• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obama orders hospital visitation rights for gays, lesbians

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dead Man

Member
Probably a already posted in PoliGAF, but thought it might warrant its own thread. Mock etc.

Source: CNN
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.

Read the president's memorandum (PDF)

The president listed widows and widowers without children and members of certain religious orders among those who suffer under the policy.

The memo was welcomed by gays and lesbians, who have used the restrictions on hospital visitation as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

"In the absence of gay people being able to legally marry in most jurisdictions, this is a step to rectify a gross inequity," said David Smith, an executive at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "Because without gay marriage, much more inequities exist. It should be applauded."

Smith said the organization had been working with the Obama administration for months on the request, and that it was sparked by the case of an Olympia, Washington, lesbian couple who were kept apart as one died from an aneurysm while hospitalized in Miami, Florida. The rule would help hundreds of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families, he said.

Obama's memo also requires the HHS regulations to guarantee hospitals honor all patients' advance directives, which include stipulations such as who should make health care decisions if the patient isn't able to do so. The memo also directs the department to look into any other health care barriers that pose challenges to such families and make recommendations to the president on them within 180 days.

He pointed out that North Carolina recently amended its Patients' Bill of Rights to give each patient "the right to designate visitors who shall receive the same visitation privileges as the patient's immediate family members, regardless of whether the visitors are legally related to the patient." Delaware, Nebraska and Minnesota have adopted similar laws, the memo said.

Personally I'm surprised this wasn't always the rule. If a patient wants to see someone, especially someone who may have a Power of Attorney, why would a hospital prevent that? And why would they not honour living requests or advance directives?
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
This is good, I suppose. But wouldn't be a fucking issue if people would quit being dicks and let gays marry coast to coast.
 

Dead Man

Member
lexi said:
I actually see this as a setback towards achieving gay marriage.
Yeah, probably, but I still think it is a good move, and better for general human rights.

Edit: What I mean is, it is important for everybody to be able to have the people they want visit them, not just married people. So although it was a good argument for gay marriage, I think it was missing the point. Everyone needs to have access to their loved ones, married or not.
 
lexi said:
I actually see this as a setback towards achieving gay marriage.

Marriage is a State by State issue. Obama is doing what he can federally to grant the homosexuals some more rights here. Hence the "hospitals that accept Medicaid or Medicare" part. And this is an essential one in my opinion. I'm really happy about this. Would gay marriage by better? Yes, but since it's a state right, this is progress.
 

JBaird

Banned
Great, allow all the people with low immune systems to be exposed to the gay, Obama is turning America gay.

but seriously I didn't even know they weren't allowed to in the first place, what a stupid rule.
 

Cep

Banned
Times like this I am glad I voted for the guy, now if only he would initiate conversation on tort reform, I would vote for him in '12 without thought.
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
Cep said:
Times like this I am glad I voted for the guy, now if only he would initiate conversation on tort reform, I would vote for him in '12 without thought.


TORT REFORM WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
 

Alphahawk

Member
lexi said:
I actually see this as a setback towards achieving gay marriage.

I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, however in todays cultural climate legalization of gay marriage is likely going to happen later as opposed to sooner, this can take effect immediatly...
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
ToyMachine228 said:
Marriage is a State by State issue. Obama is doing what he can federally to grant the homosexuals some more rights here. Hence the "hospitals that accept Medicaid or Medicare" part. And this is an essential one in my opinion. I'm really happy about this. Would gay marriage by better? Yes, but since it's a state right, this is progress.

Lets not kid ourselves here. If Congress really wanted to force states to allow gays to marry, they could. They flex their muscles over issues that are nominally under the purview of the states by attaching federal funds to state compliance. For example, look at the way they forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 by tying compliance to receipt of federal funds for highways. I'm sure Congress could find some source of funding that is comparably relevant to gay marriage in order to attempt to force the states to allow it.
 

Cep

Banned
sprsk said:
TORT REFORM WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Hardly(I am not delusional), but there are kinks in the legal system that I would like to worked out, besides, it could pre-empt a lot of the stupidity that is bound to come out of the repubs if they win later this year.
 

Cep

Banned
mre said:
Lets not kid ourselves here. If Congress really wanted to force states to allow gays to marry, they could. They flex their muscles over issues that are nominally under the purview of the states by attaching federal funds to state compliance. For example, look at the way they forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 by tying compliance to receipt of federal funds for highways. I'm sure Congress could find some source of funding that is comparably relevant to gay marriage in order to attempt to force the states to allow it.

Except that way would make things turn really ugly, really quick.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
What's great is that this is bigger than letting gays have visitation rights. This is about getting rid of the stupid family-only rule and letting patients see whomever they wish in their times of need.

Bravo Obama for delivering small but much appreciated change.
 
Cep said:
Times like this I am glad I voted for the guy, now if only he would initiate conversation on tort reform, I would vote for him in '12 without thought.
Obama did initiate conversation on tort reform, starting last year. The Party of No took their ball and ran home:


Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.
Source: Time
 
mre said:
Lets not kid ourselves here. If Congress really wanted to force states to allow gays to marry, they could. They flex their muscles over issues that are nominally under the purview of the states by attaching federal funds to state compliance. For example, look at the way they forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 by tying compliance to receipt of federal funds for highways. I'm sure Congress could find some source of funding that is comparably relevant to gay marriage in order to attempt to force the states to allow it.

You could fight the fight, but that's not a fight Congress or Obama wants to have. Obama is facing big government claims left and right, he's been called a Fascist, he's been called a Communist, he's been called a Nazi...I don't think he wants to be accused of taking away states rights. Plus he's never actually said he supports gay marriage. He has said he wants to take steps, like this to give gays more rights, but he's never said he supports gay marriage. Whether he's being politically cautious, or he really doesn't support it, I'll let you decide.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
Cep said:
Except that way would make things turn really ugly, really quick.

No doubt. I just think it's a bit of a misstatement to say that "Obama is doing what he can federally to grant the homosexuals some more rights here." There's more that can be done, but considering the man himself is against gay marriage (unless he's changed his stance since he was elected?), I suppose that we should view this as a positive step while acknowledging--as others in this thread have pointed out--that it may ultimately hinder the march towards marriage equality.
 

Gaborn

Member
lexi said:
I actually see this as a setback towards achieving gay marriage.

I agree with this actually. First, let's point out that what this DOESN'T do, and frankly nor should it, would be to allow gay person X without any legal standing or advance directive to make medical decisions for an unconscious patient. This would obviously be a bad idea since, of course, if you didn't have any reasonable reason to believe a person was related to/acting in a patient's interest but were required under the law to allow any person to make medical decisions just on their word it would be possible for almost anyone to come off the street and claim they knew patient John Doe and wanted to approve whatever treatment.

With that said, in practice what this DOES do is create another way in which gay couples are treated differently than straight couples. Straight couples don't require advanced directives or living wills to act. Straight couples don't have to name their spouse as having medical power of attorney to have their wishes respected, married couples are PRESUMED (unless there's a question of mental competence of course) to be authorized to make those decisions for their spouse in the event they can't make them themselves.

So, what then does this do for gay couples? Well, it does allow visitation rights for the handful of hospitals that would actively keep a gay couple deliberately apart. But it also gives the ILLUSION of eliminating extra hoops that gay couples are forced to jump through to be treated the same as any other committed married couple. It lets the uniformed masses read a nice story that sounds like common sense and think "Well, that's solved then." In other words, it lowers peoples rage meter at the way we're treated, at the hoops we're forced to jump through to have the same rights and recognition as anyone else. This is fine as far as it goes... but goes just far enough to make it clear Obama has no interest in really treating gay couples the same as heterosexual couples.
 

harSon

Banned
whitehawk said:

Gaborn school of thought.

Basically, they think people will settle for less as the boundaries between marriage and non-marriage diminish. For example, people may settle for civil unions and be reluctant to push further for gay marriages should the former be made into law. I personally don't buy it but that's the theory.
 

Dead Man

Member
Gaborn said:
I agree with this actually. First, let's point out that what this DOESN'T do, and frankly nor should it, would be to allow gay person X without any legal standing or advance directive to make medical decisions for an unconscious patient. This would obviously be a bad idea since, of course, if you didn't have any reasonable reason to believe a person was related to/acting in a patient's interest but were required under the law to allow any person to make medical decisions just on their word it would be possible for almost anyone to come off the street and claim they knew patient John Doe and wanted to approve whatever treatment.

With that said, in practice what this DOES do is create another way in which gay couples are treated differently than straight couples. Straight couples don't require advanced directives or living wills to act. Straight couples don't have to name their spouse as having medical power of attorney to have their wishes respected, married couples are PRESUMED (unless there's a question of mental competence of course) to be authorized to make those decisions for their spouse in the event they can't make them themselves.

So, what then does this do for gay couples? Well, it does allow visitation rights for the handful of hospitals that would actively keep a gay couple deliberately apart. But it also gives the ILLUSION of eliminating extra hoops that gay couples are forced to jump through to be treated the same as any other committed married couple. It lets the uniformed masses read a nice story that sounds like common sense and think "Well, that's solved then." In other words, it lowers peoples rage meter at the way we're treated, at the hoops we're forced to jump through to have the same rights and recognition as anyone else. This is fine as far as it goes... but goes just far enough to make it clear Obama has no interest in really treating gay couples the same as heterosexual couples.
I think it is just as important that non married people of all sexualities can have their loved ones near. I don't think keeping artificial barriers in place to increase anger is a good strategy. Gay marriage needs to be seen as a natural right, not a solution to a problem. Also, if this rule was not in place, non married gay couple and non married hetero couples would still be out of luck even if gay marriage was available.
 

Gaborn

Member
ToyMachine228 said:
Marriage is a State by State issue. Obama is doing what he can federally to grant the homosexuals some more rights here. Hence the "hospitals that accept Medicaid or Medicare" part. And this is an essential one in my opinion. I'm really happy about this. Would gay marriage by better? Yes, but since it's a state right, this is progress.

I think you mean GAY marriage is a state by state issue. Heterosexual (adult) marriage was settled as a fundamental right by Loving v. Virginia.

idahoblue - I agree that keeping artificial barriers in place is not a good "strategy." What I disagree with is that supporting the removal of those barriers which are artificially put in place by society's disapproval of gay rights is a "strategy." I would call that a fundamental defense of human rights.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
mre said:
No doubt. I just think it's a bit of a misstatement to say that "Obama is doing what he can federally to grant the homosexuals some more rights here." There's more that can be done, but considering the man himself is against gay marriage (unless he's changed his stance since he was elected?), I suppose that we should view this as a positive step while acknowledging--as others in this thread have pointed out--that it may ultimately hinder the march towards marriage equality.

as someone from a country that does have gay marriage i can say without a doubt that a) obama is not actually against gay marriage but is not politically able to say so and b) actions like this do nothing to stop the move towards marriage equality
 

Cep

Banned
Gaborn said:
I agree with this actually. First, let's point out that what this DOESN'T do, and frankly nor should it, would be to allow gay person X without any legal standing or advance directive to make medical decisions for an unconscious patient. This would obviously be a bad idea since, of course, if you didn't have any reasonable reason to believe a person was related to/acting in a patient's interest but were required under the law to allow any person to make medical decisions just on their word it would be possible for almost anyone to come off the street and claim they knew patient John Doe and wanted to approve whatever treatment.

With that said, in practice what this DOES do is create another way in which gay couples are treated differently than straight couples. Straight couples don't require advanced directives or living wills to act. Straight couples don't have to name their spouse as having medical power of attorney to have their wishes respected, married couples are PRESUMED (unless there's a question of mental competence of course) to be authorized to make those decisions for their spouse in the event they can't make them themselves.

So, what then does this do for gay couples? Well, it does allow visitation rights for the handful of hospitals that would actively keep a gay couple deliberately apart. But it also gives the ILLUSION of eliminating extra hoops that gay couples are forced to jump through to be treated the same as any other committed married couple. It lets the uniformed masses read a nice story that sounds like common sense and think "Well, that's solved then." In other words, it lowers peoples rage meter at the way we're treated, at the hoops we're forced to jump through to have the same rights and recognition as anyone else. This is fine as far as it goes... but goes just far enough to make it clear Obama has no interest in really treating gay couples the same as heterosexual couples.

Good points, though I WILL say that hetero-married couples are presumed to have these rights solely because they are on paper as married and thus this grants these to them.

So ultimately, we are still back at the 'legalize gay marriage already' thing, just that now some rights are being given in the meanwhile.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
harSon said:
Gaborn school of thought.

Basically, they think people will settle for less as the boundaries between marriage and non-marriage diminish. For example, people may settle for civil unions and be reluctant to push further for gay marriages should the former be made into law. I personally don't buy it but that's the theory.

I actually think she meant that visitation rights is one of the main arguments for allowing gay marriage. Many straight people identify with this issue and are more sympathetic towards gay marriage as a result. Now that it is going to be legislated many straight people may be less sympathetic towards gay marriage.

==========================


Also, I frankly don't care. This is just Obama's attempt to appease the gays for his inaction on other gay issues. Repeal DADT and ENDA and DOMA.
 

Dead Man

Member
Gaborn said:
I think you mean GAY marriage is a state by state issue. Heterosexual (adult) marriage was settled as a fundamental right by Loving v. Virginia.

idahoblue - I agree that keeping artificial barriers in place is not a good "strategy." What I disagree with is that supporting the removal of those barriers which are artificially put in place by society's disapproval of gay rights is a "strategy." I would call that a fundamental defense of human rights.
I think I don't understand what you are saying here, sorry.
 

Cep

Banned
i_am_ben said:
I actually think she meant that visitation rights is one of the main arguments for allowing gay marriage. Many straight people identify with this issue and are more sympathetic towards gay marriage as a result. Now that it is going to be legislated many straight people may be less sympathetic towards gay marriage.

==========================


Also, I frankly don't care. This is just Obama's attempt to appease the gays for his inaction on other gay issues. Repeal DADT and ENDA and DOMA.

Agreed, but give the man some room.

He has lost a lot of political capital because of healthcare.
 

harSon

Banned
i_am_ben said:
I actually think she meant that visitation rights is one of the main arguments for allowing gay marriage. Many straight people identify with this issue and are more sympathetic towards gay marriage as a result. Now that it is going to be legislated many straight people may be less sympathetic towards gay marriage.

==========================


Also, I frankly don't care. This is just Obama's attempt to appease the gays for his inaction on other gay issues. Repeal DADT and ENDA and DOMA.

Isn't that what I said?
 

Gaborn

Member
Cep said:
Good points, though I WILL say that hetero-married couples are presumed to have these rights solely because they are on paper as married and thus this grants these to them.

Sure, although I can't remember hearing a hospital requesting a wife/husband being asked to provide their marriage license prior to being allowed to make medical decisions for their spouse. Even so, with a stroke of the pen essentially spouses have communal property rights, they have medical power of attorney, they have an easy path to adopting their spouses pre-existing children, etc. All the hoops that gay couples have to jump through are a lot easier just because of that one signature on a piece of paper.

So ultimately, we are still back at the 'legalize gay marriage already' thing, just that now some rights are being given in the meanwhile.

Yes. Some rights are being given to gay couples.... why? Why bother to deny us other rights while granting us these? Because that is what this is about fundamentally. By saying we can get some of the rights of marriage Obama's implication is we can't get OTHER rights associated with married couples. That we're fundamentally less worthy than other couples.

Idahoblue - I thought I was pretty clear. You misunderstood my position. I'm not against this move per se - I applaud the fact that the barriers are being lowered, I just think the effect this will have, chilling the push for marriage equality by seeming to eliminate an argument for gay couples (that we can't visit a sick and unconscious loved one) is PERCEIVED as no longer accurate, even though this barrier is only lowered for gay couples who have bothered to jump through a bunch of hoops that a MARRIED couple doesn't have to jump through. So, I'm angry that there is most probably going to be less pressure for full equality because of the perception this tweak is going to create.
 
idahoblue said:
I think I don't understand what you are saying here, sorry.
He's saying idiots are slowing the process of common-sense human decency. Which I agree with, but as Dr. Leo Marvin advised in What About Bob (and as our government has induced righteous change in the past), "Baby steps."
 
Gaborn said:
But it also gives the ILLUSION of eliminating extra hoops that gay couples are forced to jump through to be treated the same as any other committed married couple. It lets the uniformed masses read a nice story that sounds like common sense and think "Well, that's solved then." In other words, it lowers peoples rage meter at the way we're treated, at the hoops we're forced to jump through to have the same rights and recognition as anyone else. This is fine as far as it goes... but goes just far enough to make it clear Obama has no interest in really treating gay couples the same as heterosexual couples.

Agreed.
 

harSon

Banned
Gaborn said:
Yes. Some rights are being given to gay couples.... why? Why bother to deny us other rights while granting us these? Because that is what this is about fundamentally. By saying we can get some of the rights of marriage Obama's implication is we can't get OTHER rights associated with married couples. That we're fundamentally less worthy than other couples.

To be fair, concessions are typically followed by sweeping change within civil rights issues. You're certainly in your right to fight for change that is swift and absolute, and I hope that you one day get it, preferably sooner than later, but the overwhelming majority of civil rights issues are won in increments over time.
 
lexi said:
I actually see this as a setback towards achieving gay marriage.

Don't. It's getting administrations used to the idea of homosexuals as being in familial relationships. The more that view becomes inculcated, the closer you get to full integration.
 

Gaborn

Member
harSon said:
To be fair, concessions are typically followed by sweeping change within civil rights issues. You're certainly in your right to fight for change that is swift and absolute, but the overwhelming majority of civil rights issues are won in increments over time.

But they're not typically won by being meek about the way you're being treated. Most of the progress of the civil rights movements wouldn't have happened I'd argue if blacks had meekly accepted the unfair laws of the time. Imagine if Rosa parks had never refused to move her seat on the bus, if lunch counter sit ins hadn't happened. Imagine if there were never marches on Washington or rage or even the race riots. Change doesn't happen by sitting quietly and being sweet and cuddly about the way you're treated, it comes by loudly decrying the unjust way you're treated.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Evil Marxist monster. Now I will be bummed or have my carpet ate while I am trying to recuperate from my drunk, naked uncooperativeness.
 

Cep

Banned
Gaborn said:
Yes. Some rights are being given to gay couples.... why? Why bother to deny us other rights while granting us these? Because that is what this is about fundamentally. By saying we can get some of the rights of marriage Obama's implication is we can't get OTHER rights associated with married couples. That we're fundamentally less worthy than other couples.

That is one way to look at it, but I think it is more of an issue of doing what he can, and taking what he can. This way, there is no credible opposition.

In this environment, any concerted effort for gay rights legislation at a federal level would just be begging to die. And voting season is coming up, so all the dems are already turning coats from Left-Center to Center.

But this is coming from someone that does not have a personal investment in this, so I certainly see why my thoughts on the matter may be a bit...limited.
 

harSon

Banned
Gaborn said:
But they're not typically won by being meek about the way you're being treated. Most of the progress of the civil rights movements wouldn't have happened I'd argue if blacks had meekly accepted the unfair laws of the time. Imagine if Rosa parks had never refused to move her seat on the bus, if lunch counter sit ins hadn't happened. Imagine if there were never marches on Washington or rage or even the race riots. Change doesn't happen by sitting quietly and being sweet and cuddly about the way you're treated, it comes by loudly decrying the unjust way you're treated.

I agree but I'm not sure how that pertains to gay marriage, from what I've seen, the struggle to gain stolen rights is alive and well, even with the concessions.
 

Gaborn

Member
harSon said:
I agree but I'm not sure how that pertains to gay marriage, from what I've seen, the struggle to gain stolen rights is alive and well, even with the concessions.

It just explains why I'm so vocally opposed to these sort of half measures. I refuse to pretend I'm "happy" with what we're given as if I should be "grateful" to be given these scraps. People can't start adopting the attitude that this is good, period. This is fine, BUT not even nearly close to halfway being enough.
 

Cep

Banned
Gaborn said:
It just explains why I'm so vocally opposed to these sort of half measures. I refuse to pretend I'm "happy" with what we're given as if I should be "grateful" to be given these scraps. People can't start adopting the attitude that this is good, period. This is fine, BUT not even nearly close to halfway being enough.

Yeah, I do think most here agree with you on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom