Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Revisiting my issues with Parkview

I found this shortly around the same time I posted my blog about Making Things or Taking Things. Below is a review of some of the things that another person had to say about parkview and what could have been done with the 3mil that Parkview spent on the ballpark and a link to the full article is included:

1-Parkview is a not for profit. They pay no property taxes on millions of dollars in buildings. Luthern does.
2-Parkview gets additional tax abatements as partners in a number of doctor office buildings here in Fort Wayne. Luthern does not.
3- $300,000 would provide thousands of seniors with yearly supplies of drugs that they can not afford on SS and small retirement incomes, even with Medicare.
4- $300,000 would supply tens of thousands of home bound meals and the ways of delivering them.
5- A fraction of that would allow PTC to continue some bus service to those who have it as their only mode of transporation.
6- Provide some help to the thousands of patients who have insurance but the coverage does not cover everything. What is left Parkview has no problem of sending the remaining balance to collection agency. Which hurts the person’s credit rating. We won’t talk about how quick these collection companies will sue someone and attach their wages. BTW, Parkview splits what the agency recovers.
7- This would cover 5,000 of those who don’t have as much or are laid off, with utility bills.
8- Try sending 70 kids to Ivy Tech for a year.
9- Provide Indiana/Purdue with grant money for additional research.
10- You would think their cost of services would be a fair amount less then for profit Luthern. It is not. Why? Because they are top heavy in management. If they where for profit they would get purchased in a heartbeat, gutted of the over loaded top management, and resold at a huge profit.
11- Buy unknown number of portable heart defibs to stock public buildings.
12- Help buy fire gear for all the volunteer fire departments that are in their market area.

This is a portion of what J.Q. Taxpayer wrote on:

No comments: