Jump to content
I have had a growing concern about the hospital's administration for awhile.
This is their mission - "To improve the quality of life for the communities we serve through exceptional healthcare and service excellence." And they are achieving this goal how? By alienating the physicians who have spent years servicing the population?
For a physician to come out and publically air her frustrations with the hospital's administration should give everyone in Moffat County cause for concern.
The reason I voted for the tax to build a new hospital was because the physicians who come to Craig from Steamboat would also be able to perform the required surgeries and procedures at the new hospital. That hasn't happened. Why not? Here we supposedly have the state of the art facility, paid for with our tax dollars, yet the Steamboat physicians who willingly come to Craig to see their patients will not or cannot perform the needed procedures at The Memorial Hospital. Again, I ask, why not? What is stopping them? Craig residents must travel 40 miles for a skin cancer removal or a knee replacement. We have this brand new hospital. Why can't it be done here?
What is the real reason the physicians and other professionals are leaving The Memorial Hospital? I would like an answer to that.
I support Dr. Kinder's concerns. I have them, too. I don't think the hospital administration should have recruited a neurologist from Grand Junction. We have a very qualified one right here.
I guess I will be making sure I attend the hospital Board meeting in the future.
Seems like the two of us are on the same page for this issue. We are lucky that a real fire didn't develop while the equipment was tied up at the Commissioner's property.
Would it be appropriate for the Commissioner to be charged a fee for the fire response team's expenses in lieu of a citation?
Sheriff's Department told me there's one burning north on HWY 13. They didn't have the exact location.
Oops. Forgot to include the link
"As far as the signs not being allowed, are you confident the other signs were approved by the staff or could they have been snuck in or not disclosed?"
I'm very confident that at least one sign was approved. I asked the woman who held the pink sign "Women for Romney" how she got her sign in, thinking that she snuck it in. She simply said "they" let her in with it.
Here's a link of photos. The pink sign is photo 31.
"I do not want someone controling my freedoms...its time to take back control..."
I imagine the First Amendment is one of the freedoms you value.
Would you be upset if someone from the Obama Administration, if not the President himself, came to Craig to deliver a speech on public property and you were not allowed to bring signs that didn't fit in with the "message"?
Would you be upset if you were told that no signs were allowed, yet you find out later that plenty of "on-the-message" signs were prevalent? Would you be upset that you were lied to?
That is exactly what happened to me and my husband. We were told by Romney campaign staff that no signs were allowed. Our signs were not anti-Romney, nor anti-coal, nor anti-anything. It was an attempt to educate Romney on an issue that he will face if he is elected.
Denying us the opportunity to bring our signs in not only prevented Romney of learning about an issue that affects tens of thousands of his potential electorate but also violated my and my husband's right to free speech.
I want to go back to Tuesday morning and take back my freedom and not let someone else control them. But I can't.
I just found this slide show on the Denver Post website. Looks like a lot of people were allowed to bring their signs to the rally. http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2012/05/photos-mitt-romney-in-craig-colorado-on-may-29-2012/36680/
See slides 1, 5, 7, 11 and 14.
I would like the Romney campaign to explain why our two signs were not deemed to be acceptable to display at the rally. I wish I could upload the picture of our signs. Nothing offensive in them at all unless asking for justice is offensive.
Here's another sign-related issue. My husband and I brought signs to hopefully draw national attention to the problems associated with the sick nuclear weapons compensation program. One said "Help Sick Nuke Workers", the other "Justice for Sick Nuke Workers". The campaign folks wanted to see what the signs said. We showed it to them. We weren't allowed to bring them into the park and had to leave them up against the building. We were told no signs would be allowed. We were ok with that, if it was applied to everyone. However, we saw three signs on a table and about three more people carrying their signs. I went back and asked the Romney official about why and basically just got shrugged shoulders in response. I asked if I could take our signs in, since others are and were told no. I don't know if political rallies are permitted to limit the types of signs but this did take place in a public area. Anyone who knows the answer, I'd love to know.
On HR 347, please note that 388 Members of the House of Representatives passed this legislation before sending it on to the President for his signature.
Last login: Thursday, August 18, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.