1 w00t!

2 Second!

3 Obama is gay. There I said it.

4 Since when could the president just order hospitals to give visitation rights to anyone? At least this news came out on a Thursday when he flicked off Tea Party members for being pissed about spending, I mean if you are going to spit in someones face might as well kick em in the balls as well.

5 I wish Obama would stop dictating the details of everyone's life and go back to Chicago/ Hawaii/ Indonesia/ Kenya/ other.

6 Is this really a big deal? If someone has the forethought to designate a person to make medical decisions and does it in writing, it shouldn't matter who they decide should have that power. As far as the Virginia example, if the union isn't recognized in that state or by the federal government, it doesn't exist. The parents would make the call.

7 Doh, used the old sock puppet to post

8 ... I've been in medicine in some capacity (EMT / Phlebotomist / Physician Assistant) in excess of 17 years. I have NEVER denied a single patient the right to see anyone they wished UNLESS the visitor caused a disruption to the patient's care or presented a hazard to the patient or staff. Fuck Obama.

9 There's little reason not to fix a bad thing even if it's scarce

There's actually a very good reason to not fix it (at least this way), not every God damn problem has to be or should be fixed by the federal government and certainly not by executive action.

This may well be very good policy but it's not the fucking federal government's business.

Yes, yes, I get the payment nexus but if every institution that takes federal money can be ordered around by executive order then just about everything is subject to this.

Between this idea and current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, we simply have an out of control federal government.

Again, I'm sympathetic to the goal (though not 100%) but this is just a fucking bullshit way to deal with it.

10 Obama must think hospitals are lining up to take medicare and medicade patients that they lose money on. I can see some of them using this as an excuse to say no thanks.

11 Obama threw his bone to the gay left?  For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country.  Seriously, I don't like executive orders on matters like this.  If there is wide support for this then it can be implemented without Obama's meddling.

12 I thought the Medicare/Medicaid money was allocated to people.  So, he is putting restrictions on where individuals can spend their entitlement dollars.

Does this mean a future Republican President can issue an executive order forbidding the spending of Medicare/Medicad monies in a hospital that provides abortions?

13 Any statute or court ruling which either denies or grants rights in this regard should speak to this issue as well as every other totally bloody obvious conflict of law that a first-year student could predict. I hate legislation from the bench but I equally hate sloppy, lazy-ass statutes that leave glaring loopholes, contradictions and unresolved issues that justify legislating from the bench. Legislators have armies of staff members and willing special interest groups who will grind through the details of legislation for them - failure to use those resources is either simple legislative negligence on their part (can I haz actionable tort for this ?) or cowardice in not wanting to put themselves on the line regarding the more problematic details of lawmaking beyond the sound-bite-worthy superficialities. Regardless of whether you oppose or support spousal rights for gays, the damned laws we pass should be thorough enough to reflect the will of the people on the details without leaving enormous areas of known but unresolved issues for later determination.

14 Which is why we need civil union laws in this country.

Marriage is a religious construct.  It should never have been given standing in either federal or local laws.

Let people designate who they want to assign certain rights to and be done with it.. this is not only a gay rights issue.. lots of heterosexual domestic partners would benefit from this as well.

15 Spammers are quick tonight

16 I didn't know anyone was ever denied visitation rights due to sexual orientation.

17 Congressional oversight? Never heard of it.

18 12: Dead-spot-on-correct. After all, "he won." This is the fundamental problem with the Obama "rule by executive fiat" approach. Previous administrations understood that a primary reason they shouldn't push their powers outside the recognized envelope was because some day the other side would be in power too. This "we won", no holds-barred, tradition-be-damned approach is typical of radical Leftist political beliefs - an adolescent refusal to recognize that the world will continue on without you someday and that your actions will not be the last ones taken based on the precedents you set. To Obama and his hard-left base, history began with his election and ends with him leaving office - no other part of the past or future matters.

19 I don't think this is so much a bone to the gay left (hehe....bone) as an attempt to bring a Republican wedge issue to the fore. He did this now to get some jackass on the right to decry letting loved ones visit patients thereby allowing the propaganda wing paint the entire right as meanies who the independents (a group Obama's been hemorrhaging) won't associate with.

20 Spammers are quick tonight

We've been whacking them as fast as possible.

21

What if a comatose patients secret gay lover shows up in the hospital saying 'Pull the plug!".

Who's to know what's going on? Throw them out ...they sue...take their word, the family sues.

22 There are no such things as "gay spouses".  You can mumble that bullshit all you want, but it doesn't make it so.

And hospital patients are never denied visitors that they want to see.

23 This stuff should be decided by statute, not executive order. Mind your own business, Easy Bake.

24 If it's so popular, why does the president have to do a stealth Gestapo order to get it in there?  Shouldn't it be voted on by the states, like the Constitution mandates?

25 The American people acted stupidly.

26 Gay spouses exist only in Massachusetts.

27

"But the real drama is when more than one person claims to have the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated patient."

Two words: Terri Schiavo

28 The more I think about this, the more I'm unsure what it changes. I sent this in an email to Gabe but figure I might as well throw it out to the gang (with a few things cleaned up)....

Is this one off those things he does that looks likes something but isn't?

The visitation issues isn't much of an issue.

The health care decision maker part only applies if you have an advanced directive, right? I'm not married and don't have kids. If I don't execute a health care proxy my mom is next of kin and will make those call. But if I say I want my friend Sara to make it and fill out the forms that carries the day and Sara is in charge, right?

All Obama is saying is that applies to same sex decision makers? How's that new? I could have named my friend Paul for all it mattered.

Using me as an example again, say I live, unmarried, with a woman for 10 years but don't have a proxy filled out. I get sick and am incapacitated. My mom still gets to make the call, right? Obama's rule doesn't change that does it? The same would go for a gay couple.

If all he's saying is health care proxies must be respected by hospitals, well duh. Doesn't state law already cover that?

What's new here?

29 hospital patients are never denied visitors that they want to see.

Not quite true.  There'd be all kinds of geezers ordering up hookers if it were.

30 Gay spouses exist only in Massachusetts.

Home of the liquid drill bit and the woman that never bitches.

31 Obama got his shit packed by Frank Marshall Davis and Tony Rezko and liked it, now he gets his shit packed by his "Wife", Rahm and Axelrod

32 Not quite true.  There'd be all kinds of geezers ordering up hookers if it were.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 15, 2010 11:38 PM (oUOUm)

I'm betting on it.

33 What's new here?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 15, 2010 11:37 PM (9B5OK)

What's new here is the symbolism.  And the votes.  But mostly the votes.  Dammit man don't you know how this Constitutional Republic works!?

34 if people would stop being gay we wouldnt have all this kerfuffle.

35 its now time to crash Obama's rallies! show that fucknut some of his own medicine..

36 Gay spouses exist only in Massachusetts.

Also, CT, IA, NH, VT, and DC. And, well, all over the United States. Many travel to jurisdictions where it's lawful and get married there.

There are civil unions and "domestic partnerships" in CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NV, OR, WA, WI.

37 Obviously, this executive order makes spammers think I'm gay, because they're just waltzing into my room left and right.  It's like a parade with great values and fabulous shoes.

38 What happened to the proper term homosexual?  Change the language and win the debate?

39 Gay spouses exist only in Massachusetts.

Also, CT, IA, NH, VT, and DC.

No, they don't.

Only by turning language and culture on its head can you call a union of same-sex couples "marriage".  It is not marriage.  It will never be marriage.  They will never be spouses.  What in the ever loving fuck is so difficult about this concept?

40

Get yourselves a goddamn Directive to Physicians.

Nobody needs this nonsense when you're dying.

 

Also, parent-types.. get a will ok? Just do.

41 39, You mean the gay marriage debate is over? When did that happen?

42 Only by turning language and culture on its head can you call a union of same-sex couples "marriage".  It is not marriage.

Oh come, of course it is. Marriage has a secular legal meaning that doesn't have to match the religious meaning.

43 I have never once, not ever seen a gay or lesbian friend, lover, partner, forbidden to be visit a patient in any hospital in which I have worked. This includes a time span dating back to 1986 includes hospitals big and small, rural, urban, and suburban in Chicago, California, Wyoming, and more to the point, I have never even heard a colleague ever tell me they have ever heard of such a thing happening. Mr. Obama is quote in the memo thus," “Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay." With all due respect to Mr. Obama I believe this to be a lie. This is not to say that such a thing has never happened. But "every day" and "all across America?" More to the point, I know of no restriction as to who may be declared the DPOA for health care. Perhaps there is such a restriction in some states, but I am unaware of any. It would be quite cogent and compelling for the president to have cited in which states these restrictions are enforced and exactly how many individuals and where visitation restrictions have taken place. I have seen friends, lovers, gay and straight, and not "blood relatives" designated as the DPOA for health care, and even without the legal designation, I have often encountered the gay or lesbian partner act as the patient's proxy for the purpose of substituted judgment. Again, there may quite well be discrimination occurring somewhere, but I suspect it is anecdotal at best. In the absence of a clear advance directive or DPOA declaration, it is fairly frequent that there is a disagreement amongst family members when the patient can't speak for themselves. Nothing has changed with this memorandum.

44 Only by turning language and culture on its head can you call a union of same-sex couples "marriage".  It is not marriage.  It will never be marriage.

It is lawful marriage in those jurisdictions. And recognized in several others that don't allow the marriages themselves.

45  This is the best advice:

Get yourselves a goddamn Directive to Physicians.

Nobody needs this nonsense when you're dying.

 

Also, parent-types.. get a will ok? Just do.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 15, 2010 11:50 PM (Wh0W+)

46 Ok, I was wrong. Thanks.

47 Oh come, of course it is. Marriage has a secular legal meaning that doesn't have to match the religious meaning.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 15, 2010 11:52 PM (9B5OK)

Never, until very recently under relentless PC bullshit pressure from a tiny minority of rabble rousers, has "marriage", even in a "secular legal context",  meant same-sex couples.  I didn't say a fucking thing about religion.

And words don't change their meaning because the legislature says so.  That's bullshit.

48 The phrase "Gay Couples" is in the title of a post at AoSHQ, and the author is Gabe. What are the odds?

49 I'm just sayin. Make this easier on the people you love, who love you, ok? Shit, it's hard enough.

50 Yes, by all means, let's use executive fiats to force people into actions others want them to do, damn the unintended consequences. Unless of course it is picking up illegal criminals. Nazi hypocrite.

51 OT but what do you do when you wake up to the fact all your customers are gay?  I've been looking for my picture on oldguyswholooklikelesbians.com as a possible explanation but so far I haven't seen it.  I'm really at my wits end.  Any suggestions?

52 It is lawful marriage in those jurisdictions

Stop right there.  You had to add a modifier: "lawful".  Again, you attempt to use a modifier to utterly and completely destroy the meaning of the noun "marriage". 

If you don't like the words, you just blow them the fuck up.  Nice.

53 I am so tired of the "oppressed" classes. Victims, they are all victims.

Simply pathetic.

54

Get yourselves a goddamn Directive to Physicians.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 15, 2010 11:50 PM (Wh0W+)

Wisdom from our elder.

That's my questions though, if you have one of those or don't, what exactly does this change?

If someone has no proxy form, it's not like someone can just walk up and say, "I'm the long time boyfriend, I'm making the decisions" and push blood relatives aside, right?

Meh, it'll all be moot when we have to provide a health proxy statement with our individually mandated government health care.

Thanks Obama!

55 And words don't change their meaning because the legislature says so.  That's bullshit.

No, it's the reality of the world.

56 Reality

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

57 No, it's the reality of the world.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 16, 2010 12:03 AM (9B5OK)

The reality of the world is that small minded people are trying to change my fucking language to conform to their fucking political goals, which appear to be the overthrow of civil society.  Don't give me that pablum.

The reality of the world is that laws passed that don't meet society's approval, which means mine, are inoperative.  What kind of laws are those?  Laws which attempt to overthrow the civil society.  I'm too old for this shit.  "Gay Marriage" makes as much sense as "Liquid Wood".  It. Doesn't. Fucking. Exist. 

58 No, it's the reality of the world.

Indeed.  Most legislation I've ever read included a terms/definitions section where ordinary usage and meaning can be (and often are) redefined to mean something quite different than commonly accepted usage.

59  And words don't change their meaning because the legislature says so.  That's bullshit.

Words' meaning alter with common usage.

60

Get yourselves a Directive to Physicians.

Nobody needs this nonsense when you're dying.

If my family - or the state - wants to martyr me when I can't speak for myself, they're free to do so. And no piece of paper is going to make a difference either way.

61 redefined to mean something quite different than commonly accepted usage.

Good for them.  Doesn't make it so.  And the courts agree.

62 The spam's becoming sentient!  Trying to evade detection by not making it too obvious that it's spam.

63 eck, Comments Thingy strikes again.  Those first two sentences were a quote, of course.  No endorsement implied.

64 Words' meaning alter with common usage.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 16, 2010 12:09 AM (Mi2wf)

And your goal, as an advocate of "gay marriage", is to change the meaning of "marriage".  You realize that by doing so you advocate a complete re-ordering of civil society, do you not?

65

Yes, the reality of the world is a government undemocratically forcing people into actions without regard to the consequences. It's comical to see so called "conservatives" perfectly ok with the hypocrisy because it's not politically correct to not be fully behind something dictatorial because it happens to help homosexuals.

66 The reality of the world is that small minded people are trying to change my fucking language to conform to their fucking political goals, which appear to be the overthrow of civil society.  Don't give me that pablum.

The reality of the world is that laws passed that don't meet society's approval, which means mine, are inoperative.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 16, 2010 12:07 AM (T/+sg)

I hate to break it to you but despite what you claim in that comment, neither changes to the language nor societies approval are subject to your personal veto.

You've lost that fight. You're welcome to take another run at it but these things aren't yours solely to give or withhold.

67 There's a pothole near me that's really bad. How about an Executive Order there, Barry? It's from your fucking road crews not dealing with bridge joints properly.

68 I hate to break it to you but despite what you claim in that comment, neither changes to the language nor societies approval are subject to your personal veto.

You've lost that fight. You're welcome to take another run at it but these things aren't yours solely to give or withhold.

MY ASS!

I own this language that I speak, and this society I live in, and I haven't lost a thing.

It's called freedom.  I discern as ration dictates, think as I please, and order my life around those principles most likely to assure me both happiness and liberty. 

I didn't get reason as a gift from the universe just to give it up because 52% of my countrymen said to do so.

69 "You've lost that fight"

If that were true there wouldn't be a necessity for any more executive orders would there?

70

Posted by: ray at April 16, 2010 12:13 AM (oZq3v)

That comment was as irrelevant as your inability to achieve orgasm without a goat.

71 Ann Coulter wrote a piece several years ago about Federal money coming with strings attached. Universities, states, hospitals....essentially if you take the money then you dance to the tune the Feds call. This is national speed limits were passed, affirmative action, mandatory insurance and seat belt laws. Any state that balked was threatened with the cut off of federal funding.

I think this was just a test measure. If it goes without too much flap, then more directives will be handed down.

If I were governor, I have the LBO produce a budget estimate that does not include the payment or receipt of any Federal funds. Just to see what's do-able.

72 Wait, gay doesn't just mean "happy" anymore?

73 I hate to break it to you but despite what you claim in that comment, changes to the language are (not) subject to your personal veto.

On the contrary, as the speaker of the words, his intent was formed before he spoke them. i.e. he can define the words he uses to frame his intent however he pleases. Of course, that concept completely undermines his argument that language is what it is and it doesn't change, but the underlying concept defined by the word he uses cannot change in his mind just because you choose to define the word differently.

"Marriage" is what I call a specific kind of union between one man and one woman and their God, and you can't get that relationship from any other human pairing of any sort. You can tell me other pairings mean the same thing, and that you desire to use the same word I use to reinforce the point, but it won't make it Truth.

74 The other problem with this is in regard to the "the permanently pissed off Gay Left."  This particular policy may have broad support but it seems like it comes with the danger of leading the activists to believe that their agenda can be rammed through by circumventing the legislative process and the consent of the people.  Not a good precedent.

If nobody complains about this executive order, more will follow that may *not* have broad support.  It is sort of a stealth way of putting us on the path to recognizing same sex marriage, this being another step in that direction.  It should be opposed.

75 Actually there's nothing better for business than gay marriage

76 I guess throwing out this "bone" means that the SCOTUS appointment won't be gay.

77 Listen.  I re-read my comments and realize that I'm coming off a little trollish.  I've been around long enough that people know I'm not a troll.

I have felt strongly about the "gay marriage" issue since its inception a few short years ago.  In short, my position is that it's bullshit.

A conservative is someone who doesn't go off half-cocked at every whim and fad that comes down the pike.  That's what this is.  Homosexuals can get any piece of state-sanctioned paper work they want, and they still aren't married.  Why?  Because marriage is a societal construct, and the vast, vast majority of society is saying "bullshit, you aren't married".  Monogamy is enforced by society, families are enforced by society, etc.  That assumes a man and a woman.  Without such mechanisms in place, two homosexuals with a piece of paper are just two homosexuals with a piece of paper.  That isn't marriage, just as a guy marrying a thai hooker so she can get her citizenship is not marriage.

I could give a rat's ass what a couple people do in their private life, and if they love each other, I sure as hell don't want them to be denied the right to stand by each other's death beds.  That's cruelty.  But it is not marriage.  You have to utterly destroy the concept of marriage to get to the point where two dudes or two chick are "married", their love notwithstanding.

78 51 The phrase "Gay Couples" is in the title of a post at AoSHQ, and the author is Gabe. What are the odds?

Posted by: The Black Republican at April 15, 2010 11:57 PM (Sz7G2)

Ace used the phrase "Gay Couples" in the title of a post on June 6, 2007.

And he didn't take any shit for it. Today was the only other time the phrase was used in the title of a post here at the Q.

79 On the contrary, as the speaker of the words, his intent was formed before he spoke them. i.e. he can define the words he uses to frame his intent however he pleases. Of course, that concept completely undermines his argument that language is what it is and it doesn't change, but the underlying concept defined by the word he uses cannot change in his mind just because you choose to define the word differently.

The North and South Koreans have that problem.  The language they speak is recognizable to each of them, but the meanings of words have changed so much that they can hardly communicate.  Not a good way to have a discussion, and we're having that very problem in our own society as, for example, the youngish have a very different concept of "justice" than we do due to their brainwashing in the socialist school system.

80 Gabe, we don't know each other, but if we did, I'm sure we'd get on just great.  I mean none of this personally, I hope you know.

81 Herr Morgenholz at April 16, 2010 12:37 AM (T/+sg)

I see your point, but if you're out making a living, at least in the state where I live, sometimes it seems like you're out numbered.  At that point, their view has to be reckoned with.  I just haven't figured out how to do it and still be consistent with what you're talking about.   

82 Who the fuck does he think he is--Lady Astor's horse? Do we the rule of law, or Obama just pulling legislation out of his ass?

83 Gabe, we don't know each other, but if we did, I'm sure we'd get on just great.  I mean none of this personally, I hope you know.

No worries. People should be passionate about their politics.

84
I see your point, but if you're out making a living, at least in the state where I live, sometimes it seems like you're out numbered.

I seriously doubt you're outnumbered.  Speak up.  Fuck em.  I still have a job, and I'm a loud mouthed old fuck.

85 No worries. People should be passionate about their politics.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 16, 2010 12:47 AM (Mi2wf)

Agreed.

86

What about in a state like Virginia which . . .

allows one to execute a healthcare power of attorney naming whoever the hell you want to be your agent for healthcare decisions without bothering to ask where you like to put it.

87 Did my sarcasm touch off your literalist nerve, Gabe?

88

What about in a state like Virginia which . . .

allows one to execute a healthcare power of attorney naming whoever the hell you want to be your agent for healthcare decisions without bothering to ask where you like to put it.

With which I wholeheartedly agree.  Just don't call it marriage, or I dial the Vatican, or something.

Shit.  I'm not Catholic.

89 Been fun.  Night all.  I'm sleeping on the couch.  Cuz I'm married.

90 I'll send you the number, Morgenholz. We don't keep it secret. Bad for business.

91 I seriously doubt you're outnumbered.

I guess you'll have to take my word for it, or not.  Its a huge issue.  I'm talking about a small business where four of my ten biggest customers are way out of the closet, and the problem is: I like the money.  Its my problem so that's that.  Still I'm beginning to suspect I'm not the only one in this situation, and if enough guys like me start to back off, its a lot worse than an executive order from Barky. I'm not even certain what my point is, but I guess I appreciate your words of encouragement.  

92 3 Obama is gay. There I said it.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at April 15, 2010 10:58 PM (V/EYZ)

The folks at Hillbuzz say that too, oddly enough.  And they might be the folks to actually know about that.

93

particularly when it can be fixed with little cost.

You know what keeps medical costs down?  More and more regulations about how hospitals and providers have to conduct their business.

Federal regulations.

With red tape and one-size-fits-all provisions.   Hospitals have armies of people just to deal with regulations and forms.  All brought to us by the almightly lawyer.

Typical lawyer, make pronouncements declaring the "just path" and let the rest of us deal with the fecal aftermath.

What's the hospital to do when the parents want one thing but the gay spouse or partner wants something else?

What we always do!  Ask a damned lawyer.  Or specifically, a blind probate judge.

94 This particular policy may have broad support but it seems like it comes with the danger of leading the activists to believe that their agenda can be rammed through by circumventing the legislative process and the consent of the people.  Not a good precedent.

Just as a little newsflash, they already believe that and have been attempting to do exactly that for basically the past decade, with varying degrees of success.  And by "varying degrees of success" I mean homosexual marriage has gotten slapped down every time it's been presented in a state-wide referendum.

95 Thank you, Gabe, for another example of ends-justify-the-means thinking that will likely doom Republicans' next round in power just as much as it doomed the last.  You want rights for gay couples?  Fine, an argument can certainly be made that such is a conservative goal.  Certainly not Christian conservative, but libertarians are welcome into the conservative tent.

Where you go off the rails is blessing the method just because it yields the result you want.  President Obama just went around the system established by the Framers for something like the 500th time just because it was too onerous.  The President does not write the laws.  Congress does.  The President does not decide what conditions come attached to funding.  Congress does.

Yes, I am well aware that the Supreme Court has permitted the lazy asses in Congress to delegate vast amounts of their authority to the Executive Branch and that none but Clarence Thomas want to fix that particular line of precedent.  But that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.  And it certainly doesn't mean we have to cheer when the President abuses it again and again just because we happen to agree with the result in this one specific case.

96 lol fags.  useless.

97 For my next trick of legislating for non-existent problems, I will be signing an EO to allow cookies in bed for all jaywalkers.

98 Obama seems to be playing if I were King for a day. What will his next decree be? I am sorry Gabe, but I think this is social engineering. I have personal experience in this issue. My brother was involved in a motorcycle accident in 1984 that left him severely brain injured. I was cleaning out his room when I found his type of porn. You could understand why I just threw it away and did not tell my folks. Anyway he had lived with a "girl" in Texas the year before. This person called our house while my brother was in the ICU asking to come see my brother. Tried to pass herself off as a girl. My brother had a video in his closet in the 3/4' format. I had to take it to work to find out what was on it. This "girl" my brother was with was a trans-sexual. I explained what I knew and said my parents were in their own personal hell and could not bear more shock. I also would not allow her to present, what I thought, a lie to my folks. I am sure in her eyes I was unfair. You have no idea the pain and stress my parents were under then. My mother died last year after taking care of my brother for 25 years. Her and my father have suffered much taking care of him. It would have shattered them to have found out then. So Obama believes I had no right to resist this intrusion at that moment. It all depends on your perspective. I have no idea how close my brother was with this person. Does society have the right to force acceptance? My point is this order complicates the hospitals job rather than clarifying it. They must establish that there was a relationship and then mediate between factions. One last point and apologies for a long post. I love my brother and feel sorry for that person who obviously loved him. This issue is hopelessly complicated. The boy king is not smarter or better qualified to make this decision than all of us. He just thinks he is. No disrespect meant to you Gabe. Just my honest opinion.

99 This post is an excellent example of how Republicans are just liberals in disguise. No, homosexuals do not deserve their own status approximating marriage, not in any society that values marriage or its own future. No, people who advocate this are not any better than the Democrats. In some ways they're worse: the Democrats at least are generally honest about what they want. Republicans of this sort lie, and then do the Democrat thing anyway.

100 #98 ~ don't worry, Gabe's a Libertine.  The few, the proud, the 0.5%.

Among their other interesting views are legalized drugs (all of 'em, not just pot, no more prescriptions, just tell the pharmacist what you want), no federal laws against child pornography, abortion on demand as some fundamental "right", no national defense beyond our borders except in response to a direct attack.  Oh, and the other founding tenet Ron Paul ran for President upon, but which he and others now find embarrassing:  open borders.

Which explains the 0.5%. 

We tolerate them for humanitarian reasons, lest they degenerate into anarchists and go about like common street thugs beating up honest citizens to show their independence.

101 Gabriel, as a gay man, I'm also pleased but, as a grumpy old curmudgeon, I wonder what else will come from this: "The stealth provision that has gone unremarked in the title of the memo and the media coverage so far is that hospitals must also comply with advance directives giving non-family individuals the right to make decisions about patient care."

The law of unintended consequences is often taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers - not including you of course.

102   #98 ~ don't worry, Gabe's a Libertine.  The few, the proud, the 0.5%.

Among their other interesting views are legalized drugs (all of 'em, not just pot, no more prescriptions, just tell the pharmacist what you want), no federal laws against child pornography, abortion on demand as some fundamental "right", no national defense beyond our borders except in response to a direct attack.  Oh, and the other founding tenet Ron Paul ran for President upon, but which he and others now find embarrassing:  open borders.

For the record, I don't agree with any of that stuff that Adjoran listed. He must not read the HQ all that much.

103 I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I have to agree on general principle that the plethora of executive orders being handed down from His Majesty's throne are disturbing and IMO dangerous.

104 Obama's an asshole, and gay people are completely disgusting and deserve to be ridiculed for being disgusting.

There I said it cool story bro.

But I still think, for sure, that if someone's decided to have a friend or lover or gay lover be the person to make their medical decisions when they are knocked out, that is their right.

I do not think the federal government has any business dealing with hospital policy or most of the other crap the federal government does.  This seems like power of the purse, too, almost nakedly begging for a lawsuit so Obama can be the hero on a cause 90% of Americans support, and pretend the right is just bigots.

It's a trick.  It's lame, because it really is wrong for him to claim the power to demand any hospital receiving funds from the House of Representaves's legislation has to obey special rules he comes up with.  The only way to stop this power grab is to appear to be against gay people having control over who makes their medical decisions.

Disgusting triangulation.  The minds that come up with this stuff are probably going to burn in hell, if there is such a place.

But hey, gay sex is extremely nasty, biologically wrong, and gay people are annoying and wrong.  I still honor their basic human right to decide who, even their gay partner, makes their medical choices.  The GOP should just enact a bill to this effect when they rule the House, and note that Obama's power grab is illegal.  Perhaps make it a felony to make such power grabs in the future, calling it the Obama's Crime law.

Turn that shit around and let the democrats fight against gay rights if they want.

105 Like almost everything else coming out of our exalted political class, this appears to be about 290% BS.

I'd imagine that there are tons of rationalizations amongst gays that this is the "most gay-friendly presidential administration ever", but a plain reading of their words and deeds indicates the contrary. By contrast, W had discreet, but openly gay staffers -- and his VP discreetly, but openly, included his daughter's partner as a member of his family.

If you stipulate that the Obama administration doesn't give a good goddamn about gays, families, compassion, or decency, then the question that naturally comes to the fore is, "so, why issue this executive order?"

Unfortunately, the answer is very simple -- this order is a completely unjustified use of executive power, just as it would be for Obama to issue an executive order mandating that everyone send a Mother's Day card. Being 80% meaningless, 15% laudable, and 5% unintelligible, the Administration believed that it would pass without considerable controversy......but would form a basis for similarly unsupportable orders in the future.

The American system -- that has done well for us for over 200 years -- is based on counterbalances and restrictions of power. The Senate can't raise revenues; the House can't override the Senate.... By mandating this -- which most would not argue against -- it seeks to increase the Executive's power to mandate.




 

106 I side issue here is that it isn't so much a gay rights issue or even the right of a family to make decisions for a family as it is the egomaniacal attitude of some doctors (and nurses) that they have a right to play God and to determine who should live and who should die, in many cases with disingenuous, sleazy, evil and very sick, ulterior motives. Fully a third of doctors and nurses are so slimy and so irresponsible that they are unfit to provide care for anyone. God help a patient who is under the care of one of those sick freaks.

107 This memo, like so much of what Obama does, is meaningless bullshit.  All for show, containing nothing of substance, like his oil exploration crap.  Oh, well, you are what you speak.

I live in California, and a durable Power of Attorney and a medical P of A were all I needed to make financial and medical decisions for my mom without the interference of my 2 asshole welfare-sucking brothers.  You do not need to be a relative to be hold PofA, either.

 

108 Posted by: Chunky at April 16, 2010 02:26 AM (dUOK+)

If I catch your point, you're saying that you are personally revolted by graphic descriptions of homosexual behavior and flagrant expressions of a "homosexual lifestyle", but consider it common decency to allow someone to lean on any designated lover, friend, or whatever when chips are down. If that's the case, I think we have a certain basis for mutual agreement.

But if you're trying to imply that your revulsion makes you spend more time slamming gays -- including Gabe, who's a right cobber -- than worrying about what's right and honorable....and I'm not getting that this is the intended message, it's just that there's a bit of a vibe to it that is worrisome.....then you'd best entertain extreme caution. I know of well over a dozen Bushmill-swilling morons who've recently quaffed with Gabe and wouldn't look kindly on such uncivil behavior.

Just to summarize: if (personal queasiness) < (human decency), it's ok to talk freely; if (persona queasiness) > (human decency), you might want to think twice about letting anyone know it.

109 I didn't know Gabe was gay.

Frankly, I think lots of people are idiots about lots of things, and lots of people make terrible choices or have otherwise terrible traits (some of which are involuntary).

I think gay people deserve every human right I have.  I dont' want the government to distinguish between us.

I think gay sex is biologically wrong, and anal sex in particular is physically destructive and disgusting.  I think some aspects of gay culture are extermely corrosive, but the same can be said for straight culture or culture generally.

I do not hate gay people, but I find gayness to be disgusting.  I know this is pretty politically incorrect, but that's how I feel about it. 

I get where the vibe cthulu refers to is coming from, but Gabe, at least from what I read, doesn't seem to talk about gay sex.  Maybe the human right for gays to be treated equally to non gays.  Which to me is like the right for people who vomit and eat their own vomit to be legally treated like those who don't do that (just to give an example of loathsome behavior that isn't my personal business or legally relevant).

I've commented here thousands of times and haven't ever brought it up, and if I'm banned for it that's their business and right, but yeah, I just plain think gay sex is wrong.  Whether it's a choice or not (and frankly, I don't know, since I'm not one of those gay people who bashes gays in denial).

We're all fucked up to some degree, of course.  Pretty banal to point out that I also do things that are wrong sometimes, though I'm pretty awesome and good.  I think it's become extremely unfashionable to point out that gay sex is simply a lot grosser and wronger than penis in vagina sex.  Particularly on conservative blogs that are resistance to fundamentalist nutjobs and want to be part of a big tent where the government doesn't attempt to impose Christianity.  I get it.  I think a finer distinction can be made, though.  Even if the Bible didn't mention it, and it really doesn't mention it much in the part that I think matters, I would still think anal sex is just plain disturbing and horrible, and two men having sex is disturbing and wrong.

110 I'm totally in favor of gay visitation rights, and totally against the President deciding he can do anything he pleases by executive fiat.

111

Miss Fluffy, your authorization as Durable Powere Of Attorney, Medical Surrogate, Personal Representative for an estate or even as an a court-appointed Legal Guardian are just meaningless words on pieces of paper.

If a doctor or your relatives want to get your authorities revoked, so that they can get around you and advance their own evil agendas, all that they have to do is take you to court and assert  (not prove) that you are unfit to be a caregiver or a Medical Surrogate on contrived and bogus pretexts, and the way that the laws work is that, in the meantime, before your case goes to trial, which could be a delay of up to a few months, that doctor and your relatives can advance their evil agendas, very likely with the help of a hand-picked, liberal, activist judge, and there is nothing that you can do about it. That is how, in collusion with unethical doctors,  trial lawyers have perverted the courts in this country.

112

Combine our Wonderful Leader's super sized brain that is now focused exclusively on job creation with the Dear Leader's magmanimous empathy for the gays and DA BING!  You creat millions and millions of openings for Gay Candy Stripe Girls and Gay Candy Stripe Boys.

Queery: (no pun intended) if 2 gay guys are hospitalized in the same room, does one always have to play catcher and the other always pitch? If it were a federal hospital, could the "catcher" file a Federal Tort Claims Act for always having to take it in the ass?

113 I really, really want a libertarian president who would abuse the holy blue fuck out of these memorandums:

"All schools that wish to qualify for federal funds must show equal enrollment of carbon-based and silicon based life forms, along with equal performance on federal test scores."

:"All hospitals that wish to qualify for federal funds must divide by zero."

Someone forgive me if I am wrong, but if the President can do what Obama just did, why wouldn't the President be able to defund any such project in the ways above? Shrink the government by forcing just about anyone who wants its money to perform the twelve labors of Heracles to qualify by executive order. If the paperwork is readied ahead of time, it could be accomplished just minutes after the swearing in!

114 OT, but does anybody know where I can find a good cat filter? Ol' Mittens is really stinking the place up lately.

115 116Miss Fluffy, your authorization as Durable Powere Of Attorney, Medical Surrogate, Personal Representative for an estate or even as an a court-appointed Legal Guardian are just meaningless words on pieces of paper.

 Just about any legal document can be challenged but that doesn't mean it has no legal validity.  A properly executed P of A is perfectly legal. 

116

I understand what you're saying. But you missed my point.

When your authority is questioned, it becomes null and void until you can prove its validity.  In the meantime, your adversaries can advance their agenda. In those circumstances, contrary to what you might be naive enough to believe, many activist judges will "err on the side of caution" and they will presume that you are guilty of being unfit to be a caregiver until you can prove that your accusers are liars, and that could take months.

Without being familar with the circumstances, it's tough to address your situation. But in view of what you said, it seems that, fortunately for you, your brothers weren't smart enough to get themselves savvy and unscrupulous attorneys. Or perhaps they couldn't afford them.

117
The fact we're even discussing this nonsense, this fringe sexual fetish rooted in psychological problems, is proof how adept the Left for creating wedge issues to divide the United States and Western-Judeo-Christian culture.

Homosexuality is just another weapon in the arsenal of the Left's political correctness. Homos are being used. What a pity. A double pity.

118

When your authority is questioned, it becomes null and void until you can prove its validity.

Whatta load of crap. If this was the case Obama wouldn't have been able to issue this EO because he still hasn't provided his long form birth certificate.

You two are nuclear grade stupid.

119 So, Obama sides with wife beaters and pimps.

The hospitals must respect a patient's wishes regarding who is allowed to visit, even when the written wishes are made under duress/coercion.

This segues smoothly into forcing patients to request the hospital auditor / death panel decider / whoever the government wants gets access.

120 WAIT A MINUTE!!!  Here's the original situation:

Ms. Langbehn sued Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, but hospital lawyers argued that the hospital did not have a legal duty to grant visiting rights when a patient was in the hospitalÂ’s trauma center.

The hospital said:In a statement, Jackson Memorial said it did not restrict visitation based on sexual orientation.

“The hospital grants visitation to all individuals equally, regardless of their relationship to the patient – as long as doing so does not interfere with the care being given to the patient or other patients in the area,” the statement said.

It seems that the restriction had NOTHING TO DO with the orientation of the visitors.  ANY visitor would have been restricted.

This fiat is not just overweening but also irrelevant. 

^{September 30, 2009, 1:28 pm}

^{No Visiting Rights for Hospital Trauma Patients By TARA PARKER-POPE}

121

It's called, "working the courts", Miss Fluffy. There are a few slick ways to do it. But I don't want to give anyone here any naughty ideas. So I'll just say that if your brothers had a savvy attorney, he would tie you up in one court, while advancing his primary agenda in another court.

There are precautions that you can take which will frustrate your adversaries and actvist judges. But those clauses should be written into your LG, PRE, MS and DPOA documents by a skilled and experienced criminal attorney, not a civil attorney.

122 You two are nuclear grade stupid.

Posted by: Ed Anger at April 16, 2010 06:25 AM (7+pP9)

 

Saying its so ain't going to make it so, and it ain't going to make you any smarter either.

123

Posted by: Dianne & Brian at April 16, 2010 06:56 AM (ITzbJ)

I disproved your lame argument. Whining about me calling you imbeciles at the same time does nothing to further your stupid claim.

124 Pro gay marriage here....why not let them "dicover" what they have been missing.....(fill in the blanks yourself) O/T Cameron is on Morning Joe making the argument that the AGW argument is "relative".... a few bad apples there, no story.

125 I'm a wagon!

126 I don't argue with fools. So take a hike.

127 I'm on a plane!

128 I don't argue with fools. So take a hike. Are you fuckin' kiddin' me?? Are you fuckin' kiddin' me??!?!? You look for a fight just about every time you are here and often end up saying something about their intelligence. You 'argue with fools' with passion and dedication. And BTW, if anyone involved should be wearing out shoe leather, it is you.

129 #32, you left out delicious Boston kosher ham.

130 Now Ace and Barney Frank can visit one another when they are hospitalized for chronic poop chute sores.

131 Is it just me, or is anyone else having a problem getting onto Redstate's site???

132

"You 'argue with fools' with passion and dedication."

 

Well, now that you put it that way, thanks. It's nice to know that I'm appreciated. LOL

133

The stealth provision that has gone unremarked in the title of the memo and the media coverage so far is that hospitals must also comply with advance directives giving non-family individuals the right to make decisions about patient care.

 

Gays think this is about them because that is what that blank screen Obama let's them project.

But to Obama this is where his death panel, which you have to 'sign up for' under the new law says, "Pull the Plug".

134

Is it just me, or is anyone else having a problem getting onto Redstate's site???

Posted by: The Dude Abildes at April 16, 2010 07:54 AM (lvJaW)

They've gone full Chuckles over there, tracking down everybody who has ever discussed birtherism anywhere, at any time -- and cut off their access. So most likely you've been banned.

135

What is so bad about this order is that now hospitals will have to admit visitiations by Horses and Dogs and Gerbils and Warren Jeffs.

We're sliding down a slope lubed with KY jelly.

136 Well, now that you put it that way, thanks. It's nice to know that I'm appreciated. LOL I think you missed the point. ==> You lie <==

137

Do you know who this benefits?

Mitt Romney, because now I can visit him in the hospital.

138 Posted by: fluffy isn't as lame as (SwkdU) either LOL at April 16, 2010 08:19AM

139 Does this mean Andi Sullivan can be visited by anybody that reads his personals ad?

140 OT:  Joe Biden paid $71k federal taxes on $333k of income.  I'm no math whiz, but that sounds like just above 20%.  I'm pretty sure he's not in the just-above-20% tax bracket. 

On the bright side, since I paid a higher percent than he did, that makes me more patriotic than him.

141

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

142 Posted by: fluffy isn't as lame as (SwkdU) Interesting, but casual, observation

143 So the new Director of a hospital is touring on his first day and
he is checking out the physical therapy wing.
He passes a room and a male patient is masturbating furiously.
"What the hell is going on here ?!" he asks the Chief of Operations
"Sorry you had to see that sir. The door should have been closed."
"That man is on a drug that has a side effect of stimulating his prostate so
severely it must be drained six times a day."
Two rooms later a male patient is being fellated by a nurse.
"What is this place! A brothel!" Roared the new Director
"Sorry you had to see that sir. The door should have been closed."
"That man is on that same drug that has a side effect of stimulating his prostate so severely it must be drained six times a day but he has private insurance and the other man is HMO."

144 LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

145
Obama's order will end a great deal of uncertainty, both for gay spouses, who already have to spend more money than straight spouses to get the same rights...

Gabriel, you talk out of your ass like a dunce. Where do you come up with this b.s.? From that phony conservative group, GOPProud? Log cabin republicans?

146
Remember that farce about not allowing gay interpreters in the military was hurting the war effort? I'm sure Gabe fell for that one, too.

147
fuck. I forgot to change my nic.

slides don't talk, dammit!

148 Hooray!!
We're up next !!

149

The stealth provision that has gone unremarked in the title of the memo and the media coverage so far is that hospitals must also comply with advance directives giving non-family individuals the right to make decisions about patient care.

Death Panels.

150 Isn't there a legal "next of kin" designation?

151 Barney Frank and Janet Napalitano should be made responsible for visiting all gays in the hospital. Problem solved.

152 Two-bit tin pot wanna bee sure does like ordering people around doesn't he.

2010 we stop the rot -- 2012 we take out the trash, get rid of the commie regime of  liars.

We had about 5000 attendees, about double last year, tea party activists prepping for the mid-term  election. Marco Rubio is our standard bearer. If you feel like it, Marco deserves your change.

153 O/T Am I supposed to be sympathetic to the europeans who can't fly? I clicked on the drudge link for "Icelandic Volcano explodes" thinking I would see pictures of the volcano and, instead,  get pictures of people sitting in airports. Sorry, I can't work up an interest in grounded eurotrash.

154 If the easter bunny can disrupt job numbers can a volcano disrupt AGW stats?

155 "125 So, Obama sides with wife beaters and pimps." -- This is where this policy ends up, perfect scenario for our favorite film-makers. A lot of societies ills are discovered at the hospital; and alot of careful thought has gone into the policies to deal with these problems; if a pimp or human traffiker can override those policies with a "letter" then there are going to be scandals.

156 Posted by: fluffy liked dagny better as ditzy (SwkdU) at April 16, 2010 09:00AM

157 If the easter bunny can disrupt job numbers can a volcano disrupt AGW stats? Only to the polar bears detriment. You should know that by now.

158 159 dagny and lindsey graham can be their on call substitute

159 164 165 Great, now I have a stalker with a time machine.

160
I can't find the song right now, but at the Boston rally wrko came up with a great parody of Queen's We Are The Champions.

We are the patriots
They are the Soviets

Sounded really good.

161
fluffy, did you hear the song?
you must have

I can't find it anywhere.

162
I think the kids here would enjoy it.

163 I can't find the song right now, but at the Boston rally wrko came up with a great parody of Queen's We Are The Champions. We are the patriots They are the Soviets I don't remember it. Did they play it at the rally or on the air?

164
they played it right after Todd Feinberg spoke; he introduced it

165
Todd spoke at 1130, I think

166 O/T Obama making fun of Tea Party... yeah, that is more proof how dumb he is, he should have said( Clinton era) , "I agree with their concerns we need to work on reducing the deficit." "The Tea Party is exercising it's rights granted under our constitution." Game over. Instead he pandered to the left, and made fun on ordinary Americans, who do not get paid to travel, like he does. It is being covered on all networks today. Dumb politics on his part. Good news for us.

167 .

168 they played it right after Todd Feinberg spoke; he introduced it Must have been distracted. Todd also came to the Lowell TEA party yesterday afternoon.

169 We need to stop laughing at Graham, he is positioning himself for a run. This gas tax shit: "he made hard choices for deficit reduction", cap n'tax "he care's (with a little tear)". He will have poll numbers showing he can swing lots of independents and the media will spoon with him. His ass needs to dragged back to the line soon, or else we will have a formidable RINO candidate in the 2012 primaries. First, step - get some of the early primaries closed.

170

Power Line has two interesting articles about our intelligence community.

The first is about the departure of Deputy Director Stephen Kappes from his position at the CIA. It turns out that Kappes was a real turd in the punch bowl -- a bureaucrat's bureaucrat who f'cked up the CIA big time. He fought Bush and pushed for business as usual at the CIA.

The second is about the NSA leaker. He was a nobody who leaked nothing important. He's being prosecuted because he leaked stuff that cast the NSA's bureaucracy in an unflattering light.

So it's business as usual in our intelligence community: FUBAR.

171

the issue isn't who gets to visit; the issue is who gets to decide on the patient's care.

though my step-children are grown, when they were small, my husband gave me med power of atty for them if they had an accident when he was at work & couldn't get to the hospital.  They could have had the most horrible accident & needed an up to the minute decision, but because I am not kin, I could not make the decision.  the hospital would have had to get a juvenile judge involved.  same with gay partners:  they are only partners.  they don't have legal rights.

this Exec Order will cause issues in Virginia.

lesson here:  go to your lawyer & get everything in order for yourself & your children.  leave nothing to the hospital or the govt. to decide.

 

172 Why exactly would Republicans oppose this?

Are we not for individual freedom?

If you're in the hospital, why should the hospital be allowed to tell you who can and who cannot visit you? It's frankly none of their fucking business and since you're paying for the room and board, shouldn't you be the one to decide?

What possible use is there for the federal government deciding who can and cannot visit you? The Republican position should be that DHS should not be allowed to propagate any rules except those which prevent the hospital from meddling in your business to start with.

This has nothing to do with gays (at least from the conservative perspective). It has to do with the government not being allowed to tell you who can visit you in the hospital.

No way the federal government should have anything at all to do with either allowing, or not allowing, anyone to visit a patient in a hospital.

173

I thank the Obama on high, for Obama, that he might read from the book of Obama to teach us and guide us on the path to Obama. 

If I were gay, I'd want to make Obama my bitch.

Amen.

174 "The stealth provision that has gone unremarked in the title of the memo and the media coverage so far is that hospitals must also comply with advance directives giving non-family individuals the right to make decisions about patient care."

Again ... why should the hospital, or anyone from the government or elsewhere, be allowed to decide your care for you?

If you leave advance directives with your son, daughter, friend, or lover ... they're still your advance wishes. The conservative position is that the government should play no role here except to force hospitals to honor the wishes of YOU, the patient, who ostensibly has individual freedom to decide in advance who will make your medical decisions for you.

Conservatives better think ahead. There is a day coming soon when doctors will BE THE GOVERNMENT. They will be government officials. We do not want doctor/government officials deciding how we get care.

Conservatives should be backing this move. Or are we just against giving gays any right? Is that it? Look, I'm not gay and I don't know anyone who is. But frankly, I could care less if someone wants to allow his gay partner to make medical decisions for him or her because I'm for the conservative principle of individual freedom.

If I want my fucking cat to make my medical decisions for me that's none of the doctor's business and none of the government's business.

This is a simple, conservative principle that all Republicans should be able to get behind.

Let the principle of individual freedom be your guide - or you will shortly find that the government is making all of your decisions for you.

175 OMG !!! what next forced abortions for everyone ?

176

Wow, another usurpation of authority by the President. But as long as it is for homosexuals its OK.

Right Gabe.

177 This order sounds pretty meaningless.  Were hospitals actually screening visitors for anything other than potential health hazards?  I've gone into hospitals to see people who were merely acquaintances and had no problem doing so.

178

More typical feel good BS.

Prepare a living will, various power of attorneys, etc, and there won't be any problems.  This is more of people not taking care of their own business and crying about it when things don't go their way.

 

179

This is all about HIPPA. The Congress screwed it up <*shock*, *surprise*, NOT!>

Now Barry Teh Won is going to fix it all with a crayon and wide space note paper saying 'cause he's Teh Won the law is now moot. How does that work? Since when does a fiat from the White House trump a law???

If Congress hadn't screwed it up in the first place we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

180 Wow, so in favor of the result you don't care about the method. How very RINO of you. It's like John McCain is writing for AoS now. Yeah, who cares if a hospital doesn't want to allow gay partner visits on moral/ethical/religious grounds. The President commands and because polling is good everyone looks the other way. What utter garbage. Perhaps hospitals should set the policies and patients decide whether to go to those hospitals. But I guess free markets are a little too maverick for you huh?

181 "But I guess free markets are a little too maverick for you huh?"

Imagine for a second that you're the patient and you're paying for the room (with your insurance and/or Medicare withholding).

Now should the hospital tell you who can and cannot visit you? Or the government?

Because soon all hospitals will be taken over by the government and all doctors and nurses will be government officials.

Do you want the government deciding who can visit you? Do you want the government deciding who you can appoint to decide your care decisions when you are incapacitated?

Or is that a little too "personal freedom" for you?

182 "you're paying for the room " <> "with your insurance and/or Medicare withholding"

start there and work your way though the rest....

clue: personal freedom includes consequences for choices made.*








_{*including sexual activity choices}

183 Someguy: Wow are you wrong. If I'm a patient I would find out visitation policies before I check in. If a patient doesn't, well you can't legislate stupidity. If a gay man checks into a hospital that doesn't allow his partner to see him that's his problem for not doing his homework. And you're somehow equating Obama's rule by dictate as personal freedom and a guard against government control over your life and health choices. Are you from Bizzaro world? When does dictatorial muscle become freedom in your view? You see private businesses have the right to exclude whoever they want. And private consumers have the right to not do business with any company they don't like. Whether you or anyone else likes the result is meaningless. The real issue is Obama changing the entire economic market in America with a single memo. Remember, AoS just had a graphic up a few nights ago showing that for the Healthcare bill that went thru congress there are 5 more Obama is just going around the other branches of government. Rule by fiat.

184 Regarding any problematic exploitation of medical decision-making power - the hospital should ignore the executive order if they suspect something fishy is going on. I mean, what do Obama & Co. do? They ignore the law and put the burden on others to do something about it.

185 "115 I'm totally in favor of gay visitation rights, and totally against the President deciding he can do anything he pleases by executive fiat. Posted by: Gary Rosen"

I think this gets to the point as well as anybody.  I think Gabe pretty much feels this way, as do most conservatives.  It's a trick to get a new presidential power, they would be freaking if Bush did this, and we should oppose it strongly even though it's a civil rights issue 90% of people agree with, but we can't because it's an obvious stunt.

Like I said, the solution is for the GOP house to pass a bill mandating the same exact requirement while also explicitly outlawing what the  US President did.

someguy and dianne and brian are just trolling you... they will take whatever position they need to to get some attention, because they are total nutjob losers and this is how they like to spend their lives.  Neither of them really even argue well, they both seem pretty stupid, and if they get on your nerves, you're a sucker.

Ignore them.  Most of us have no problem with the concept, even those who think gays are sinner, etc.  Most of us refuse to accept the powergrab and recognize the trick.

186

Obama's order will end a great deal of uncertainty, both for gay spouses, who already have to spend more money than straight spouses to get the same rights....

No such thing as a gay spouse....they are not married.

 

 

187 Never mind visitation rights, when is this fool going to legalize tickle fights?

188

because I am not kin, I could not make the decision.  the hospital would have had to get a juvenile judge involved.  same with gay partners:  they are only partners.  they don't have legal rights

 

And this mis-statement is exactly what Morgenholz was referring to, and is exactly the opening that Obama took. Yes, 'they' have rights. Do you or 'they' automatically have THE right to act in THAT PARTICULAR SCENARIO? No. Did I automatically have rights granted to me when my brother was in critical condition and his wife was in no position to talk to the caregivers? No. We had to work that out with the hospital. Both of our parents were there, but they needed to try to talk to his wife first.

Is it possible to obtain those rights by working through a legal process? Yes. Is an executive order from the Manufactured Messhiah needed to accomplish this? No.

189 Only by turning language and culture on its head can you call a union of same-sex couples "marriage".  It is not marriage.  It will never be marriage.  They will never be spouses.  What in the ever loving fuck is so difficult about this concept?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 15, 2010 11:47 PM (T/+sg)

Reminds me of Abe Lincoln's joke: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a donkey have? Hint: it's not five.

Ok, ok, jokes weren't that good in the 19th century....

190 Beldar:Were a hospital to decide to forgo Medicare and Medicaid funding,
========

Is it accurate to say hospitals receive Medicare and Medicaid funding? Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought they accepted patients who are insured by Medicare and Medicaid.
The interesting thing to me in this (otherwise smoke and mirrors memorandum) is he is requiring hospitals to treat all of their patients in a certain way if they have some patients who receive government-funded insurance.
I'm concerned about how he will use the bludgeon of government-funded insurance against hospitals' treatment of all patients as his poorly designed health reform bill rolls out. How will he use Medicare, Medicaid, and vouchers to force hospitals to behave in a way that he wants, but is not actually legislated?

191 The only important topic here is that Obama is stepping outside the bounds of the executive branch of the federal government ---yet again.

192 Exactly, baldilocks.

And can we discuss how frequently Obama seems to fall for (and attempts to legislate by) fake sob stories?

193

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 16, 2010 12:20 AM (T/+sg)

Nice display of a sick yet uninspired mind. You should try a woman, that'll straighten you out.

194 Words' meaning alter with common usage.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 16, 2010 12:09 AM (Mi2wf)

 

Yeah, Joseph Goebbels used the same propoganda - Tell a lie frequently enough and people will come to believe that it is the truth. Get real.

195 A rational way of phrasing gay marriage is, let's play make believe. Gotta feel sorry for those neurotic people. Their wishful thinking and their delusions and their fantasies have become their  realities, and they continue to reinforce each other's delusions. Pitiful. They've destroyed their lives for no other reason than because they're incapable of exercising self-control. News Flash: There are issues in life that are more important than sexual urges. Unfortunately, you'll be too old and all alone before you'll realize what those other issues are.

196

It would break my heart if a child of mine was a homosexual. But it will never happen. It's just a theory, mind you, but I suspect that homosexuals are the children of narcissistic parents, who couldn't be bothered with giving their children the proper love (and the tough love) that children require. I'm not my sons' friend. I'm their mother with responsibilities which their friends can shirk. But which I cannot and will not, and their father will not shirk those responsibilities either.

Sleazy and vile politicians like Obama exploit the vulnerabilities of gay people to attain power for themselves, and in their hopelessness, the gays are too neurotic to realize that they are being used and manipulated. Those same unscrupulous politicians exloit the vulnerabilities of other minorities, too. It is a sad and tragic situation.

197

An afterthought:

Many parents are so immature themselves that they view their children as cute, little toys, and they play with their cute, little toys only whenever they feel like playing with their toys, unable to cope with toys which can think for themselves and which have needs which toys don't have. When the novelty wears off, they tire of those toys, too, and that's when they do irreparable harm to their no-longer-cute, little toys. I'm done venting for today.

198 Step 1: go on a conservative blog, write homophobic crap.
Step 2: go back to you lefty site and whine that conservatives hate, or even care, about the sexual orientation of people they aren't dating.

199 A) No problem in principle, but it could have been done all along, advanced directives can name the health care surrogate. I think people should be able to designate who can visit them. B) I haven't heard of one case of discrimination on any of those grounds--EVER! C) Zero is a dictator.

200 209 Step 1: go on a conservative blog, write homophobic crap.
Step 2: go back to you lefty site and whine that conservatives hate, or even care, about the sexual orientation of people they aren't dating.

Posted by: dustydog at April 16, 2010 10:00 PM (j8aSQ)

Well, if you're referring to me, then no, I'm not really a homophobe.  I just think gay sex is a bad thing.  I think gay people are not any more bad than a straight person often is.  I think gays are fundamentally good and God loves them and they can go to heaven and all that... but I also really think they should be treated just like straights by the government.

I don't want to go into the details, but an anus simply is not meant to withstand sex... it's not just gross, it's unhealthy in many ways.  Not to mention, the biological basis for sexual intercourse, even when not meant or able to bear children, is functional, beautiful, and ... naturally correct.

I am no lefty.  I've found most severe homophobes to be liberals, like Fred Phelps.

I just think it's strange and unfortunate people do not admit the basic fact that sodomy isn't just bad because some religious text says so.  It's actually pretty awful for obvious reasons.  Gay or straight, though I think a lot of the taboo at discussing it is meant to show respect for gays.

I respect gays as my equals, and that's why I feel comfortable pointing out that I think this aspect is pretty horrible.

I won't bring it up in any other threads... it's not really worth bothering folks with.

201

Obama's executive order has been in effect since 1996 via the HIIPAA(Health  Information  Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.) However advanced   directives and power-of-attorney for health care are necessary  components for any patient.  In the absence of these, state laws usually  define  in what order familly members are given legal standing.  There is nothing in  the  law  that prevents non-family members having responsibility IF there is an advanced  directive and  POA, and hospitals abide with these as long as the  patient provi des copies upon admission.  The rules can be read  in a lengthy PDF file at HHS.gov.

Hospitals can restrict visitors only on the say-so of the patient with the exception of prisoners and  some patients with certain infectious diseases or immunocompromised patients ( severe burns and bone marrow transplants.)  The family cannot request certain visitors not be allowed even if a patient is not  completely in their right mind.  The hospital can restrict a visitor if there is fear  that the visitor threatens the safety of the patient in any way.

If I had a family member that wanted to interfere with a patient's  POA for health care, I would refer them to  the hospital's ethics committee where the patient's rights would be upheld or not.  At this point, the family member could decide to pursue legal avenues.  All hospitals are required  by federal law to have ethics committees and physicians, nurses, family members and patients all have access to this committee. If the committee upholds the legal forms of the  patient, then legal recourse by the family is their only choice.  So be very prudent about having an advanced directive AND a power of  attorney for health care.  It's also wise to attach a letter outlining specific wishes and reasons for the forms.  It gives judges a better idea of the patient's  thinking if  a family goes to court and  the letter has been helpful in actual court cases.

202

#212 @ 8:06 a.m.

Get real.

Those so called "Ethics Committees" are oftentimes a sick joke, comprised of unethical doctors and unethical members of a hospital's staff whose ulterior motives are to use smoke and mirrors to conceal, to downplay and to divert  attention away from secrew-ups by themselves and/or by other members of that hospital's staff. They convene those farcical and deceptive committee hearings for strictly self-serving reasons. Covering their asses and protecting their reputations always take precedence over providing proper care for patients. You're naive. You don't have a clue as to the sleazy shenanigans which are orchestrated by unscrupulous hospital administrators. BTW, you neglected to meantion that today's hospitals have Risk Management Teams, too; the functions of which are nefarious in ways too numerous to list here.

203

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.

This paragraph, friends and neighbors, is the equivalent of Emily Litella's closing lines to Chevy Chase in the old SNL "Weekend Update" skits: "Never mind."

204 There are different types of pains in human body. Sometimes when we wake up, we can feel a crick on our neck and we may have orjin krem difficulty to get rid of it. Sometimes, unconsciously as a result of staying under air flow, suffering pain occur on our shoulders, colic, knees and different parts of our body. 

Of course, pains in the calcifying areas of the chronic rheumatic disturb us continuously. There are so many kinds orjin krem of pains that occur as a result of headache, exhaustion, hittings and immobility etc.

The colic and the leg muscles of a person who is driving are the most paining things. The ones who are working in front of computers have more complaints. There are so many ways to remove all these  pains and to eliminate disturbance.

Orjin Pain & Rheumatism Cream offers you an excellent solution that does not have any side effect and it is made of 100% natural ingredients.