Obama orders end to the practice of denying same-sex partners hospital visits
 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/15...gays-lesbians/

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."

"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."

Why on earth would the federal government get involved in this?

Because Medicare and Medicaid are federal government programs. So, the federal government has the right to force those who receive those funds to adhere to their policies. The hospital also has the right to say no to the federal government policies by not accepting Medicare and Medicaids.

Welcome to the Obama Dictatorship
 

Regardless of how I feel about denying same-sex partners hospital visits, especially since we're talking about gov't funded programs, I must say this:

Obama's turning out to be a dictator whose legacy will not be what people assumed that it would be. He's simply not as great as people thought he was. He was simply better than what many considered to be the alternative (Obama vs. "dem people").

Some of the biggest dictators and exploitative leaders of the world have been great orators who were able to draw crowds and distract people with their speech.

FAIL.

He's dictating on the side I believe in, so WIN.

I agree. He's telling hospitals that they can't discriminate against their patients. Big Win!

And to DGTess and Dr. Phil-- This rule hurts the hospitals how? Hell, most hospitals will let anyone and their mama into a patient's room. If they are refusing a patient's gay partner...that is discrimination. It is stressful to the patient and is counterproductive to the care of the patient. How would you like to have your loved ones banned from your room when you are at your weakest?

^^This...

Anything within legal and medical reach to help the patient get better must be explored.

Is this really a problem?

I agree, this is how dictatorships are established.

First rule is to legislate things that are good for the people so the people will start giving you that trust.

But hey its not like he is running from an old play book. That was Bush II and the Patriot act.

The problem is people are so polarized by 24 hour news cycles they don't realize that both the right and the left are moving closer and closer to being ruled by the fringe.

At the same time though since it is my tax dollars and I agree with this stance if a hospital is receiving my tax dollars they should adhere to what I believe in. Just like on the other side, I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions.

I'm failing to see how this is a dictatorship in the making.

I mean this happening after years of having administrations that wouldn't even let same sex partners even manage each others' insurance or be exexutors of their care, segregated hospitals, even denying interracil couples the right to visit their sick loved ones.

So, someone please explain to me how this anti discrimination step is a bad move?

I'm pretty sure Hitler made a similar decree at some point.

But really... I ask again. Was this even really a problem? Are we now just scoring free points with key constituencies?

I don't know whether this is a problem. I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt, have quite a few gay friends and have never heard of anything like this happening here.

I really have zero problem with this rule as a matter of course, but does the President even have the power to do this? Isn't the spending power solely under Congress' control?

I guess to find out, we'll have to have a hospital who really wants to keep gay partners apart and is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect their right to do so.

I don't see this as a problem but then on the other hand Virginia just rolled back Civil Rights for homosexuals.

Unrelated, I know, but it just goes to show some people have certain disregard when this comes into question

The 7 Commandments of Animalism.

The seventh and most important being, All animals are equal.

- George Orwell's Animal Farm.

I know personally I always raise an eyebrow when the government tries to legislate morality. Does that mean that it will cause the rise of the Anti-Christ and many years of sorrow? No I doubt it because our government currently has a lot of check and balances to prevent it. Doesn't mean it isn't impossible though, so I will raise an eyebrow and always question, "Why do you feel it is necessary to force this issue." Even if on the surface it is a good thing and something I agree with.

I've never heard of the hospital preventing someone from seeing his/her same sex partner. Usually it's a next-of-kin, like a homophobic parent or jealous child from a previous heterosexual relationship, who's raising hell.

I have never heard of it happening either. Hospitals have long since relaxed their policies about visitation. I thought the only stringent requirements they had related to whether visitors are sick and may spread disease to the patient.

Me either.

Godwin's Law!!!! :p

I kid.

I don't know. I've had some understanding that lots of hospitals have a "relatives only rule," at least in some cases. That would exclude partners in states that don't recognize gay marriage, which is, of course, the vast majority of states. I'd be interested in whether AOIIAngel and some of the other medical prople around here see it as addressing a real problem or just as window-dressing, or some of both.

Gotcha. Yeah, I can definitely imagine that.

I HAVE heard of partners being denied access to their loved one in the hospital. It IS important that partners are able to make medical decisions and have access to each other in the hospital just like a heterosexual couple. I know of a gay man that was denied access to his partner in the hospital when he was dangerously ill because the patient's parents did not agree with their relationship and took over...and of course the law was on their side, so had the patient died, his partner wouldn't have even been able to say goodbye.

However...can the president just do that?

The president has, as I understand it, directed the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the executive agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, to promulgate regulations concerning same-sex couples and visitation issues. Though I haven't looked at the relevant statutes, I have little doubt that Congress has given DHHS fairly broad rule-making authority.

So, the DHHS can do it. And since DHHS is an executive agency under the president and the Secretary of which serves at his pleasure, the president can direct DHHS to do that. Other than the headline-grabbing subject matter of this particular rule, there's really nothing out of the ordinary about it.

Is water still wet today?

While, I'm glad that it got rid of...him "ordering" it seems to be rather dictatorial. It's the means that matter, the end is not always as important.

Where is "ordering" coming from? The actual memo "requests" that DHHS take three specific "steps."

He's done nothing more than exercise the authority every president has had for a long time. And if Congress thinks he overstepped his authority, they can always negate what he's done.

I'l roll with your bottom line on this one. Although, I'm not a supporter if same-sex marriages, I do believe that gay partners need to be afforded some basic human rights, such as visitation.
That being said, forcing hospitals to extend visitation to non-family members is a slippery slope to start off with, and this method of implementation is even worse.....

Question... is this more of a gay marriage issue than anything else?

Are the "partners" who are being denied access joined by civil union in states where such a thing is allowed? Or have these partners decided, with their significant other, to simply spend their lives together?

If a hospital has a "not family? No visit" policy, then they're just following policy. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.


And aside from all of that... Aren't there more important things to worry about? I haven't heard of this being a major problem, but this is what we're focusing on? I feel that in some cases, Obama is reaching for small "victories" to overshadow big mistakes.

This should also be a reminder to people, regardless of the individual genders of a couple, or legal marriage status: have legal documents for what you want for your life if you are unable to make your own choices. Even if you're single this is a good idea, and there are often clinics and workshops done by volunteer members of the bar while supervising law students. This can also be beneficial to family and friends as trying to make important decisions during an emotional time can lead to disaster.

Yeah. Next we'll be allowing the family dog into the patients' rooms... then horses, then pigs and rattlesnakes.

I totally see your slippery slope thing.

Mind you, I'm all for all the visitors the patient wants. Last time I was hospitalized, I told the staff "NO visitors but my spouse and son" and told them no more than 1/2 hour each day -- but that's me. When I'm sick I don't want to see anyone.

The point, though, is this is NOT a federal government issue. Medicaid and Medicare don't pay for visitors, so that argument is specious.

Nor do I think it's a big issue. It's just another "in your face" desire.

That's always how it begins.

Oh it certainly has happened and was very common early in the gay rights movement and in the early days of the AIDS epidemic. I'm very good friends with a gay couple (actually following them to Arizona.) One of them is a psychologist who specializes in couples therapy. He sees mostly gay couples but has been practicing in NYC since the 60s. He has told me so many sad stories of couples who couldn't visit their partners as they died in hospitals from complications of AIDS. They also couldn't inherit and often lost their homes after the death of their loved ones.

I do wonder what hospitals are still doing this, but there are still many catholic hospitals out there and other religious institution associated hospitals, as well as hospitals in very conservatives areas that may be refusing to let people visit their partners in the hospital. Just because we don't know about cases doesn't mean it still doesn't occur.

Yes it happens and yes, it is a problem. ICU rules almost always state "family only". If your same sex partner IS your family, they should be able to be there.

It is a federal government issue because because it is a civil rights issue.

All Presidents make executive orders. ALL. GW made 291 of them. Chill people.

And from reading the memo, I think this is really the point -- who the patient wants (or doesn't want) to come in should trump a hospital's "family only" rule. As I read, it does no more than say that if a patient wants a companion to whom he or she is not legally married or in a civil union with to come be able to visit, the hospital can't say "No, family only."

I can see some concern about the federal goverment being involved to begin with, but I can see the other side, too.

This. (Only I don't think this even rises to the level of an executive order).

And a lot of people didn't "chill" when GW made some of his "executive orders."

Yep.

It shouldn't just be about what people PERSONALLY agree with. People are quick to speak out when it's something they don't agree with. For everything that you (in general) personally agree with, there are people who disagree with it. More importantly, there are people such as myself who can think about the potential outcome of something regardless of whether we personally agree with it.

THIS!

I think that this is a great thing he is doing! GO OBAMA!

Just about the only decree Hitler made about Gays put them in the camps along side the Jews.

Request sounds like an order if the DHHS wasn't planning on doing it in the first place.

He's exercised more of these types of authorities than most Presidents in a looong time. This wouldn't be a big deal if it was a one-time event. But it's a repetition of "orders", condemnations of other branches of government which hold his power in check, and situations where his orders supercede Constitutionality.

So you say....give some data. If you look at AGDs post, Bush made a lot of executive orders. It's the right of the president to do so. Just because you don't like what he does doesn't mean he's doing anything out of the ordinary.

has guantanamo closed yet?