Credit when credit is due. Thanks Urkel. Yeah, I know. A lot of you perhaps didn’t know that gays couldn’t claim family status in order to visit their partner in a hospital. Normally it wouldn’t be an issue, but if for some reason someone wanted to keep you out they could legally. Until now.
The WaPo in their coverage says this is a part of the gay marriage debate. Yes and no. What it does tell you is even without gay “marriage” the Fed can do a lot with the stroke of a pen to eliminate much of the crazy systemic discrimination homosexuals face on a daily basis. Like this.
Of course, while this is a good thing, the bottom line is DeathCare doesn’t discriminate at all when it comes to the lives (and quality of life) we all enjoy. The odds are also, with DeathCare, we’re gonna be visiting loved ones in hospices (if we can get a hospital bed at all) once the destruction of ObamaCare starts to set in. If we let it.
Obama orders hospitals to grant same-sex couples visitation rights
President Obama on Thursday signed a memorandum requiring hospitals to allow gays and lesbians to have non-family visitors and to grant their partners medical power of attorney.
The president ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation. The memo is scheduled to be made public Friday morning, according to an administration official and another source familiar with the White House decision.
An official said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding.
The decision injects the president squarely into the debate over gay marriage by attempting to end the common practice by many hospitals of insisting that only family members by blood or marriage be allowed to visit patients…
Affected, he said, are “gay and lesbian American who 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.”
This is a good thing. Those visiting restrictions were always for the convenience of the hospital staff anyway, not for the best interests of the patients.
I remember seeing a sign in a hospital ICU when I was a child that said, “Immediate Family Members Only.” Even then I thought there was something wrong with that. What if the patient’s most loved person is one who is not related to them? I now work for a hospital; patients need all the love and support they can get through visitors, not the extra stress of knowing their partner could be restricted from seeing them.
I don’t know why some people (who supposedly know me) are shocked when I say something like this report is very good news. What? You can’t be a Christian Conservative (both fiscally and socially) and recognize that allowing gay partners to visit loved ones in the hospital free of hostility is a matter of common decency? Personally, I am happy to hear this, though I believe granting medical power of attorney without some safeguards could be abused, but then the same could be said of married partners. (I remember one trajic case in particular.)
People who know you are shocked? I don’t know you, but I’m not. No conservative Christian was ever indecent to me. Peace to you. 🙂
You’re right, granting medical power of attorney without some safeguards could be abused. However, that’s the risk you take if you grant someone a Medical POA without ensuring certain limits are specified in the POA. I for one don’t want to see the nanny state come in and set those limits for me. That should be for me to decide, in consultation with my attorney who drafts the POA. Limited government is a good thing.
Letting sick people in medical marijuana states have their weed, and this. So far, that’s two things I can think of that he has done right. Too bad that everything else he’s doing seems to be aimed at destroying the country.
Woe to the soul who can be bought so cheaply.
back in the 80s there was a case that had a big impact on gay people, especially since it happened right when AIDS deaths started to escalate. it wasn’t somewhat resolved until 1991 through the courts. a woman in a committed relationship with another woman was rendered wheelchair bound and suffered brain damage in a car accident- at first she was in a coma. once her father was appointed her guardian, he denied her lover any access to her and shuttled her off to a far away institution. i was horrified and terrified at what happened.
http://www.danpinello.com/Kowalski2.htm
you go along with your life thinking things aren’t so bad, you do what you want with whom ever where ever, maybe flying under the radar thinking you are free and have rights, doing what you want with your life, and then something like this points out exactly where you stand legally- when something terrible happens rendering you vulnerable to a grave inequity supported by law and legal precedent. instead of demanding religious institutions had to do this or that the gays ought to have been fighting all along to change things like this- portions of secular law that did not provide equal protection to certain people.
it’s grotesque that it’s taken so long. thanks barry.
Finally! It’s nice to be able to say I agree with this president on something. This was indeed the right thing to do.
I didn’t know the President had the power to make decrees to intrude into what happens in private businesses like that. I thought that was the time-honored passtime of Congress.
Chris — That’s what should concern everyone about this edict. The President’s “authority” rests on the fact the hospitals receive federal money for Medicare and Medicaid. This is the sort of government assumption of powers we worry about with Obamacare. The Executive Branch of government should not have the right to punish and reward with a stroke of a pen. That fact should not be overlooked even if the outcome is one we may applaud.
That’s a great point Pat, and it gives me an idea. If a hospital wants to drop Medicaid and Medicare patients, all they have to do is exclude gay partners, and be denied those funds. Heck, they could exclude clergy, spouses and children too. I’ve never understood that goofey rule anyway. Most people are uplifted by a visit from anyone except tommy the eraser. I have always thought that we should not give a President Clinton power that we would deny to a President Nixon.
I would have to say I disagree. While many hospitals are private businesses, often patients in the situations addressed by Obama’s action are not given a choice as to which hospital they’re admitted to. And private business or not, they have NO RIGHT whatsoever to disregard their patients wishes and/or legal documents (such as Medical POAs or advance directives). Patients have a right to choose who will visit them in the hospital and who will make medical decisions on their behalf. No government or private entity has the right to impede the rights of the patient. If these hospital policies were clear upfront and patients who were critically ill had the ability to choose a different hospital, I might agree with you, but in this case I think this decree was necessary. Short of a law passed by congress, threatening their funding is the most effective way to get the attention of hospital personnel who too often are pursuing their own agenda instead of doing what’s truly best for the patient.
I tell the Hospitals to NOT ALLOW any visitors. My recovery time is better that way. No One. Visitors not allowed near me.
*evil grin*
I’m gay and I find this appalling.
What authority does he have to do this? This is yet more abuse of their (the Fed Govt) extortion method. I’m utterly disgusted by this.
He still makes me sick. I wish I didn’t have such bad feelings about my own President but it is what it is. I just hope in the years to come that we have a country left to be gay in.
I’m listening to Tammy talk abou tthis on her podcast.
WHat I dont get is why is this framed as a “rights” issues? This has nothing to do with rights.. it has to do with individual hospital policy. If you dont like the policy go to a different hospital.
Vince, often going to a different hospital is not an option. If someone is critically ill, they may have to go to a certain hospital because of the hospital’s capabilities or because there is only one hospital in the area (I live in an area that has only one hospital). The bottom line is, what gives the hospital the right to ignore a patient’s legal directives (Medical POA or advance directive)? I understand that you don’t like the goverment intruding on the rights of individuals or businesses (I don’t either), but what about businesses intruding on the rights of individuals? Many hospitals are the only game in town and when that’s the case, and you take federal money, then the President and/or Congress can dictate certain requirements for that money. If hospitals don’t like it and insist on intruding on individuals’ rights to make their own decisions, then they can opt out of Medicare and Medicaid funding. Many would have to close their doors, but that’s a choice they’re free to make.
I would like to think this is noble on it’s face, but it reeks of pandering to drum up votes.
Just two things, Tammy:
1. Why is this even necessary? Where is the push to encourage all people to put advance directives in place so that it is pre-determined who will be involved in proxies, powers of attorney, and decision making…
and
2. If the patient requests certain people not be allowed to visit, does the O’s edict usurp the patient’s wishes, if one of those on the ‘do not allow’ list is gay?
Does the President really have the power to just dictate to private businesses what their policies must be?
Daredevil,
1. This is necessary because there have been numerous cases where Medical POAs and advance directives were ignored by hospitals (especially when the POA or directive was written in a state other than the one where the hospital is located). Everyone should have a Medical POA and advance directives, but there is no absolute guarantee that a hospital will abide by them. Personally, I think legislation needs to be passed that provides an avenue for major penalties against any hospital that ignores the patients legally stated wishes. If the hospital has a moral dilemma with complying with the patients’ wishes, they should transfer the patient to another hospital which will comply, but keeping the patient there and ignoring their wishes is a violation of the patient’s rights.
2. If the patient requests people not be allowed to visit, I don’t know of a hospital that wouldn’t abide by those wishes. And I’ve seen nothing in Obama’s edict that would usurp the patients wishes. On the contrary, Obama’s order ensures that the patients wishes be followed .
3. The president does have the power to dictate certain things to private businesses when they receive federal funding (Medicare and Medicaid). He isn’t requiring any hospital to do anything. Rather he is stating that those facilities that do not honor their patient’s wishes will not be permitted to receive federal funds. It’s plain and simple.
Too many on here are getting too alarmed unnecessarily. If Obama was passing a law that said hospitals that don’t comply will be shut down, seized by the government, or have major fines levied against them, I’d be concerned. However all he’s done is said that those who do not have the COMMON DECENCY to abide by the patient’s wishes will not be permitted to receive taxpayer dollars in the form of Medicare and Medicaid funding.
Lets look at this beyond our desires at the moment shall we. They just closed 60 hospitals in this country and you are talking about who can visit? There will be a shortage of doctors AND there are doctors that have told us they will quit before they participate in this system. What are we talking about???? We are going to have the IRS going after us to pay for our health care. Oh they can say we are covered, for what??? Where are we going to go? Who will we see for treatment? Now they are saying nurse practitioners will be there to take care of us, really. It’s oh so nice that he threw this into the mix at this time when he is creating chaos everywhere else. I agree we should be able to visit our loved ones but right now we have bigger problems like where will this all take place and will we be able to be treated!
If Obama can let in certain people to see you in the hospital by executive order, he can also FORBID SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS TO CHECK IN ON YOU TOO BY EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT YOU IN THE HOSPITAL MAY WANT TO BE VISITED BY.
Before anyone goes out celebrating his executive order, its time you think about the long-run implications of this executive order (which I described above) before you break out in celebration. We have come to the situation where a sitting President can reach into your life and decide who you will see via Executive Order. This matter is a legislative issue not an executive issue.
Um, have you read the order? The fact is, hospitals are violating people’s rights by not honoring advance directives, medical POAs and even the patient’s verbally stated wishes. This order addresses this and it doesn’t require or prohibit hospitals from doing anything. It simply says that if you want to receive federal funding in the form of Medicaid and Medicare dollars (the latter being a significant chunk of many hospitals’ revenues), then hospitals must abide by patients’ wishes. Hospitals may choose to have policies that ignore patients’ wishes, but they won’t receive taxpayer dollars. This is well within the power of the president-that’s why Executive Orders exist. I know that some of you have such blind hatred for the President that you can’t see anything clearly, but at least try to be somewhat objective. This Executive Order is no more harmful than any other Executive Order issued by any other president. This order upholds the right of the individual to make their own decisions, which is a true conservative principle. Just as we should not have a “nanny state” dictating what people can and cannot do (with limited exceptions) neither should we have “nanny corporations/hospitals” doing the same. Businesses have a right to set policies, but when the policies intrude on the rights of the individual, they ought not receive taxpayer dollars.
I am not alarmed by any of this, but I believe that it deserves ALOT of discussion to ferret out the deeper consequences, especially those that could be unintended. And it is certainly NOT plain and simple… just to be clear.
Two things:
1. Are Medicare and Medicaid really “federal funding” as in “subsidized”? As one who is on Medicare, I can promise you that the monthly premium I pay for it, and the 30 years of taxes that I paid into it, does not exactly qualify it in my book as “federal funding” ~ it operates as an extremely low paying insurance company. Medicaid on the other hand is a different monster I suppose. And with the Medicare and Medicaid cuts that are coming, more and more hospitals will probably figure out how to bail on Medicare/caid patients. Except for the Hill Burton Hospitals which are the pure essence of “federally funded” hospitals.
2. I agree with bjohnson73 about this: “Personally, I think legislation needs to be passed that provides an avenue for major penalties against any hospital that ignores the patients legally stated wishes.” I believe that this covers the problem nicely without pandering to a voting base…