Obama: gay partners should have hospital access

Damocles said:
Rubbish. It doesn't take legislation for me to sue for their poor policy that caused my healing to be more painful solely for some stupid bloodline proximity rule based in some ancient "tradition" that I don't follow.
Click to expand...
Knock yourself out then- sue away. That's a market solution.
 
Southern Man said:
Knock yourself out then- sue away. That's a market solution.
Click to expand...
Which I have brought up repeatedly. I hope they get sued and lose their fricking job, their hospital and every thought they ever had of living with any form of comfort. They took it from others, they deserve no less.
 
Southern Man said:
Post 287 my friend.
Click to expand...

no, that isn't enough....the fact that a person has been put in charge of a hospital isn't sufficient reason to act like an idiot.....there simply is NO legitimate reason to prevent someone a patient has chosen to appoint as a patient advocate from visiting a patient....in fact, under the laws of this state, it is illegal....
 
Southern Man said:
Of course you're talking about legislation. Unless you want Obama to do an illegal Executive Order. The hospital is going to do what they want otherwise.

Don't give me a bleeding heart theoretical. Only a lib-tard does that.
Click to expand...
who needs legislation....I'd climb into my wheelchair and make my way to the hospital president's office and chew his ass off....
 
Damocles said:
Which I have brought up repeatedly. I hope they get sued and lose their fricking job, their hospital and every thought they ever had of living with any form of comfort. They took it from others, they deserve no less.
Click to expand...

As long as a hospital is getting paid tax dollars, the gov't has a say in the operations of the hospital.

This is not like deciding who gets to operate or how the ICU is run. This is about basic patient rights. Lawsuits are often a great way to correct things in a capitalistic market. And sometimes they are not a great way. If it gets too expensive it has an adverse effect on the healthcare of all who use the hospital. So in that way allowing the continuation of bad policy is a health hazard.

Let the patient determine who visits and who gets to make decisions for them if they are unable.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, that isn't enough....the fact that a person has been put in charge of a hospital isn't sufficient reason to act like an idiot.....there simply is NO legitimate reason to prevent someone a patient has chosen to appoint as a patient advocate from visiting a patient....in fact, under the laws of this state, it is illegal....
Click to expand...
Regardless, the government shalt not intervene...
 
Southern Man said:
Regardless, the government shalt not intervene...
Click to expand...

If its a private hospital that receives no tax dollars, that is true.

But when the hospital requires tax dollars to operate they have to follow certain rules. This is now one of those rules.
 
Southern Man said:
The market does the same thing.
Click to expand...

How long would it take the market to correct this problem?

And if, as you claim, gays make up less than 1% of the population, would it ever correct the problem of their treatment?
 
Southern Man said:
How convenient; now queers are 1%ers. Before they were as common as dung in the pasture.
Click to expand...

"And if, as you claim, gays make up less than 1% of the population, would it ever correct the problem of their treatment?"

If you would actually read what I post it would make things much simpler.

Or at least avoid making strawman arguments instead of actually answering the questions asked.
 
But, SM, if we rely on the market to make these corrections, does that mean that hopsitals should not receive any tax dollars?

And would the market make the same corrections natiowide? (that is sarcasm, because we know it would not) So those who would be in the minority groups that would be suing for the changes would have to be careful to only need medical procedures or emergency care in certain areas.
 
Yurt said:
why don't we allow only christians to get a marriage license?
Click to expand...

I think the reason given was that the atheists who marry now may become christians later, so they get to call their contract a "marriage" from teh beginning.

Which means that gays are banned from ever being christians so they won't ever be married.

Well, that and the whole "unnatural, unhealthy, perverse" things too. (the last line is sarcasm and should not be taken as an actual argument)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top