craigdailypress.com

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

“However, grant funding is available through the Statewide Emergency Medical and Trauma Services Council for up to 100 percent of the assessment cost.”

Grants, that's how it is free.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

highway1340,
Thanks for the reply.
Wasn't sure if there were regulations regarding which hospital to take people to, must just be an unwritten rule to take them to the nearest one.
When Tom was manager, TMH had aquired the ambulance service years before him, I left in 1994, we were part of the hospital for a year or two before that, heck, I still have the first “tmh ems Response Team” jacket hanging in my closet. Tom was not the manager back then and we did not transport people to YVMC or St. Marys simply to bypass TMH, we did so because they needed a different level of care or needed some testing we did not provide. The reasons I remember were that the county did not want the responsibility anymore and felt it would be more appropriate for the hospital to run an ambulance, which makes sense. Randy jumped at the chance and we have what now today is a state of the art service, complete with Paramedics, something we did not have in those days.
I personally have watched TMH grow from one surgical case every other day to several each day. From flying just about everyone out to keeping a larger percentage of those patients. I remember when we had no CT, MRI, Arthroscopic surgery, and ventilator patients happened once a year. All of that has changed now, Randy was a starting point, but George has made it happen, I am happy to see him standing by his efforts.
For the life of me I just don't remember bypassing TMH ED, we always went there first, and if needed, yes, they got taken somewhere else. I think what is being said is that they wanted to regain the market of what they were losing in those transports, which I believe they have done to a certain point. We still fly patients out, mostly head injuries and people who require a higher level of care, however the hospitalist program has taken back a lot of those that were transported away and is working just as the Administration had hoped.
All I am saying is that according to your previous post, during the time I was a member of mcas/tmh ems rt, is that until Randy took us over we were taking people to YVMC and other ED's besides ours, which I just don't buy. As usual, no offense intended, just trying to understand your statements is all.
At any rate, thanks highway1340, and I'll look into those minutes.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

I have to ask Hiway1340, were you ever a member of the ambulance service, at any time?
I was, and was a member when it was taken over by TMH from the county. You are correct in your revenue generating statements, but not so correct in others, with all due respect.
From what I remember, we took people to YVMC, then Routt Memorial, because we did not have a CT machine, they did and those transfers stopped when TMH purchased a CT machine. We took people unable to fly, or not emergent enough to fly, to St. Marys (and hospitals in Denver) because they needed a higher level of care than TMH could provide. I don't ever remember taking people to a different hospital because of a personal grudge, as far as I know, that would be illegal. EMS I believe is required to take people to the closest hospital in the area. Why would we take someone to YVMC because we wanted to? I'd like to know the name of this manager who you claim would prefer not to bring patients to TMH, would be interesting to know.
TMH fixed the problems by purchasing a CT machine and later on an MRI. They offer more service and a higher level of care than ever before. Unless you were a part of this service when it was transferred from the county to the hospital, and know something I don't, I believe you are wrong on those points. I am for open discussion, not name calling or arguing. Please, continue as you have peaked my curiosity.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

If I may, I can shed some light on your inquiry lonelyone. First off, in at least four areas that I am aware of, patient privacy was being violated, not on purpose, but by design. Patient privacy, and the patients right to that privacy, were a huge obstacle in the old hospital that could not just be fixed, it had to be replaced and it was a mandate coming up rapidly.
In the old hospital, patient rooms, ED trauma rooms and OB rooms were occupied by two patients, this did not give much privacy to the dying patient next to one waiting to have their appendix taken out, writhing and hollering in pain. Nor did the mom who just delivered trying to rest while her neighbor moans in labor pain. In the old Day Surgery center, 5 beds were divided by curtains, the poor elderly lady there for a cataract operation had to listen to the kid cry that just had his tonsils out while the gentleman down the way passed gas after his colonoscopy, something you cant help, but you had no choice….or privacy.
Now, TMH has all private patient rooms and 9 Day Surgical rooms where doors can be shut and privacy can be enjoyed. The ED boasts I believe 7 treatment rooms, a chest pain room and two fully functional trauma rooms, all private, and OB has separate birthing rooms around the corner from post partum rooms where quiet time can be enjoyed with your new baby.
Space to work was another issue which was a daily challenge for those of us trying to get our patients needs met. The one old operating room was 400 square feet compared to 7 or 800 now, times 3, which makes it a lot easier to stuff 10 or more people into for a Cesarian section and be able to maintain sterility. We have state of the art equipment that can be properly placed for surgery instead of having to re-arrange the room to accommodate radiological and anesthetic equipment and storage space to safely store that equipment without having to crawl over, or through it to get somewhere else. No longer do patients have to be unloaded from an ambulance in below zero weather, they are unloaded into a heated garage. No more hallways, blind corners, narrow doorways not wide enough to safely get a bed through. The improvements are staggering and I still to this day wonder how we ever got the job done in that tiny place.
As far as to what they are doing with the old place now, the space needed for the facilities being moved and improved upon require far less space, maneuverability and will assure privacy and ease of use. I see it as a wise move to consolidate all services into one central location. The money dumped into fixing it up will be remade quickly just by not having to pay rent. I don't know the cost of rent at the mall, but from what I have heard it isn't cheap.
Why wouldn't they do it?
My offer still stands, to anyone, come take a tour with me, we will go to both places, you will be shocked and amazed at the difference.
Hope that helped some:)

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

For once I agree with ranger520, death is the only sentence for anyone who violates a child in any way, period, end of story. However, forget the 90 day thing, take them outside after the sentencing and take care of business right then and there. A .90 cent round or a $10.00 rope is far cheaper than housing the scum for 90 days on our tab.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

I think it's great, tired of driving to GJ to buy shoes, coats, etc..
If they can sell things at prices other than Craig prices, it might just make it here.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

I think this is a proper move, not because of the issue with the VFW, but because the event has simply outgrown the park.
I don't think however it was smart to put it on the same weekend that triple crown will be there too.
Going to be interesting for sure.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

What a great article about an outstanding person who has given so much to the parents of children in this community. As a single father, the Boys and Girls club is a godsend to me as it given my daughter a safe, cultured environment to go after school and on no school days. I would not be able to keep my job if it were not for the efforts of people like Dana and the great staff behind her. I will always continue to support the Boys and Girls club, I encourage others looking to donate time or money to do the same.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

“Isnt this what a negotiation is? You offer a position and i offer mine, oh and calling veterans of foreign wars uncivil is a little bit ridiculous. They risked their lives for you.”

I think we all realize this, and I also think we have a vet or two commenting on this thread as well, the respect for their sacrifices is fairly well known and acknowledged.
What we are saying, as taxpayers, is that this offer is somewhat outlandish and unreasonable. I did not see anything about them being uncivil on this thread, there was a comment about them not being civic minded…that has nothing to do with being civil, or not.

DavidMoore (Anonymous) says…

I agree with the bullying thing, this is just a dig, not only to the council and taxpayers, but to the community who uses the park. $2500 a month, you have to be kidding. That whole chunk of property is only worth one, maybe two years rent on the market, lets be realistic here.
I guess If this is what it has really come to, I say let them have their land, move all events to other locations and work toward building a new “city” park somewhere else. Even though it may not be as central, there is land all over town that could be turned into the new “city” park.
Why can't they just stick to the old plan, city gives free water, sewer, trash, and park maintenance, VFW gives the park for all of the community to enjoy, is it that complex?
Don't get me wrong here, I have the utmost respect for our vets and the sacrifices they have given to keep us all free, but to do something like this is just unacceptable and as a taxpayer, I do not support this idea. Think of something else please, within reason.