It's their property....
But yet its a pretty widely accepted medical standard that hospitals can't refuse to treat an ailing person. Its not a rights issue, its a morality issue from the perspective of those capable of treating patients. Which is why any rational individual would wonder the purpose of denying the visitation from loved ones at even a private hospital. Which makes me wonder how significant of an issue this actually is, because I can't imagine many hospitals denying a patients loved ones from seeing them.

Promontorium
04-16-2010, 02:26 AM
I really don't see how that's really that relevant, to be honest, and it's a very dangerous ideology to follow, as well, because if you make a statement such as that, you can easily justify just about any industry or set of people being regulated by the government.

What isn't regulated by the government?

There isn't a hint of "community" or "morality" or "individuality" left in these public hospitals, but the *** bashing continues.

It is federal land, the government owns the hospitals in all ways but matter, and has a better grasp on their balls then they have on states.


also, you ignored valid points to fit your needs.

Just remember, making the point that government can justify taking over anything is valid. Anti-Fed didn't just reveal a big secret. The government is taking over and justifying it.

Captain Bryan
04-16-2010, 03:31 AM
I completely agree with Obama's sentiment here.
I just don't like big government telling a business how it can and can not be ran.

noxagol
04-16-2010, 05:41 AM
I don't understand why the hospital would regulate so heavily who can and cannot go see someone. If I were running a hospital, I would let the patient allow whatever visitor they wanted. They need comfort and uplifting during their stay, which actually helps them recover from whatever they suffer from. Denying this is poor customer service.

bobbyw24
04-16-2010, 05:54 AM
Is this really a problem? It sounds like grandstanding. I think anybody who wants to hang by the bedside of an unconscious person is free to do so unless members of the family object or they get in the way.

No-I was an attorney under the Ryan White Act (all my clients had HIV or AIDS) and the hospitals often times would not allow gay partners to be with their dying significant others since they were not "family."

dean.engelhardt
04-16-2010, 06:12 AM
this is the hospital's call.....not Big Government's

I agree with most posters here. It is not the hospital's call, it is the the presidents call. It is the patient's call.

QueenB4Liberty
04-16-2010, 06:13 AM
I can't believe there is anyone here that would disagree with this. If you're going to use the my property argument if the hospital doesn't like gays then why even treat them in the first place?

dean.engelhardt
04-16-2010, 06:29 AM
I can't believe there is anyone here that would disagree with this. If you're going to use the my property argument if the hospital doesn't like gays then why even treat them in the first place?

I think the government's proper role is to give citizens a legal venue to sue for pain and suffering when a hospital denies the patient visitation of loved ones.

There's a great free market answer. Publicize hospitals that have anti-patient visit policies. The gay and lesiban communities love to demonstarte against discrimination. The community should expose these hospitals directly with marches and media appeals.

My opinion is this will be far more effective than federal legistalation.

ChaosControl
04-16-2010, 07:14 AM
The one reason I could say I support this instead of leaving it up to the hospital is due to the nature of it all. You have a heart attack at work or out and about, someone calls 911, ambulance takes you where ever. You get treated at hospital. You didn't choose that particular place, you didn't voluntarily agree to their rules and such. So I can see allowing such. Granted I do not really think it is the federal governments called, more like the county government.

It isn't quite the same as being refused service at a store where you can just go somewhere else.

georgiaboy
04-16-2010, 07:41 AM
Why is the president of the United States of America even addressing this issue? So not part of the job description.

Icymudpuppy
04-16-2010, 07:52 AM
I think any visitation restrictions are silly.

What about your best friend?

What about your coworkers?

What about your god children?

The list goes on. A loved one doesn't have to be related in any way.

amy31416
04-16-2010, 08:07 AM
I think any visitation restrictions are silly.

What about your best friend?

What about your coworkers?

What about your god children?

The list goes on. A loved one doesn't have to be related in any way.

I agree, to a point.

Last time I had to go to the ICU, a young "gang" member had been shot and was there alongside the person I was going to visit. The waiting room was like East LA with kids running around and screaming, people talking loudly in Spanish, people dressed like thugs n' hoes with tattoos all over their necks. And if you've ever spent some time in the ICU--that is not a place to be screwing around, with doctors and nurses trying to police gangstas.

So what about that sort of situation? Hospitals have to be able to restrict visitation somehow, in order to keep an orderly situation.

That said, I've never been to a hospital that demanded someone be, or prove that they are, a blood relative, but I suspect they may have pulled that "rule" out for the gang member who was shot in order to keep things under control.

Icymudpuppy
04-16-2010, 08:12 AM
I agree, to a point.

Last time I had to go to the ICU, a young "gang" member had been shot and was there alongside the person I was going to visit. The waiting room was like East LA with kids running around and screaming, people talking loudly in Spanish, people dressed like thugs n' hoes with tattoos all over their necks. And if you've ever spent some time in the ICU--that is not a place to be screwing around, with doctors and nurses trying to police gangstas.

So what about that sort of situation? Hospitals have to be able to restrict visitation somehow, in order to keep an orderly situation.

That said, I've never been to a hospital that demanded someone be, or prove that they are, a blood relative, but I suspect they may have pulled that "rule" out for the gang member who was shot in order to keep things under control.

So, no restriction on who a person is, but I would go along with restrictions on behavior.

No shouting, No running, No Horsing around or you will be told to leave.

Pretty straight forward.

MelissaWV
04-16-2010, 08:20 AM
The "blood relative" rules are insane, but they do exist... usually more in a life-or-death situation, or when someone who was brought in can't be consulted as to who they want in there with them due to being incapacitated. You're also allowed in, of course, if you're married to the person in question. That thought always repulsed me. Up until February, if I'd gotten into a serious wreck, the people who could have visited were my family (they and I don't get along really well), or my husband (while we were still not officially divorced). Somehow I don't take comfort in the idea of being in a coma surrounded by people who've tried to kill me :eek:

I agree, though, that hospitals have a right to enforce environmental standards. This may include limiting the NUMBER of visitors, the HOURS visitors are allowed into the rooms, and for pity's sake the amount of time that people are left to roam the hallways coughing and wheezing and obviously sick. People have had their snot-nosed children running around touching door handles and things when I've been at hospitals. It's really off-putting, especially when you realize people recovering from serious illnesses already, or on the mend after surgery, are succeptable to colds and flu and such. Hospitals should be entirely within their rights to regulate visitor behaviors (no smoking, no booze, no bringing stinky "comfort" food, no unauthorized drugs, and so on) but since the person who was carted in didn't really pick and choose which hospital they ended up in, they shouldn't suffer and possibly die alone because the hospital has an outdated policy along these lines.

amy31416
04-16-2010, 08:31 AM
The "blood relative" rules are insane, but they do exist... usually more in a life-or-death situation, or when someone who was brought in can't be consulted as to who they want in there with them due to being incapacitated. You're also allowed in, of course, if you're married to the person in question. That thought always repulsed me. Up until February, if I'd gotten into a serious wreck, the people who could have visited were my family (they and I don't get along really well), or my husband (while we were still not officially divorced). Somehow I don't take comfort in the idea of being in a coma surrounded by people who've tried to kill me :eek:

I agree, though, that hospitals have a right to enforce environmental standards. This may include limiting the NUMBER of visitors, the HOURS visitors are allowed into the rooms, and for pity's sake the amount of time that people are left to roam the hallways coughing and wheezing and obviously sick. People have had their snot-nosed children running around touching door handles and things when I've been at hospitals. It's really off-putting, especially when you realize people recovering from serious illnesses already, or on the mend after surgery, are succeptable to colds and flu and such. Hospitals should be entirely within their rights to regulate visitor behaviors (no smoking, no booze, no bringing stinky "comfort" food, no unauthorized drugs, and so on) but since the person who was carted in didn't really pick and choose which hospital they ended up in, they shouldn't suffer and possibly die alone because the hospital has an outdated policy along these lines.

I've spent a fair share of time with nurses and nothing will piss them off more than bringing children to the hospital. The germs that they could transmit and/or newborns could pick up in a hospital could end up being killers. The newborn could start wailing, the kids can get into all sorts of insanity (seriously, if I was a kid around all that equipment, with buttons and tubes and cords... :eek: )

Nurses just don't have the time to police things, and I've never met one who would enforce the "family only" rule--not to say that it's okay to keep such rules on the books, but I've never heard or seen it being enforced (not to say it doesn't happen.) When my mother was sick, the doctors and nurses were very welcoming to my mother's friends, just as much as they were to my brother and I. Of course, I also gave the doctors/nurses the permission to fully discuss the case with them, so perhaps it was a different situation.

I just haven't seen this as being a huge deal relative to the many, many other problems we have in our medical system.

pcosmar
04-16-2010, 08:40 AM
Personally, I hate hospitals. They are full of sick and possibly contagious people.
I would not have reason to be there at all if not for a loved one. Whether family or a very close friend.
I have been allowed in with friends (non family) in the past.

Fox McCloud
04-16-2010, 10:34 AM
a number of you guys seem to be ignoring the larger issue here; this problem isn't the fault of the hospital in any case; it's a problem of government getting involved in marriage and conferring special rights and privileges it does not deserve. Marriage is a contract between two private individuals; no more, no less. If we didn't have government defining what marriage is or isn't, then I'd wager that this wouldn't be a problem in any sense of the word--it'd be living wills that would ultimately be the proof/say in who makes the decisions if you are unconscious, or even a contract.

That said, even under these conditions, if the hospital wants to deny any individual for whatever reason and this is stated in their policy, then this over-rides everything else, as they are the property holders.

I'm really perplexed how much of a interventionist bent (and I'm not talking foreign policy here) Ron Paul forums has taken, of late...whatever happened to the non-aggression axiom, private property rights, contractual agreements, and keeping the government out of how a business is run?

MelissaWV
04-16-2010, 10:48 AM
a number of you guys seem to be ignoring the larger issue here; this problem isn't the fault of the hospital in any case; it's a problem of government getting involved in marriage and conferring special rights and privileges it does not deserve. Marriage is a contract between two private individuals; no more, no less. If we didn't have government defining what marriage is or isn't, then I'd wager that this wouldn't be a problem in any sense of the word--it'd be living wills that would ultimately be the proof/say in who makes the decisions if you are unconscious, or even a contract.

That said, even under these conditions, if the hospital wants to deny any individual for whatever reason and this is stated in their policy, then this over-rides everything else, as they are the property holders.

I'm really perplexed how much of a interventionist bent (and I'm not talking foreign policy here) Ron Paul forums has taken, of late...whatever happened to the non-aggression axiom, private property rights, contractual agreements, and keeping the government out of how a business is run?


You just said what most of us have said. Sometimes, restating "Government has no place in marriage" seems so redundant I don't do it. Marriage should have nothing to do with any of this. The last person I want to see right now happens to be the only one I ever married :p Not everyone gets around to writing a living will, and certainly they don't get around to updating it and distributing it to every hospital in the country. This is why most of us are saying it's up to the hospitals to set a policy, but that a policy based on "relation to the patient" seems pretty stupid. I know that I, at least, am not advocating the Government enforce that.

silentshout
04-16-2010, 10:49 AM
I have no problem with this.

Fox McCloud
04-16-2010, 11:09 AM
You just said what most of us have said. Sometimes, restating "Government has no place in marriage" seems so redundant I don't do it. Marriage should have nothing to do with any of this. The last person I want to see right now happens to be the only one I ever married :p Not everyone gets around to writing a living will, and certainly they don't get around to updating it and distributing it to every hospital in the country. This is why most of us are saying it's up to the hospitals to set a policy, but that a policy based on "relation to the patient" seems pretty stupid. I know that I, at least, am not advocating the Government enforce that.

my post wasn't in reference what you said, but what icymudpuppy, anti federalist, specsaregood, silus, John E, bobbyw24, and others (and the general bent of this thread) have stated.

MelissaWV
04-16-2010, 11:12 AM
my post wasn't in reference what you said, but what icymudpuppy, anti federalist, specsaregood, silus, John E, bobbyw24, and others (and the general bent of this thread) have stated.

Yeah... right after I posted that, someone posts "I have no problem with this."

Foot... mouth...

:o

TonySutton
04-16-2010, 11:34 AM
What is the free market fix for this issue?


In February 2007, Miami’s Jackson Memorial Hospital denied Janice Langbehn access to her partner of eighteen years, Lisa Marie Pond, who had collapsed due to a brain aneurysm while preparing to board a cruise ship. For hours, hospital staff refused to allow Janice access even after a legal power of attorney was faxed to the hospital.

Fox McCloud
04-16-2010, 12:00 PM
What is the free market fix for this issue?

those hospitals that do not discriminate (for any reason) will likely earn more profits than those that do not.

John E
04-16-2010, 12:02 PM
Tony, -- that was the issue I was raising earlier in this thread. That is just inexcusable.



So what about that sort of situation? Hospitals have to be able to restrict visitation somehow, in order to keep an orderly situation.


Yes, it is a hospital - not a theme park - and a semblance of peace and quiet is required for the rest and well being of the staff and patients. Usually, the hospital has the option of restricting the NUMBER of visitors (which is not unreasonable) and they could possibly eject people for behavior. Both are circumstantial and based on various factors. Denying people just visitation rights just because of their color or sexual preference is another matter entirely.



a number of you guys seem to be ignoring the larger issue here; this problem isn't the fault of the hospital in any case; it's a problem of government getting involved in marriage and conferring special rights and privileges it does not deserve.


I agree but right, wrong or otherwise, it is the fault of the hospital when they decide to decline visitors rights to a legally married couple like in the case Tony referenced above.




That said, even under these conditions, if the hospital wants to deny any individual for whatever reason and this is stated in their policy, then this over-rides everything else, as they are the property holders.


Certain classes of services do not have those entitlements.

- Police have to respond to a crime regardless of the persons color, height, weight or sexuality.

- Firefights have to respond to a fire regardless of the persons color, height, weight or sexuality.

- Hospitals are required to take patients regardless of a host of circumstances.

- To that extent, I don't believe Pharmacists should be able to deny fulfilling medically valid perscriptions. If they have a moral objection to doing their job, they should choose a line of work where they aren't forced to compromise their principles.

Point being -- its private property but you can't deny someone service because you don't like the color of their skin or their sexual preferences. Your very arguement is why such laws had to be enacted in the first place and liberty as a whole is suffering for it. You can't eliminate the laws when it would create harm to others rights. I think that's where your logic is failing -- the rights of the individual only count when its the business owner, not the customer as it were.




I'm really perplexed how much of a interventionist bent (and I'm not talking foreign policy here) Ron Paul forums has taken, of late...whatever happened to the non-aggression axiom, private property rights, contractual agreements, and keeping the government out of how a business is run?


I support these ideals and I agree with many of Ron Paul's statements but not everything. Society isn't perfect and sometimes common sense must prevail.



those hospitals that do not discriminate (for any reason) will likely earn more profits than those that do not.

And how is that ensuring the liberty and justice of the woman who wasn't able to see her loved one in her final moments? we were given the courts and our laws to establish a universal rule of law but we were given jury's because the founding fathers knew that common sense has to prevail and that no law can cover every contingency.

M House
04-16-2010, 12:12 PM
Hahaha, hospital visitation rights are so fucking gay anyway. I could not tell my family not to visit me. Sure I could but then the hospital was like "Why so hostile?" and they came anyway. And my brother had no problem bringing his **** pals with him every-time. There was a visitation limit of like 2 people, and they pick shitty hours too. I mean seriously, I'm not doing piss all day. A few people who were not family who visited me had some problems. However, this one friend just claimed to my preacher and he got in whenever he wanted. He was like a ghost. O yeah, I was in the psych department for one of my stays. So in addition to having the family visit when I didn't really want them around, they kept tabs on my behavior during family visits. There's other really funs things to mention as well, but visitation is a true blast. Often incredibly stupid rules like you can't bring a candy bar but hard candy is acceptable. A couple of times, some people brought me food and they couldn't give it to me. Nothing is better for your health than an all hospital food diet. Truly a wonderful experience, and I'd love to do it again some time with the healthcare system. When all is said and done, I don't mind Obama giving them shit. They do suck terribly and take alot of money from the government and state. Personal opinion, unless your dying you don't wanna be anywhere near one.

Free market fix, is to let people actually have some more say in the payment process. However thanks to the Doctors and the Hospitals themselves. They will just happily leech off yer insurance regardless, or have the government pay them. There is really no incentive for simple improvements. Have you ever thought about why you have to feed the machine just to see a doctor? I know their special and all, but hell if the vet charged you a hefty sum for the visit people wouldn't bring their pets in. Too many people want it this way or it'd change. It is literally it's own ecosystem at this point, and you're just a small part of the diet.

MelissaWV
04-16-2010, 12:14 PM
those hospitals that do not discriminate (for any reason) will likely earn more profits than those that do not.

The trouble with that being the determining factor is that people don't "shop around" for emergency rooms in life-or-death situations. The earnings are more likely to be tied to the amount of accidents/shootings/etc. in the area coupled with the ability of victims to pay.

That does complicate matters slightly.

What makes a bit more sense is to say that donors and other sources of support for hospitals will not be forthcoming if a hospital has a nasty reputation. That is cold comfort to those whose loved ones helped "create" that reputation, true, but it seems more likely than just pointing to profits and saying those that discriminate will fail. Donors and sources of funding are important when it comes to keeping facilities up to date, attracting better staff, having new equipment, and so on. In the kind of society being discussed, it also is important for things like a hospital's "charity fund" (if they choose to have one), where people who can't pay their bill can apply for aid.

The reality of the entire situation, though, is that I hope sincerely we get to a point where we can argue this all in fact and not in theory.

angelatc
04-16-2010, 12:20 PM
I agree with most posters here. It is not the hospital's call, it is the the presidents call. It is the patient's call.

That's a nice sentiment, but often very sick people aren't really conscious as to who is visiting them.

Fox McCloud
04-16-2010, 12:27 PM
Yes, it is a hospital - not a theme park - and a semblance of peace and quiet is required for the rest and well being of the staff and patients. Usually, the hospital has the option of restricting the NUMBER of visitors (which is not unreasonable) and they could possibly eject people for behavior. Both are circumstantial and based on various factors. Denying people just visitation rights just because of their color or sexual preference is another matter entirely.

it's another matter entirely in so far as its classified, but it's not another matter in so far as how the hospital can treat it; the hospital is still the policy maker for their own property; if they are not allowed to discriminate (for any reason) you have a coercive claim to their property.



I agree but right, wrong or otherwise, it is the fault of the hospital when they decide to decline visitors rights to a legally married couple like in the case Tony referenced above.

How can you agree if you don't understand? The so called "rights" of being married are completely fabricated; they're positivist rights and not negative phone, therefore they're completely artificial, so your argument is a moot point, as positive rights involve a claim on another individuals property, which, last I checked, is a form of theft.





Certain classes of services do not have those entitlements.

- Police have to respond to a crime regardless of the persons color, height, weight or sexuality.

- Firefights have to respond to a fire regardless of the persons color, height, weight or sexuality.

- Hospitals are required to take patients regardless of a host of circumstances.

- To that extent, I don't believe Pharmacists should be able to deny fulfilling medically valid perscriptions. If they have a moral objection to doing their job, they should choose a line of work where they aren't forced to compromise their principles.

Police and firefighters shouldn't be able to discriminate, currently because they're full blown government owned and operated institutions; if and when we witness wide-scale formation of private police and fire organizations, then this rule should not apply, as they're a private organization and not a government institution.

Hospitals are required to take patients, yes, but once again, this is a positivist right that is an artificial fabrication of the state; it shouldn't exist, as, once again, it violates private property rights and freedom of association.

Your statements on pharmacists really shows your statist inclinations in this particular matter; you're, in essence, asserting that if someone doesn't operate and think just like you do in a particular regard, they shouldn't be in that particular profession. While I may think, personally, it's silly to deny someone medication or service based on age, height, race, sex, sexual-orientation, hair-color, etc, I have to recognize people's right to their own property and freedom to associate (or not) with the individuals they so choose; again, I cannot stress enough that to force a company (or anyone) to not discriminate is assigning artificial positivist rights to a great number of groups that ultimately violates property holders property rights.


Point being -- its private property but you can't deny someone service because you don't like the color of their skin or their sexual preferences. Your very arguement is why such laws had to be enacted in the first place and liberty as a whole is suffering for it. You can't eliminate the laws when it would create harm to others rights. I think that's where your logic is failing -- the rights of the individual only count when its the business owner, not the customer as it were.

I don't think you fully comprehend what exactly "liberty" is, in this regard; liberty is the right to do anything you want so long as you don't physically commit aggression against another human individual. Denying someone service is not physical aggression, especially if it's directly stated in the policy (if however it's stated in a company policy, and they do discriminate, then you can sue them). The reason why laws against discrimination were passed isn't because of people like myself, but because of an inherent misunderstanding of liberty, a distrust of the beauty of the free market to eliminate discrimination purely based on profit-motive, and a desire to further concentrate power to mold society in the way they deem fit. Lastly, your characterizing of me of only supporting rights for a business owner and customer further show that you're either obfuscating my point, that you're refusing to understand it, or that you misunderstand it entirely. Everyone has a single right; the right not to be coerced by another individual or group, physically. These rules can and do change however when there's a policy involved (and you agree to it)....a prime example of this is Walter Block's "Murder Park"--if there's a park with clearly defined rules that say that you and anyone else in the defined boundaries can kill one another while in the park, and everyone inside is aware of this, then there is no coercion involved, as it's voluntary rules that are agreed upon by those that enter; if you don't agree with it, then you do not enter.



I support these ideals and I agree with many of Ron Paul's statements but not everything. Society isn't perfect and sometimes common sense must prevail.

And how is that ensuring the liberty and justice of the woman who wasn't able to see her loved one in her final moments? we were given the courts and our laws to establish a universal rule of law but we were given jury's because the founding fathers knew that common sense has to prevail and that no law can cover every contingency.

Liberty and property rights are the common sense approach as they are the only way we have right, as Rothbard explains (are you ware of the mechanics of liberty? IF not, I recommend a heavy dose of www.mises.org to help cure any statist mentality). To force your ideals or ways upon another person is out and out coercion, and again (I cannot stress this enough), to assign someone a positive right to assign them a claim to your property, which is just a fancy way of saying the government has legalized theft.

edit: I might also add that you should not confuse my statements for actually supporting discrimination; I'm against it, in the vast majority of cases, but I have to recognize property rights (I also have to keep in mind one of the definitions of liberty "supporting the right of someone to do something, even if you dislike what they're doing").


The trouble with that being the determining factor is that people don't "shop around" for emergency rooms in life-or-death situations. The earnings are more likely to be tied to the amount of accidents/shootings/etc. in the area coupled with the ability of victims to pay.

That does complicate matters slightly.

Sure it does complicate matters a bit, but what complicates it even more is that most hospitals have a monopoly on their service in a town (how many cities have you been in that have multiple hospitals?). Most of them get the local governments to grant them the monopoly right to operate service in a specific area, so, many times, you're "stuck with what the government legislates you".

That said, I could easily see a case developing (if we so had a system) where if we had a truly free market, patients would have the ability to specify where they were to be taken (ie: nearest hospital, hospital X, Y, Z, etc)...those that did not specify would then, ultimately, have to be stuck with wherever the emergency crew took them.


What makes a bit more sense is to say that donors and other sources of support for hospitals will not be forthcoming if a hospital has a nasty reputation. That is cold comfort to those whose loved ones helped "create" that reputation, true, but it seems more likely than just pointing to profits and saying those that discriminate will fail. Donors and sources of funding are important when it comes to keeping facilities up to date, attracting better staff, having new equipment, and so on. In the kind of society being discussed, it also is important for things like a hospital's "charity fund" (if they choose to have one), where people who can't pay their bill can apply for aid.[/quote[

This will go a lot further than you think; investors will, out of self interest, invest in a hospital that has little to no discrimination than one that has a lot, simply from the matter that it'll bring in more patients and generate more revenue ad profit. Pretty amazing how the market works, isn't it? =3

[quote]The reality of the entire situation, though, is that I hope sincerely we get to a point where we can argue this all in fact and not in theory.


I know....sadly, at the rate we're going, I doubt we'll ever see a society like you and I are talking about, though, I've been proven wrong in the past.

Epic
04-16-2010, 12:52 PM
this is the hospital's call.....not Big Government's

Hospitals are basically all run by the government nowadays.

In a free market, this would resolve itself because patients want it, so hospitals would do it to increase consumer satisfaction.

TonySutton
04-16-2010, 01:21 PM
Doctors and by extension the hospitals should be self policed on issues like this. I say this because of the Hippocratic Oath the doctors take to do no harm. I believe it is harmful to the patients to not have people of their choosing at their bedside when they are in the hospital.

Does anyone know if there is a hospital or medical organization which should handle issues like this?

Since I work in the electronics industry I always fall back on the UL as a good example of private policing of an industry. People like to see the UL label on the products they buy so companies get their products tested to US standards. It works very well and I wish more industries would police themselves similarly.

Fox McCloud
04-16-2010, 01:40 PM
Since I work in the electronics industry I always fall back on the UL as a good example of private policing of an industry. People like to see the UL label on the products they buy so companies get their products tested to US standards. It works very well and I wish more industries would police themselves similarly.

sadly, the government has taken the role of "policing industrires" so there's little to no incentive to a private organization to do so--why get a hypothetical "toy is safe" stamp when the government already does this--you'll end up paying for the government certification and the private one, which, naturally, drives up costs.

Of course, there's some areas the government hasn't been able to coerce...yet; for example, the CCNA and CCNP are excellent example of private, voluntary licensing (and one of my personal favorites to use for "but, how would we know who was a good doctor and who wasn't if we abolished medical licensing?").

The AMA would probably qualify as an organization that fits your criterion, but the problem is they currently have access to vast amounts of political power and hold the monopoly on medical licensing, so, well, you it's far less of an "American Medical Association" and more of a "American Doctors Union".

.Tom
04-18-2010, 04:01 PM
But the hospitals aren't really private property.

They're so in bed with the government and they receive so much corporate welfare that to say they meet the libertarian definition of justly acquired property is preposterous.

Sure, in an ideal world they would be completely private with no involvement with the state whatsoever, but since they decided to sleep with the diseased whore known as the state, they're going to have to play by the state's rules, and I don't feel sorry for them.

Vessol
04-18-2010, 04:06 PM
Who the fuck is a hospital to say who can visit, outside of safety and health considerations?

This.

furface
04-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Let the lawsuits commence. This is all about employing attorneys, of course.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100420/ARTICLES/100429976/1349?Title=Lawsuit-alleges-abuse-of-gay-rights-in-Sonoma-County

furface
04-22-2010, 05:09 PM
Update on Sonoma County story. This is a cause looking for a problem.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100421/ARTICLES/100429900?p=1&tc=pg



County officials were flooded Wednesday by e-mails from around the world decrying what has been viewed as discrimination and a trampling of rights because of the men’s sexual orientation.

Gregory Spaulding, lawyer for the county, said an Internet letter-writing campaign has filled the in-boxes of elected officials and staff members named in the multi-million dollar suit from Greene. Stories about the case appeared over the weekend on the sites of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Bilerico Project. The furor has spilled onto Facebook, with angry supporters calling for political action and boycotts of Sonoma County businesses.