Either attending BoCC meetings in person, or observing them carefully as they are broadcast live on-line provides an excellent opportunity to observe the commissioners. Judging by the comments made on a regular basis by Mrs. Littleton, one wonders of perhaps she is way out of her league as a public official with so many of the issues seeming to sail right over her head. As the demands upon local elected officials increase in complexity, it will take a very alert and intelligent, analytical person to be able to discern the long term impact of their short term decisions. Is that Mrs. Littleton? Her comments today remind me of the advice many an old sage has given:
Be sure your brain is engaged before putting your mouth in gear.
Pam Zubeck go to my site and get the findings of the case updates
I have seen and been told by nurses on duty more than once that central supply is closed over the weekend and that is why they cannot get needed supplies. Same with post-surgery physical therapy, including getting patients moving after emergency hip surgery. I'm not prepared to believe nurses are lying to me.
In large part, nurses and other staffers are leaving in droves because cost cutting measures mean they do not have a bearable work load. It does come back to cost cutting more often than not.
It's not that simple, of course. Procedures to reduce infection are unclear and often not followed in the ER, in my experience, and there is little concern for elderly patients who are left on stretchers to soil themselves. Something is very wrong. It's definitely a worse hospital in terms of care now than it was before the UC lease, for whatever reason. It's a shame. It used to be a fantastic facility.
That last quote..."to satisfy Maketa's own personal agenda", should be written on all the checks that will be written for the damage he has caused.
He is a dirty copy, a narcissist and a psychopath and everyone in his agency knows it.
Hoping that the good men and women of EPSO that have been impacted by all of this nonsense can remain strong for the homestretch and that justice will be served.
Good chance in November to change the tone of local politics: We have, in Jariah Walker, a businessman, who is actually invested in the community - generating revenue and with actual 'boots on the ground' experience in the world of business - which generates the needed revenue to support what we ask local government to provide.
Business. Not Politics. Which will best drive the local economy?
Clara, if you are referring to cost cutting measures, that's not necessarily the issue. Nurses have been leaving the system in droves. You can't run a hospital without nurses. But that's the real issue, anyway. When you lose quality of care, most likely it is always due to losing staff.
Quibble over semantics all you want.
What impact on voter propensity to approve the stormwater measure might result from El Paso county placing another fiscal matter on the Nov ballot? A one minute 'quickpoll'
One person needing to be watched is Gordon Klingenschmitt, former Navy Chaplain who was booted out of the Navy for his over the top religiosity. He now makes ludicrous remarks about how U.S. Rep. Jared Polis would be "joining ISIS in beheading Christians." He's running in El Paso County for HD-15 for the GOP.
Go Mike !!!
The issue always was whether the hospital could make the transition without substantial loss in quality of care. Based on numerous experiences with the elderly since October, I wouldn't put my worst enemy in Memorial. Cost cutting measures have definitely affected patient care. I think that's an overlooked and far bigger issue.
Gary lets see Reports of loss were in record numbers 12 years before any deal was made. Running in the red for twenty years before that. Second Im a patient at the University in Denver and several of the Doctors there have relocated here several people I know that work there now get there paychecks from guess where? The University. The care there is three times better registration is three times easier and guess what else my records are accessible there. I agreed to have students sit in on some of the procedures Ive had done there. When my problems were to much for local doctors to grasp after there drugs screwed me up they sent me to the University because the University had the skill and equipment. So if there not part of the University then I guess there real good a faking it. Yes the MHS board dropped the ball on PERA but they had an out thanks to the lease and yet the city is still fumbling. Bad legal advise started with GREED. Yes I agree the lease funding is a mess but thats on the city leaders not the Hospital. No theres not any money to be made but there is a whole lot better care for the citizens and thats what we needed.
Old Crank: You give the Koch Bros. too much credit for the Memorial situation. How this all started was from a hand picked committee (the usual suspects) during the Rivera administration which the public had very little input (as usual and nothing has really changed even with a 'strong' mayor). It started from one person's musings, "Why don't we sell Memorial?" Then it took on a life of its own and situation we have today--a real mess.
Rocky: MHS was not losing money. The only real loss came when the MHS board decided to get into derivatives and lost $32M. One board member advised against that move and the other board members voted 12 to 1 to proceed. Council abdicated their responsibilty for oversite of the board and that board is now gone. Prior to the leasing arrangement MHS was providing $77M/yr. in indigent care and still in the black.
The hospital also had a safety net which was a 1948 ordinance that allowed council to levy a mil levy on property to help the hospital financially if ever needed. It was never used. The citizens were stampeded into repealing that ordinance which took MHS's safety net away.
The first MHS committee was adivsed by both Patricia Kelly (the city attorney at that time) and John Suthers (AG) to resolve the PERA issue before proceeding and this advice was ignored. Hence, the the PERA problem which was exacerbated by bad legal advice since.
If a company goes into a lease and expects to lose money for the next 10 years that is a terrible business plan. Somewhere along the line that money will have to be made up. Using the $28M first year loss X 10, I seriously doubt UCH can absorb a $280M loss. UCH is a private non-profit and its management has to answer to somebody.
UCH is not affilliated with the Unversity of Colorado in any way. The name is mis-leading. The hospital portion was spun off from UC in 1986 into a hospital authority by the state legislature at that time.
Memorial Hospital was losing money hand over fist before the lease. The city had no idea how to run a Hospital let alone make it prosper. UCH knew they would lose for the first ten years in this agreement they even said so coming in. The Cities handling of the PERA money is whats going to screw things up. They were handed the money to pay PERA but decided to try to keep it because of greed. The University is expanding its operations here something the city could never do on there own. PERA was and is a binding contract the city cant get out of no matter how much money is spent trying to. The courts have said so. The lease was set up to stop the bleeding not earn buckets of money. Get over the greed and pay PERA save the costs of more litigation and let UCH do what they do best by running the Hospital.
Gary, leasing MHS was one of Bach's paybacks to the Koch Bros who lust to kill public employee unions and their pension funds (PERA). Koch Bros are the real GOP death panel. The contracting out of city auto mechanics was another payback.
Why isn't the pied piper of tabor challenging this gouge?
A letter writer to the Gazette asks the $64K question. This is the question that the C4C proponents do not and will not ask, let alone answer, which is: "Are the citizens of COS really for this City for Champions?" The writer then states the obvious: "Let the COS public vote on this issue."
Permit me to respond to Mr. Letter Writer: C4C won't be put to a vote because THEY - Jenkins, the mayor, and City Leaders - don't HAVE to put it to a vote. Unlike raising taxes, siphoning off future sales tax revenue to pay the bond debt to build the stadium does not require a vote of approval from the people. Therefore, not trusting the non-visionary blind-as-a-bat public to know what's best for them, THEY won't put the stadium to a vote.
Did anyone honestly think the city was going to make any "real" money on the MHS deal? Face it, leasing Memorial was someone's deluded Fantasy. Would the person or persons who pushed the MHS deal with UCH care to stand up and take responsiblity for their mistakes?
UCH lost $28M on their first year of operating Memorial. How many years of losses will UCH absorb before bailing on the 40 year lease. Three? Four? Five years at the outside?
At that time there will be a new city council and mayor with no institutionl memory of the Memorial deal and watch them scramble because they will not have a clue of what to do.
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation