• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: gay partners should have hospital access

VanceMack said:
CLASSIC Captain Courtesy!!! YOU haved been at LEAST AS much a part of personal attacks...but...hey...break out the 'I'm a responsible' moderator' magic decoder ring...:rofl

"Him" is DEFINITELY here...and it becomes more and more obvious every day!
Click to expand...

This should end well.
 
VanceMack said:
Do you realize that the EO WILL NOT CHANGE A THING with regard to incapacitated people and visitation rights?
Click to expand...

Please explain why you think this.
 
VanceMack said:
"The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy"

That Florida case would NOT be altered. Kinda TOUGH for a comatose patient to make that designation, isnt it?
Click to expand...

Um, not if she designates the visitor before she goes into a coma, huh?

:doh
 
misterman said:
Please explain why you think this.
Click to expand...

Because in the case cited the patient was incapable of making said declaration and they didnt have their legal documents available either with them, filed, given to a family doctor, etc. Due to hospital restrictions, HIPAA laws, etc you cant just walk in and SAY I was so and so's partner and should be able to be with them and make decisions for them. ANd IF they actually had those legal documents (which would still be required) there is no indication they would have been denied those rights.

Look...there is a common theme here Im noting. I didnt say "this is wrong" or "this shouldnt happen"...I said..."THIS act is WORTHLESS". And look at how many people got their nickers all twisted because I dared to speak against the great Obama or something that can be perceived as a gay right (truthfully...I think some you bunch up your nickers on purpose because you like how it feels when you walk...but thats a totally different story and something HIM and I can discuss later...).

I didnt speak out against heath care. Hell...Ive advocated for SOME FORM of STATE run health care since my first few posts here. I spoke out AGAINST foolish legislation and rampant federal waste...in opposition to a federal government that has ALREADY put us 13.5 trillion and counting in debt...and IMMEDIATELY look at all the people here that were upset because I disagreed with their perceived 'right' to federal healthcare. Its a typical...mindless...kneejerk response to things. And when all else fails...blame Bush...as if I am here defending HIM or that has anything to do with anything.

I wonder what sucks more...BEING duped...or being a willing participant in being duped...taking it...knowing better..and stiull managing to smile and say "thank you!" Either way...its gotta suck.
 
misterman said:
Um, not if she designates the visitor before she goes into a coma, huh?

:doh
Click to expand...

If she designates it BEFORE then this is all meaningless. If she had a legal document (and apparently she did have the fopresight to have SOME form of document made up) then all they had to do was file it with the hospital...present it...have a copy faxed...whatever...and this wouldnt have happened.

Look...I cant walk into a hospital and demand information about my wife without PROVING who I am. WIthin the federal systme I have to have whats called a 'yellow card' to even pick up her prescriptions...let alone talk to a doctor about anything. Nor could I walk in and demand information about a long term girlfriend or even live-in partner. THIS isnt going to change THAT.
 
This is silly. What needs to happen is some form of legislation to give gays the same rights as married couples across the board in every state.

No, I am against it being called marriage. I know it is just an argument based on semantics, so take it for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
A former coworker, Wade, went through this. He had to run home and get his power of attorney papers when his boyfriend, John, went to the hospital very sick and dying. It all worked out, but there was nobody else taking care of John. Families can be that way.

John died. Wade says they still communicate occasionally which I think is truly wonderful. John calls him on the phone.
 
sazerac said:
A former coworker, Wade, went through this. He had to run home and get his power of attorney papers when his boyfriend, John, went to the hospital very sick and dying. It all worked out, but there was nobody else taking care of John. Families can be that way.

John died. Wade says they still communicate occasionally which I think is truly wonderful. John calls him on the phone.
Click to expand...

Did a zombie apocalypse happen and someone forgot to tell me about it? :confused:
 
VanceMack said:
Sigh...

did you READ the article? Did you READ the Exec order? Do you realize that the EO WILL NOT CHANGE A THING with regard to incapacitated people and visitation rights?

Whatever...you guys keep patting each other on the back and giving each other high fives...and keep on pretending this wasnt more than a worthless publicitity stunt.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you did NOT read the order. It will change things in regards to visitation with ANYONE. What it doesn't do is alter who can make decisions for the incapacitated, or how this comes about. Now you can keep pretending that this is not accurate because you go through life with blinders on, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
If she designates it BEFORE then this is all meaningless. If she had a legal document (and apparently she did have the fopresight to have SOME form of document made up) then all they had to do was file it with the hospital...present it...have a copy faxed...whatever...and this wouldnt have happened.

Look...I cant walk into a hospital and demand information about my wife without PROVING who I am. WIthin the federal systme I have to have whats called a 'yellow card' to even pick up her prescriptions...let alone talk to a doctor about anything. Nor could I walk in and demand information about a long term girlfriend or even live-in partner. THIS isnt going to change THAT.
Click to expand...

In the case that was cited, the partner did have the information, and had it faxed to the hospital at around 4:15pm, but was still refused entry. She was told that she was in an "anti-gay city and state".

Lambda Legal: Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital

And the hospital allowed other family members in to visit the woman, but still refused to allow her life-partner and their adopted children in. The lesbian woman got to see her partner once for 5 min while the priest delivered the last rights and then at around 11:30pm, but was escorted back with other family members. In between this time, was when other family members were allowed to visit, but she was still being denied entry.

Now, I do agree with you that it really isn't as much as it should be. I believe that same-sex married couples should be given the same federally recognized legal rights as heterosexually married couples, without needing to get separate paperwork. That should be the main purpose of the government recognizing marriage, so that adults who have agreed to commit to each other don't have to get several separate legal agreements to show it.
 
VanceMack said:
"The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy"

That Florida case would NOT be altered. Kinda TOUGH for a comatose patient to make that designation, isnt it? And where they ALREADY EXIST, they already have legal standing. In a private hosptial or a non-medicare hospital this is worthless. The article ALSO stated that the administration had been taking hits because the gay community had been critical of them for not acting fast enough. So...low poll numbers...low support...do something WORTHLESS and watch people line up to herald the triumph.

Oh...wait...it gets better...the actual declaration..."may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability"...And hospitals did this? Hospitals denied the visitation because the partner was gay?


CC=Failed, owned, and Pwned.
Click to expand...

No, as usual, this is YOUR failure. The Florida case would have been altered because she was denied visitation based on not being a family member. Her sister WAS allowed to see her because she WAS a family member. Of course, your inability to process this information has been clearly demonstrated. Congratulations. You have been pwned. As usual.
 
VanceMack said:
CLASSIC Captain Courtesy!!! YOU haved been at LEAST AS much a part of personal attacks...but...hey...break out the 'I'm a responsible' moderator' magic decoder ring...:rofl

"Him" is DEFINITELY here...and it becomes more and more obvious every day!
Click to expand...

Poor choice.
 
Cardinal said:
It's a slow and arduous war that has its wins and its losses, just like most struggles. Sometimes it can seem pretty bleak until you consider that twenty years ago there were no states at all where gay marriage was permitted and even considering the notion was preposterous.

The rest of your post is gibberish and can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

So you've got nothing but your emotions to support yourself.

Got it. Next time just say so.
 
Blackdog said:
No, I am against it being called marriage.
Click to expand...

What if you didn't have to call it marriage? Would that be an acceptable compromise?
 
Cardinal said:
What if you didn't have to call it marriage? Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Click to expand...

No.

Did you see what I posted above and next to that little phrase?

Not open for debate as it will derail the thread. My position is clear and unchangeable. Live with it.
 
Blackdog said:
No.

Did you see what I posted above and next to that little phrase?
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that, but "marriage" is a more powerful concept than a legal term. I don't understand why it should be reserved for one group (heterosexuals) over another.


Blackdog said:
Not open for debate .
Click to expand...

Not even on a debate forum?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Yes, I saw that, but "marriage" is a more powerful concept than a legal term. I don't understand why it should be reserved for one group (heterosexuals) over another.
Click to expand...

I have nothing else to say about it.

Cardinal said:
Not even on a debate forum?
Click to expand...

Then open a new thread. I am really tired of derailing threads because of gay rights or religion.
 
Blackdog said:
I have nothing else to say about it.



Then open a new thread. I am really tired of derailing threads because of gay rights or religion.
Click to expand...

Mmph! Well maybe you're a little too grumpy to be in this thread (especially seeing as it has to do with gay rights).
 
Blackdog said:
Then open a new thread. I am really tired of derailing threads because of gay rights or religion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wouldn't want to derail a thread about gay rights by discussing gay rights.
 
Do you people know how to read? This thread is about "Obama: gay partners should have hospital access" If you want to talk about that, please do.

It has nothing at all to do with gay marriage or my views on it.

Now if the "I can't stay focused on the thread" brigade has any further comments, direct your selfs to the basement.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Do you people know how to read? This thread is about "Obama: gay partners should have hospital access" If you want to talk about that, please do.

It has nothing at all to do with gay marriage or my views on it.
Click to expand...

You can't fathom how a thread about gay partners having the same access that married people now have could ever lead to a discussion about gay marriage?
 
Blackdog said:
Do you people know how to read? This thread is about "Obama: gay partners should have hospital access" If you want to talk about that, please do.
Click to expand...

State recognition of gay marriage would grant gay partners access.
 
misterman said:
You can't fathom how a thread about gay partners having the same access that married people now have could ever lead to a discussion about gay marriage?
Click to expand...

That is what I am trying to avoid. There are many MANY threads about it already. This one will be derailed by it.

Now as I said, anything else you can take to the basement.
 
winston53660 said:
State recognition of gay marriage would grant gay partners access.
Click to expand...

I am against it. You will not change my mind as we have debated this hundreds of times before. You already know my views so??? Are you trying to mock me and be a smart ass?

Live with it and get back to the topic at hand.

"Obama: gay partners should have hospital access"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom