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.

 

Obama orders same-sex hospital visits

page: 8
52
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien Mind
 


"Crap like this"?

So, are you a person who believes the government should have no regard for our humanity? That our leadership should be made aware of injustices and inhumane treatments and disregard them?

Anyone would have to admire the President for taking a moment to try to help and comfort this family, and take action to correct a very obvious injustice.

Had he not acted, I think I would have lost a great deal of confidence in his ability to work for the people.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Left or right a issue like this should have never been a political hot potato . Denying visitation in a hospital to a significant other should NEVER EVER been allowed . Period .

Human decency should never be a political game for the politicians to play their mind games on us with .

This is a feather in Obamas hat . As much as I disagree with him on other issues this I agree with him on. Even if it may be a token issue to quiet the gay community by giving them something .



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
A feather in Obama's hat? What the *** ever! This move was for nothing OTHER than political gain! You really think Obama actually cares about the people who elected him? His actions to date show that he cares NOTHING about the people of the U.S. until it's election time! That's what a politician does!

Honestly, some of you are going on like Obama actually has a heart or character or actually gives a damn about people other than his daughters. He has NEITHER and he DOESN'T. He is a puppet for the higher ups in the government and EVERYTHING he does is a calculated move by the PTB. He will do what the PTB tell him to just like Ahmadinejad in Iran will do whatever the Mullahs tell him what to do. Next you guys are going to start saying that Obama and Ahmadinejad actually like petting bunnies and cry at chick flicks!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


As much as I disagree with obama I can see this is a good thing and credit him with it being good even if it may be a token gesture.

We have been so conditioned to hate the other party or who ever we cant recognize a good thing when we see it



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

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.


Isn't the whole “one" thing just a tradition as one man = one woman has been for a long time? So if we are going to smash one tradition why not open it up to all? They all are choices of adults right?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

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.



Not at all... this is all in line with doing all the things I elected him for. So far, I'm jubilant.

I'm just happy that 1. someone I voted for was elected, and 2. He's doing everything I asked him to do.





posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

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.


Would you be expected to say they were married if they were married by a Unitarian Church. I'm pretty sure the Unis marry gay people, but I could be wrong. Hell, tomorrow I could start a religion and marry gay people, but the gubment wouldn't recognize it.

Edit to change "allow" to "recognize," because I'm stupid and don't know how to express myself.



[edit on 4/16/2010 by Sunsetspawn]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

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.


I didn't push anything.

That was the headline on the article. I' m simply following BAN forum rules. Sure, the subject certainly caught my eye when I was scanning the news page for obvious reasons.

Although you did have quite the opinion on it, before you read the article it seems.

~Keeper

That's just the headline of the artile



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtrozeroIsn't the whole “one" thing just a tradition as one man = one woman has been for a long time?


No. From where I sit the whole "one" thing has societal and economic benefits that would be unsustainable in a polygamous situation..


Let's use the only example I can think of in my sleepy state.

I have excellent medical coverage because I have a cushy government gob. If I get legally "married" that coverage will extend to my spouse and my children. If I could marry an unlimited amount of people then I suddenly have access to an endless commodity. I could generate massive income by marrying people and charging a fraction of the cost of my medical coverage. No, I'm afraid harems just won't do.

edit to add

The government could just have its own seperate, one to one, non-discriminatory marriage contract, and churches can do what they like.

Mormons can do polys.

Unis can do gays.

Kid touchers, rug pilots, and diamond salespeople can stick to their 14th century horsecrap.

[edit on 4/16/2010 by Sunsetspawn]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

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!


Yeah, do you think that the schools were integrated by the president acting alone?????

errr????



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

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



He isn't and doesn't....

That's the job of the SCOTUS....NOT THE F'IN president.

You people truly are insane and when all your rights are gone, don't come crying to me....

JAden



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

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]



You people are ABSOLUTELY INSANE!!!!!!

THere is a friggin reason that there are checks and balances and a specific method for instituting policy through the legislative process.....

Of course they make it out that they are just protecting people's rights and protecting you from the bogie man et al....

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.

The president has TWO powers and two powers only.

VETO legislation and be commander in chief.

Any other power that he assumes is an usurpation.

The health care legislation is an antyiconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority also...

Read the constitution. Article 1 section 7 and get back to me...

unbelievable.

It doesn't matter if it is the best thing since buttered toast and bicuits and gravy, you can't do what's not allowed by the constitution.

JAden



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

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.


It might comfort you to read this part of the memo, which I also posted on page 7 of this thread:


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



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

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]


You know I wondered how people could stand by and let their liberties be taken away but I am starting to understand that you guys are just living in a make believe world where people are altruistic.

HE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY EVEN WHEN given federal monies (I mean OUR monies) NO ONE MAN has the authority to do ANYTHING in this nation.

The president has TWO powers and TWO only. command the military in a time of need, and VETO legislation.

He can't determine constitutionality of anything. he can't tell you or me to walk away, he can't do ANYTHING that any person in the nation can't do except those TWO things.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Excuse my ignorance but isn't this also a good thing for heterosexual couples who haven't married or are engaged to be married? Some friends of mine had a tragic car accident involving a drunk driver while they were engaged. The husband was in a coma for 4 days (wife walked away with some cuts and bruises) and his parents (he was 27 at the time) had to make all medical decisions, not his fiancée. If I'm reading this correctly then perhaps it could be a good thing for young couples or people who haven't married or have no intention to marry but are still a couple, whether gay or straight.

Finally, something good coming out of Washington.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If you don't like Obama I guess you could find an ulterior motive but still, this is something that should have been done a long time ago. At least this.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


This has nothing to do with the issue....but Obama ordered? The who to do what? Some of this is just going to need what they call legislation not orders from the fuhrer and the bura-rats.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


umm....sorry to tell ya this, but if you are sick, or dying, in a hospital bed, and well...the hospital tells ya no, we can't allow you to see this certain close friend that you feel you really have to see one more time before you die....
that is just as dictatorial!!

guess it's okay when corps are dictatorial, but not okay when the gov't acts to restore some of the freedoms that they corps have taken away from the people???

oh...and what gives the president the power to tell the hospitals to do this....
he's in the executive branch, that branch executes, through the million or whatever agencies that exists under him, the laws and policies that have been passed by congress.... some of those policies deal with taking money from taxpayers and giving it to hospitals so that they can operate and so the poor can obtain services when they are sick. (that might be unconstitution, but well....very few people will come out and say that the gov't shouldn't be helping the disabled, the elderly and the truly poor get healthcare!)
well, if these hospitals don't like the changes he chose to make in the way his branch of government and it's agencies operate, they are perfectly free to not participate in those programs that are being run by those agencies!







[edit on 17-4-2010 by dawnstar]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden

The president has TWO powers and TWO only. command the military in a time of need, and VETO legislation.

I believe you would be referring to Article II, Section 2:

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...
But this is not all-inclusive. Article II, Section 1 starts with the following:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...

The word "executive" has the following meanings:


–noun
  1. a person or group of persons having administrative or supervisory authority in an organization.
  2. the person or persons in whom the supreme executive power of a government is vested.
  3. the executive branch of a government.

–adjective
  1. of, pertaining to, or suited for carrying out plans, duties, etc.: executive ability.
  2. pertaining to or charged with the execution of laws and policies or the administration of public affairs: executive appointments; executive committees.
  3. designed for, used by, or suitable for executives: an executive suite.
Formatting added to comply with BBCode
Source: dictionary.reference.com...

Please look at number 2 under adjective (number 5 in the source). The POTUS is directly responsible for executing (carrying out) policies and laws of the United States. He is in charge of the FBI, the CIA, the EPA, the ATF, and a whole host of other government agencies whose jobs are executive in nature.

That's why it is called the executive branch...

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join