View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Last minute bush...
jayon
An article someone sent me: Bush Medical rules could harm LGBT, HIV patients.

Does anyone know of this, and could they legally refuse medical attention to atheists with this law? I'm wondering. If that's the case, could they refuse medical attention to someone trying to screw up our country... namely the idiots in charge of making this a law?
 
Sinny
I never heard of this. Let me check around a bit and see if I can find anything. Is it a new law? what is the name of the law? got any sites to check it out at?

EDIT:

Shit a few articles on google already found. I need to read some yet.



http://www.google...gle+Search
Edited by Sinny on 12/22/2008 19:52
 
cheshiredragon
IF anyone cares to read this it was in this month's Rolling Stone.

Bush's final FSCK YOU!
http://www.rollin...s_final_fu

P.S. - If anyone does not have this month's RS, I highly suggest it if you like Brad Pitt. He is looking sexy. I'm not gay but, that is a pretty man. What the hell, I'd fsck him. Pfft

here ya go:
[img]http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/0/3/0/8/24958030.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.
That's right, I said it...
 
Bob of QF
jayon wrote:
An article someone sent me: Bush Medical rules could harm LGBT, HIV patients.

Does anyone know of this, and could they legally refuse medical attention to atheists with this law? I'm wondering. If that's the case, could they refuse medical attention to someone trying to screw up our country... namely the idiots in charge of making this a law?


This was on NPR about a week or so ago.

Yes, it could seriously hurt the treatment of people with lifestyles the doctor does not agree with.

Yes, it's a serious violation of medical ethics: allowing religion to interfere with the ethics of treatment. (ultimately, UN-ethical, IMO)

Fortunately, there's a provision to deal with last-minute idiotic presidential regulations (these are different than laws and statutes, they are basically "edicts" from the executive branch that act to interpret existing laws and statutes).

The provision is that anything last minute (that is, any new executive branch regulations within the last few months of exiting office) can be voted on by congress, and only a simple majority can overturn it. No filibuster is permitted in the senate, either (they were specific about that on NPR).

Thus, congress can act to simply overturn this with a simple majority.

Obama can overturn it too, but it's much more complicated.

If congress overturns the regulation, it reverts to whatever was in effect previously.

For Obama to replace it, he must go through a much more complex vetting process.

Or so the NPR newsbit said.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
Here's the NPR bit:

http://www.npr.or...d=98467651

Here's the reversal process they spoke of:

But Barack Obama made it clear during the presidential campaign that he disapproved of the rules. The president-elect said an early version of the regulations "raises troubling issues about access to basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives."

While the incoming president can't simply wipe out the rules with the stroke of a pen, there is a relatively abbreviated process for taking them off the books. It's called the Congressional Review Act. And because the Bush administration issued the regulation late in the current president's term, the new Congress will have 75 legislative days to pass a "motion of disapproval." All it takes is a simple majority of votes by the House and Senate, and the motion is not subject to delaying tactics in the Senate.

Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JohnH
The part that bothers me the most about this whole thing is that, it is my understanding, these rules can be hard to reverse. It is extremely odd to me that the president can essentially make law in his last days of office and there is no oversight by the congress, and these things that are essentially law changes can become more or less permanent. No matter what you might think of a specific president or the specifics of the rules changes this strikes one as very antidemocratic. How is it that rule changes made in haste, without congressional oversight, can only be reversed over much time.

An obvious example is the selling of oil leases in the desert southwest. I wonder what can be done to change that. Although I did hear on the radio today that some courageous student at the University of Utah forced up the bid on several of these oil leases and actually won the bid on some, though he has no intention of buying them himself. None the less those leases bought by oil companies will be difficult to reverse.
 
RayvenAlandria
It is sickening that zealots pull whatever kind of stunts they can to push their beliefs down the throats of other people. It sickens me that they are trying to get away with such evil crap. I hope they are stopped.
 
catman
JohnH: I agree with you 100%. The lame duck should not be able to inflict his quackitude (to borrow a word from Rachel Maddow) upon us like this, and I too have heard that many of his doings will be hard to reverse. Bush is rewarding some of his reactionary friends.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JohnH
Catman, you are correct that Bush is rewarding some of his reactionary friends. But, my concern is deeper then that.

I thought of this when I realized that some of the "wilderness" areas in the desert southwest opened to oil drilling were probably some of the same areas declared wilderness by Clinton on his way out the door. I frankly agreed with Clinton's move, I would like to believe I had qualms about it at the time but I think that may be hindsight.

My thought is that this is one more place where the constitution is consciously being circumvented in furtherance of the imperial presidency. I also think that this is a place where those of us on the left could find common ground with those on the right. I will agree that Bush with his "singing statements" and other actions including the latest has been the worst of the recent presidents. I will also agree that most of Bush's actions has been to reward, as you say, his reactionary friends.

I think it is a greater problem then that immediate one. I have seen in my life presidents slowly but inexorably assuming more power. I find the latest president most offensive in that regard, but I think that many others if the problem is presented to them with care, might agree that we in this country have a real constitutional problem that must be addressed no matter what our specific political belief.

I tend to be hopelessly romantic in the notion that it we work to find common ground with those we may not agree with about much that we might rescue this country from our current rulers.
 
catman
You are right. Bush's actions are the most egregious, but there is a flaw in the design. Outgoing presidents should not be able to ram through stuff like this. What happened to the system of checks and balances? Cheney's recent outrageous statements concerning what the President can do (such as initiating a full-scale nuclear attack), without informing Congress or the public, are truly frightening. I don't agree with the concept that 'if the President does it, it isn't illegal'. If that is true, we may as well have an emperor.
Edited by catman on 12/23/2008 03:13
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JohnH
My point exactly. And, a point that the general public sould find offensive no matter what their general political views.
 
cheshiredragon
catman wrote:
If that is true, we may as well have an emperor.


I welcome our new Emperor overlord...and his fancy clothes
That's right, I said it...
 
Sinny
Bob of QF wrote:
Here's the NPR bit:

http://www.npr.or...d=98467651

Here's the reversal process they spoke of:

But Barack Obama made it clear during the presidential campaign that he disapproved of the rules. The president-elect said an early version of the regulations "raises troubling issues about access to basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives."

While the incoming president can't simply wipe out the rules with the stroke of a pen, there is a relatively abbreviated process for taking them off the books. It's called the Congressional Review Act. And because the Bush administration issued the regulation late in the current president's term, the new Congress will have 75 legislative days to pass a "motion of disapproval." All it takes is a simple majority of votes by the House and Senate, and the motion is not subject to delaying tactics in the Senate.


Hmm I'm thinking it usually takes months for Congress to get around to having anything up for review so how much time is allowed before it's too late to even consider the 75 legislative days to vote on it? Another words if this is on the books for months then comes up for review would that void the 75 legislatives days due to being considered too late to review at all?

There has to be a reason Bush pulled this stunt so late and close to his leaving.
 
Sinny
I liked the way Brad Pitt looks in movies where he had long hair. I thought he was sexy in Troy, Legends of the Fall, Interview with a vampire. When he has facial hair and short hair I think he looks like a ferret. Grin
Edited by Sinny on 12/23/2008 21:42
 
Bob of QF
As far as I know, 75 days is not 75 literal days, but 75 "working" days the legislative branch is actually in session.

These last minute things by Bushya are so unpopular among many, that I will be surprised something is not done by either congress sooner, or Obama later.


Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Sinny
That would surprise me Bob especially considering bush's IQ and education.
 
seeker
Sinny - You are basically right, Bush is trying to throw so much on the table that a lot of the new congress' time will be spent reversing his last minute declarations. In two years the republicans are going to try to claim that the dems did nothing and all the Bush declarations will have been forgotten.
 
General-Pryce
Surely a doctor cannot refuse treatment to anyone on any grounds? I know doctors and nurses who would abide by their oath in any circumstance.

Bob, as far as refusing treatment to Atheists, I don't think that would come into it. It seems more to do with sexual orientation and what fundies might call promiscuity. That they can refuse treatment at any rate due to these reasons show they are bigoted and personal views should be kept out of the O.R.
 
Bob of QF
General-Pryce wrote:
Surely a doctor cannot refuse treatment to anyone on any grounds? I know doctors and nurses who would abide by their oath in any circumstance.


Sadly, this is not true at all. I personally know of a case where a Catholic hospital nearly let a mother die in birth, in order to preserve the baby's life. They both ended up living, but not due to any "treatment" by the hospital staff. You won't see *me* in a Catholic hospital!

General-Pryce wrote:
Bob, as far as refusing treatment to Atheists, I don't think that would come into it. It seems more to do with sexual orientation and what fundies might call promiscuity. That they can refuse treatment at any rate due to these reasons show they are bigoted and personal views should be kept out of the O.R.


No? I could see it in the extremely religious hospitals, if Bush's edicts are allowed to manifest. I could see those hospitals callously using religious-belief signing statements as a basis for refusing treatment of people who just basically cannot afford to pay. Especially if the statements are not fully understood by the immigrant in question....

No, I deplore that our culture has left such an important role in society almost completely up to the religious caste....
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
Bob of QF wrote: I could see those hospitals callously using religious-belief signing statements as a basis for refusing treatment of people who just basically cannot afford to pay.

As your statement shows here, it isn't just religiosity, it's also the money. Funny how the two are intertwined, isn't it? Medicine is definitely one field which should be socialized. There is something deeply wrong about making piles of money off of people because they are sick or injured, or leaving them to suffer and/or die because they are poor.
Edited by catman on 01/04/2009 14:45
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Lewis Black on Bush, Bible, Fossils, Evolution & Reality Funny Zone 4 03/30/2011 00:46
Bush apparently believes in Zombies.. Funny Zone 6 01/22/2009 10:40
Bush utters the truth U.S. Politics 11 01/09/2009 22:14
Last minute dirty trick? Election 2008 (US) 7 11/03/2008 00:40
Bush endorses McCain/Palin Election 2008 (US) 4 10/24/2008 22:40