There is no down side to this, and viewing it s a political move is cynical and unacceptable.
From the White House:
Earlier this year, President Obama called on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to create new rules for Medicare and Medicaid hospitals that would allow patients the right to choose their own visitors during a hospital stay. The Presidential Memorandum instructed HHS to develop rules that would prohibit hospitals from denying visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued that rule – a rule that will let patients decide whom they want by their bedside when they are sick – and that includes a visitor who is a same-sex domestic partner. The rule presents an important step forward in giving all Americans more control over their health care.
More details, also from the White House:
The rules
- Require hospitals to explain to all patients their right to choose who may visit them during their inpatient stay, regardless of whether the visitor is a family member, a spouse, a domestic partner (including a same-sex domestic partner), or other type of visitor, as well as their right to withdraw such consent to visitation at any time.
- Require hospitals have written policies and procedures detailing patients’ visitation rights, as well as the circumstances under which the hospitals may restrict patient access to visitors based on reasonable clinical needs.
- Specify that all visitors chosen by the patient must be able to enjoy “full and equal” visitation privileges consistent with the wishes of the patient.
- Update the Conditions of Participation (CoPs), which are the health and safety standards all Medicare- and Medicaid-participating hospitals and critical access hospitals must meet, and are applicable to all patients of those hospitals regardless of payer source.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Amazing that President Obama did not try to shirk off responsibility for changing this policy onto Congress and instead actually issued the order to change it. Meanwhile, the federal government under Obama’s leadership continues to refuse to recognize our relationships or the fact that many of us same-sex couples are not “domestic partners” but husbands, wives, and spouses–both legally at the state and international level and in spirit in states where it is banned.
viewing it s a political move is cynical and unacceptable.
Of course it’s a political move. It’s also a good thing. Since when are the two mutually exclusive?
It’s also far too little, years after much more was promised.
OK, then at least do this while munching on your young: When thinking of what Obama has done, think also what Predient McCain and Vice President Palin would have done.
Then think for a moment about the possibility that having every one of the things Obama does that you wanted him to do wrapped in discussion of how inadequate it is contributed to the current situation: A Republican house. Really not just contributed, but caused it.
Add that to the fact that for every thing the average Obama Whiner can mention that they didn’t think Obama did soon enough or fast enough or didn’t do yet, there are ten good things he did that the whiner does not know about. In other words, the negativity is a) being overplayed (and it is getting a bit embarrassing) and b) it is being used against you.
It may well be true that the accomplishments of the Obama administration with respect to gay rights are especially disappointing. They are not, however, as disappointing as the actions of the voters of California, they are not as bad as the stated policies of McCain or the teabaggers, and while complaining about them, is is probably a credibility-damaging move to insist that the situation with DADT is magically different than it really is. From a purely technical legal standpoint, Obama ordering abrogation of DADT in the military is probably impeachable. And if you don’t think that would happen, you’ve never heard of Bill Clinton’s blow job.
I was an RN at Mayo (Rochester) for many years. We NEVER stopped people from visiting patients, NEVER asked who they were or how they were related to the patient. The only time I saw a visitor be asked to leave was a very drunk guy who was upsetting everybody on the floor. It boggles my mind that some hospitals act as gatekeepers.
I think one of the major failures of the democrats this wall was simply not tooting their own horns enough.
Another thing I’ve heard is that Obama could have simply tried to ram through his ideas on his terms and, when he failed, pointed to the republicans and blue dogs as the reason why. There’s not a lot that gets Democratic voters riled up collectively, but that might have done it.
Athena: I know. I’ve had the experience of being “the” person for someone in the hospital, and no one ever asked for my relatedness, and nothing was being kept secret. And the one time I spent the longest in a hospital in the US, I had people visiting me and helping me out and none of them were relatives. I think of the handful of people I’m close to in the Twin Cities who have no relatives (mates, blood relatives, whatever) but who I assume would benefit from me or some other friend visiting and helping to manage things if necessary, and it occurs to me that hospitals must have implemented some sort of spiteful evil strategy just to diss gay partners, because I can’t imagine how I would not be allowed to do so. There isn’t even a mechanism in place.
This is f*ing awesome!
Wait, a hospital could legally tell a patient “no, that person cannot visit you” for any reason before this? What?
Did this actually happen, or is this more of a pre-emptive move to prevent such ridiculousness before some asstard hospital administrator tries to pull a fast one?
TheBrummell, here’s an analysis of the legal issues involved in the case that prompted Obama’s directive: http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/09/federal-judge-dismisses-tort-claims-against-florida-hospital-and-staff-who-failed-to-accord-compassi.html
Were the patients in ICU or regular hospital. The rules in general for ICU are much tighter. There is insufficient context to answer the question. However I have read that many ICU’s say immediate family only.
I have never seen a gatekeeper for regular hospital rooms either.
My comments above about my own access apply in my experience to both regular and ICU. But yes, cardiac and ICU have very different levels of openness.
There are classic cases of gay significance others taking a few weeks/months to die in an ICU with their mate not being allowed in the room ever, at all. this is for rea.
So does this mean that toddlers can be toted into the ICU if the patient desires? Of course, nobody views their own offspring as a virtual culture medium for pathogens. WTF is the priority? Do we now welcome the public into the operating and recovery room if that’s what the patient decides?
What about patients who must be in “isolation” for the purpose of either preventing the spread of infection or because his/her immune system is drastically compromised?
This is just one of the many pitfalls of issuing mandates without consulting anyone actually familiar with providing healthcare in the real world.
Yes, Greg. This is a win-win for the well-being of microorganisms!
I re-read “the details” and in fact, my concerns are being addressed by the HHS.
Nevermind…….
My apologizes for jumping the gun.
“So does this mean that toddlers can be toted into the ICU if the patient desires? ”
No.
“Do we now welcome the public into the operating and recovery room if that’s what the patient decides?”
Are you trying to be an idiot?
“My apologizes for jumping the gun.”
No problem.
It is true. He had a chance to be so much more. He still does, but right now his record is especially disappointing.
The fact remains that when the sick half of the same-gender LGBT couple gets out of the hospital, the federal government will still treat them as separate individuals, and if the sick person should die while in the hospital, the living half would be left out cold by the federal government. And like I said, I dislike the weaselly term “domestic partnership” which is being deliberately used to denigrate LGBT couples who cannot be married in the eyes of President Obama’s deity. You want 10 good things, I want my equal rights. These are people’s basic needs being withheld. Just because he is the lesser by far of two evils does not make everything he does good.
Stop loss. It is unimpeachable (and actually it appears to be in effect now). Or how about not defending clearly unconstitutional laws in court.
So we should sit down and shut up? Is that it? For Spam’s sake, that upsets me that you would say that. I suppose for people who are heterosexually privileged, that is an easy thing to say these days.
I suppose for people who are heterosexually privileged, that is an easy thing to say these days.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Just. Fuck. You.
There, now that I’ve got the only plausible reaction to that comment out of the way …
I heartily agree with everything you say except two points, and there I do not disagree as fully as you incorrectly assume.
On the DADT, I simply don’t think that it works out that way. Yes, it is an interesting idea that the Justice Department should not be putting energy into something that is unconstitutional, but this is not their jurisdiction in the same way as, say, an immigration issue where they can simply forget to notice that there is a (stupid) law being broken and let time pass until the courts or congress settles it. It would be roughly like the FBI deciding not to prosecute drug offenses … it would have no effect and they are in arrangement where they would have to get involved anyway. DADT is a law. There really are separation of powers.
I would have thought that a command to the military to simply not enforce DADT would be the right thing to do, and would fix it (again, until the courts/congress caught up), but apparently (I’m told) it is not that difficult to then bring suit to insist on the enforcement of the rule, or for the military to ignore the order in ways that don’t ignore the order. An executive order can’t do it. You just cant order that a law passed by congress not be enforced.
Second point I don’t agree on: “So we should sit down and shut up? Is that it?”
No, and that is not what I said.
What I said is simply this, and this is not confined to gay rights issues, but to all the progressive/liberal issues: If every time there is an “atta boy” … every single time … it is clothed in an “but I’m unhappy, it’s not enough, should have been sooner, and what about this other stuff” … every time …. then you are giving away your opportunity to use the positive rhetoric in the common fight against the worser of the two evils. That is the entirety of my point. I did not say or suggest that “we” sit down and shut up. The criticism that not enough has been done, not fast enough, etc. etc. is a valid point and should be made. But made effectively, not as a backdrop to general disappointment.
I’m complaining about the whining. But I would very fully support a march on DC or some other major loud and in your face event or set of events.
I’m talking about strategy and tactics. You’re talking about how I have to be as uniformly and thoughtlessly negative about every thing as you are or I’ve got white privilege. My strategies and tactics may not be perfect but your strategy and tactics suck.
And I mean that in all respect, dammit.