This is a nice move, and more than a token. Hospitals can no longer deny visitation rights to same-sex partners, and, perhaps even more significantly, must respect them as designated decision makers.
He did this pretty quietly, but he deserves credit for it. it’s astonishing that it took this long for this kind of discrimination to be officially prohibited.
Good, it’s about time. A fairly recent article in the Chicago Tribune discussed issues like this about basic rights conveyed by marriage. Gay/lesbian couples may spend $10,000 or so trying to get merely some of those covered through other legal means like drawing up powers of attorney and other documents.
Awesome. Thank you, Mr. President.
I wouldn’t get too excited about this just yet. From the link:
Obama’s order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.
The only real “mandate” Obama has given is to direct HHS to come up with a rule to allow same-sex partners to visit/be designated to make decisions in hospitals that get medicaid or medicare funding. The administrative rule making process is cumbersome…as it should be…and requires the agency to publish a propose rule, take comments from the public and/or interested parties, and then implement a final rule. Even then, the rule may conflict with state law, and be subject to challenge.
Eventually, I think this will happen, but I would not expect substantial changes anytime soon.
A few months is not that long, and I think you’ll start seeing it implemented on a practical basis pretty quickly. I don’t see how it could be done any more quickly. I guess I don’t really understand your criticism.
There will be some paperwork hurdles to get through? So what? So therefore he shouldn’t have done this? What is your point?
My point is that today, tomorrow, next week, next month, the month after that, and the month after that, nothing will change. Obama’s “mandate” does not have the force of law. All he’s done is order an agency to make some law. The law itself does not yet exist, and no one will benefit from its provisions unless/until it takes effect. Even then, enforcement may be suspended while legal challenges, if any, are decided.
I deal with people in this situation reasonably often in my line of work. They see a story like this, and think tomorrow, they can go visit their partner with no hassles. It doesn’t work that way.
So what? I guess what I’m asking is whether you’re opposed to the decision.
But don’t you think that some hospitals, knowing that a change is coming and not wanting to deal with those visitors who think it happened now, will change their visiting rules without waiting? Nothing prevents this.
Jeez, if Obama made it rain soup, some people would complain about the stains.
Why would I be opposed to it? I’m on record here and elsewhere on the net as supporting gay rights, including marriage.
Incidentally, this mandate doesn’t just apply to same-sex partners, but basically allows any unmarried person to designate a non-family member as a decision maker/visitor. It allows unmarried people or widows to designate close friends, for example, or people in religious orders to designate someone from the Church.
Even better.
It’s nice but a patient is going to have to stipulate who can visit or make decisions on their behalf before they’re no longer in a condition to do so (a good idea of course). Until marriage is a right for gays, straight married couples still enjoy a right that is denied gay couples.
The article mentions this would help a widow or widower who would prefer visits from a friend, or prefer a friend have decision making authority over say, the evil uncaring relatives who may show up. That’s nice, but it’s also saying a gay spouse has the same rights as a friend, and doesn’t enjoy the special right that a straight spouse enjoys.
Which is an excellent thing. My sister-in-law nearly had to deal with the problem where her long-term boyfriend’s important health care decisions, when he was admitted to the ICU with liver failure, might have been made by his estranged parents. Fortunately the hospital was fine with her doing it when the parents didn’t object - though I suspect it helped that she presented herself as his fiancee rather than girlfriend.
It’s not a right the friends had before, though. It’s expanding rights to both same-sex couples and non-married friends.
The point about having to designate a person as having PA before they’re incapacitated is well taken, but I’m not sure how Obama could have issued this mandate in such a way as to preclude that.
Basically what this means to me is that straight single people do not enjoy the rights of married straight couples either. The assumption I’m inferring here is that there SHOULD be a distinction between a ‘‘friend’’ or ‘’‘lover’’ and a ‘‘husband’’ from a legal standpoint, and I can’t get behind that. Marriage is an institution of privilege that excludes more than just gays. So I applaud the legislation for acknowledging that.
(To be clear, I’m not downplaying the institutional oppression of sexual minorities. Sexual minorities have disproportionate levels of poverty, are more likely to be victimized by violence, are at a high risk for suicide and homelessness, etc. I just think the marriage issue in particular is about more than gay rights.)
I thought it was a nice thing to do as well.
But I’m cynical enough that I keep waiting to hear about how this is a bad thing or it’s going to cause problems, but I’ve made it through half the day without hearing anything. I’m really surprised, and pleased.
Well done, President Obama!
It’s good, but how will it be implemented? Can anyone claim to be a partner?
I believe the patient has to designate somebody, but this is probably one of the processes that’s going to have to be hammered out in the paperwork.
Clearly Obama is taking away our freedoms again.