Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

***

...the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. Obama's order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.

***
The new rules will not apply only to gays. They also will affect widows and widowers who have been unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. And they would allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05502.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's about friggin time! And anyone that is against this (calling John St. Wronge!) is a complete a-hole!

Amazing it's taken this long to make this happen. Absolute lunacy not to allow this.

GannonFan wrote:Amazing it's taken this long to make this happen. Absolute lunacy not to allow this.

Its people like this that have held it up.

"The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage," [Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council] said.

About time. But it needs to be a law. The next president could reverse it.


And note, this is for all unmarried people - gay or straight.

I heard that on the radio this morning on my way to class and we ended up talking about it for the entire class period for my gender differences class. Good news indeed

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Amazing it's taken this long to make this happen. Absolute lunacy not to allow this.

Its people like this that have held it up.

"The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage," [Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council] said.

Come on, the Family Research Council is holding it up? Again, there's just no reason for this not to have happened 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. There's a serious lack of political courage, on both sides of the aisle, if we couldn't have gotten this done before now, especially considering this is such a widely supported move. Just get 'er done.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
Its people like this that have held it up.

Come on, the Family Research Council is holding it up? Again, there's just no reason for this not to have happened 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. There's a serious lack of political courage, on both sides of the aisle, if we couldn't have gotten this done before now, especially considering this is such a widely supported move. Just get 'er done.

Of course its lack of political courage. Its also because guys like Bush actually agree with groups like the Family Research Counsel, Focus on the Family, etc....

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Come on, the Family Research Council is holding it up? Again, there's just no reason for this not to have happened 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. There's a serious lack of political courage, on both sides of the aisle, if we couldn't have gotten this done before now, especially considering this is such a widely supported move. Just get 'er done.

Of course its lack of political courage. Its also because guys like Bush actually agree with groups like the Family Research Counsel, Focus on the Family, etc....

But when has this come up that it's been voted down in either Congress or Presidential veto? For all of the things we tack onto various bills, and the fact that Congress has been equally shared by both parties for the past 25 years (and may have been even more Democratic in that time) for this not to even come up for a vote is astounding.

I may not get all the issues here but it seems to me that this one issue paints a picture of some of the stuff that is simply absolutely wrong with this country. I understand that litigation may be behind some of this but geez.

1) Why in the hell can't an individual chose who is able to visit them and make health decisions on their behalf? Why do we stop an individual from making that choice?
2) Why wouldn't a hospital allow the individual to make that decision? Is it state law? fear of litigation?
2) And while I agree with the order from an intellectual and moral standpoint, it is very scary that the president can dictate policies such as this with an executive order? Of course he shouldn't have to in the first place. And I understand he can do it because the hospitals take medicare and medicaid payments but that misses the broader issue.

What am I missing? It seems to me that if we respected individual's ability to control their own lives this would not be an issue period.

OL FU wrote:I may not get all the issues here but it seems to me that this one issue paints a picture of some of the stuff that is simply absolutely wrong with this country. I understand that litigation may be behind some of this but geez.

1) Why in the hell can't an individual chose who is able to visit them and make health decisions on their behalf? Why do we stop an individual from making that choice?
2) Why wouldn't a hospital allow the individual to make that decision? Is it state law? fear of litigation?
2) And while I agree with the order from an intellectual and moral standpoint, it is very scary that the president can dictate policies such as this with an executive order? Of course he shouldn't have to in the first place. And I understand he can do it because the hospitals take medicare and medicaid payments but that misses the broader issue.

What am I missing? It seems to me that if we respected individual's ability to control their own lives this would not be an issue period.

And either would gay marriage or marijuana use or a host of other so-called controversial issues that a lot of our elections are centering around.

OL FU wrote:I may not get all the issues here but it seems to me that this one issue paints a picture of some of the stuff that is simply absolutely wrong with this country. I understand that litigation may be behind some of this but geez.

1) Why in the hell can't an individual chose who is able to visit them and make health decisions on their behalf? Why do we stop an individual from making that choice?
2) Why wouldn't a hospital allow the individual to make that decision? Is it state law? fear of litigation?
2) And while I agree with the order from an intellectual and moral standpoint, it is very scary that the president can dictate policies such as this with an executive order? Of course he shouldn't have to in the first place. And I understand he can do it because the hospitals take medicare and medicaid payments but that misses the broader issue.

What am I missing? It seems to me that if we respected individual's ability to control their own lives this would not be an issue period.

Executive orders still can be overruled by Congress either by passing a law that explicitly goes against whatever the Order is, or Congress can choose not to fund the Order. And Executive Orders still need to be based on some law, although obviously vague language can be turned into anything if you really want to.

OL FU wrote:I may not get all the issues here but it seems to me that this one issue paints a picture of some of the stuff that is simply absolutely wrong with this country. I understand that litigation may be behind some of this but geez.

1) Why in the hell can't an individual chose who is able to visit them and make health decisions on their behalf? Why do we stop an individual from making that choice?
2) Why wouldn't a hospital allow the individual to make that decision? Is it state law? fear of litigation?
2) And while I agree with the order from an intellectual and moral standpoint, it is very scary that the president can dictate policies such as this with an executive order? Of course he shouldn't have to in the first place. And I understand he can do it because the hospitals take medicare and medicaid payments but that misses the broader issue.

What am I missing? It seems to me that if we respected individual's ability to control their own lives this would not be an issue period.

You are not missing much.

I find the entire thing disconcerting. All three of the things I mentioned are baffling

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:I may not get all the issues here but it seems to me that this one issue paints a picture of some of the stuff that is simply absolutely wrong with this country. I understand that litigation may be behind some of this but geez.

1) Why in the hell can't an individual chose who is able to visit them and make health decisions on their behalf? Why do we stop an individual from making that choice?
2) Why wouldn't a hospital allow the individual to make that decision? Is it state law? fear of litigation?
2) And while I agree with the order from an intellectual and moral standpoint, it is very scary that the president can dictate policies such as this with an executive order? Of course he shouldn't have to in the first place. And I understand he can do it because the hospitals take medicare and medicaid payments but that misses the broader issue.

What am I missing? It seems to me that if we respected individual's ability to control their own lives this would not be an issue period.

And either would gay marriage or marijuana use or a host of other so-called controversial issues that a lot of our elections are centering around.

I am not sure I get the connection. I mean yes I do, if we left the issue up to individuals then there would be no issue. I think we should leave those issues up to individuals also. But the other issues have controversy surrounding them. This one to me seems pretty damn cut and dry. Whether I am gay or straight, if there is a person that I want to have visitation rights, well give them visitation rights. I suppose the problem might be if someone is comatose. I suppose I have been sleeping well lately and am simply rambling along in confusion.

OL FU wrote:
1) Why in the hell can't an individual chose who is able to visit them and make health decisions on their behalf? Why do we stop an individual from making that choice?
.

I've never understood this either. I've got a good anecdote for this issue.

My grandma befriended (and became very close to) an old woman whose closest family was a daughter of her half-sister who lived over 1000 miles away. She had no siblings and no kids. She wasn't very outgoing either and didn't make a lot of friends. When this woman fell deathly ill my grandma basically had no visitaiton rights. Yet my grandma meant so much to her that she left her a good bit of money (around $10,000) in her will. Why on earth could you not extend visitation rights to close friends who are for all intents and purposes family?

Just make it a policy that an individual can choose, and then gays can have this right without the fundies working to repeal it.

While I recognize the significance of this order, part of me wants to simply shrug my shoulders and say OK, so that's done. Duh.

It's a damn shame it took an executive order to make such a simple common sense thing a reality.