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

[KSUViolet06]

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."

[DGTess]

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

[moe.ron]

Obama requested that the regulation make clear that any hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding

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.

[DrPhil]

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.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

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?

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.....

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

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.....

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.

[Senusret I]

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

He's dictating on the side I believe in....

That's always how it begins.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

I feel the same way, and from the Canadian standpoint, discriminating against someone based on the sexual orientation would be deemed a violation of their human rights in Canada. The addition of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination has been part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1996.

[AOII Angel]

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?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[Kevin]

Is this really a problem?

[Alumiyum]

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?