Obama orders hospital visitation rights for gays, lesbians

[bobbyw24]

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.



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/...ion/index.html

[ChaosControl]

Will this cover non-married straight couples as well?

[bobbyw24]

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]

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]

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]

Who the $#@! is a hospital to say who can visit, outside of safety and health considerations?

[sofia]

barry wants his gay lover Reggie Love to be able to visit him when the time comes....

[Bruno]

"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]

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]

Uhh...how could hospitals deny someone visitation to someone they care about????

[sofia]

this is the hospital's call.....not Big Government's

[AlexMerced]

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]

Who the $#@! is a hospital to say who can visit, outside of safety and health considerations?

It's their property....

[aravoth]

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]

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]

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 $#@! 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Who the $#@! 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

YouTube - BREAKING: Pres Obama Orders Same-Sex Couples Hospital Visitation Rights!

[silus]

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]

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.