It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by niteboy82
Originally posted by Xtrozero
This is great and now I can get the same thing for my five wives!!!
One Man = One Woman
One Woman = One Woman
One Man = One Man
Six Women = One Man
And I draw the parallel how? One has nothing to do with another. It would be like saying divorcees are equivalent to Zoophiles. Not the case.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Boy, are you going to feel stupid after you read this.
Obama's memo to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius orders the development of new rules to ensure that hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors" and to choose the people who will make medical decisions on their behalf.
...
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.
Originally posted by sos37
Damage control. That's all this is. I'm sure you don't care as it benefits you, personally, but this is nothing more than a bit of damage control to his political reputation.
Originally posted by DEMONcratsgays can get the benifits through a seperate contract...if you want to put some sentimentality behind the contract...what ever.
just dont expect me to say your married because you went into the contract.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Boy, are you going to feel stupid after you read this.
Obama's memo to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius orders the development of new rules to ensure that hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors" and to choose the people who will make medical decisions on their behalf.
...
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.
So why did the OP decide to push this as gay sensationalism since it actually affects EVERYONE. I can think of a million non-gay scenarios that would benefit too from this, so once again we see a great example of something generic that is push as a special interest group situation and that is not being genuine.
Originally posted by XtrozeroIsn't the whole “one" thing just a tradition as one man = one woman has been for a long time?
Originally posted by Styki
Originally posted by Masterjaden
How can people not see the dictatorial implications in something like this???
Are you people insane????
I know, it's almost like forcing schools to integrate different races...
I hate dictators! Their always forcing people to treat others like they are people too!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Masterjaden
The POTUS does NOT have the authority to issue demands on private institutions....
From the original article:
Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said 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.
Further, the Constitution stipulates that all ALL citizens be treated equally under the law. He is defending the Constitution and not only has every right to do that, but is obligated to do so as well.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Fourteenth Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
US Constitution
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
First,
Those that think this is a dictatorial move seriously needs to get their heads examined as this is NOT A MASSIVE GRAB FOR POWER but protecting the rights of the citizens. You know, something Govt should be doing instead of protecting Wall Street or foreign companies.
Second,
Anyone or any groups who will use this as an opportunity to trash, demonize the homosexual and lesbian members of our society show not only your arrogance, but your hate and racism as no one should be denied Power of Attorney rights just because they are not a blood relative.
Third,
This grants YOU the authourity to divest anyone you wish as your Power of attorney. This grants you the authourity to have anyone you select make your medical decisions. No future Congress or President can EVER take this away as this has been made PERMANENT!!!!
[edit on 16-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]
Originally posted by Masterjaden
You are insane if you think that this isn't dictatorial in nature.
Any one man stating what IS going to be done is DICTATORIAL by defi-frigg-inition.
The SCOTUS is a body of people for a reason..... so that no ONE person has the power to dictate what IS going to be done.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Source: White House Press Office
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Masterjaden
The POTUS does NOT have the authority to issue demands on private institutions....
Actually, he does to a point.
Hospitals first of all receive government funding, especially those who are designated as 'community' hospitals.... you know, the ones who have to treat a patient regardless of ability to pay? If you take the cash from the government, then you agree to play by the government's rules. It's the old "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules.
Secondly, there is an issue of fairness here. If a hospital can unilaterally decide who does and who does not get to visit their patients, then it is akin to placing those patients in a prison (as has already been pointed out). No, there are guidelines that must be followed. Next of kin always receive the primary visitation rights. And as far as I am concerned, if a legally recognized spouse is considered next of kin (as they are), then a non-legally recognized but still apparent and known lifetime partnership should be considered the same. I also extend this train of thought to extremely close lifetime friendships.
Government does indeed have a role to play in our lives. It is not mandating insurance requirements or examining every aspect of our lives to make sure we don't somehow hurt ourselves. Rather, it is about maintaining fairness and equity throughout the economic infrastructure. You have rights when you deal with a company: the right to complain, the right to receive usable merchandise, the right to not be 'price-gouged', etc. When you go to a car lot you have the right to see an invoice from the manufacturer, or to have any derogatory information about a potential purchase divulged to you (I know this well; I bought a 1986 Riviera new which had been dropped at the factory, and I was required to sign a statement indicating I had been told about the incident. I also got an unlimited replacement warranty should any damage ever be found that was overlooked).
So what exactly is wrong with a requirement that a patient in a hospital can have the visitors their life would indicate to be proper for their mental peace of mind?
As much as I normally come down on the side of anti-regulation, this is one case where I see no downside, as long as the proposed rules being considered act in accord with the (apparent) intent of this directive.
TheRedneck
[edit on 4/16/2010 by TheRedneck]
The president has TWO powers and TWO only. command the military in a time of need, and VETO legislation.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Source: dictionary.reference.com...
–noun
- a person or group of persons having administrative or supervisory authority in an organization.
- the person or persons in whom the supreme executive power of a government is vested.
- the executive branch of a government.
–adjectiveFormatting added to comply with BBCode
- of, pertaining to, or suited for carrying out plans, duties, etc.: executive ability.
- pertaining to or charged with the execution of laws and policies or the administration of public affairs: executive appointments; executive committees.
- designed for, used by, or suitable for executives: an executive suite.