Charity Hospital or Congressman Cao's shot at reelection?Link!
He had one?
Poor Joey Gow.
What's peculiar about these stories about troops being used to clean up the old Charity Hospital building is this: the VA hospital building is right across Perdido St. They could order troops to clean up Charity Hospital but do nothing about the VA building, could they? And how about the VA? Does it not strike anyone else as odd as how LSU is just so awful in looking to replace the old Charity Hospital building but apparently if the VA is looking to do the same thing (and also build their new facility in the same "historic" neighborhood) it's perfectly OK (and even though troops were apparently readily available for hospital clean-up duty the VA is still moving ahead with its own plans for a new facility)?
I don't get it, Anonymous. What's so peculiar about mobilizing troops and volunteers to set up the one and only state-funded hospital committed to serving the general public regardless of insured status? In the immediate aftermath, when New Orleans citizens' lives, houses, and livelihoods (translation: insurance) were washed away, Charity was the most sensible hospital to have operating. It's about concentrating resources to maximize benefit.
And, Anonymous, it is generally understood that the VA is largely following queues from LSU--if LSU wasn't building on that side of Claiborne, at the very least the VA wouldn't be building on the other side of Galvez, and they would potentially be building on the same side of Claiborne as Charity, if LSU wasn't a bunch of a-holes. As it is, the VA is far more responsive to community input, their design is of an utterly different caliber than LSU's, and they are taking only about as much land as they need (no surface parking or mysterious second phases). Plus, the VA is all manna from the federal heaven--no state money.
Cao was just reflecting the reporting of the Times-Picayune for the last 3 1/2 years. They never mentioned the hospital was re-opened and they supported a new hospital. Admitting that the state closed--with the Times-Picayune's silent consent--the only hospital for the uninsured and the hospital that served 30% of the black community is tantamount to admitting that there was a deliberate policy to prevent the poor from returning. Now that the Times-Picayune has decided that Nagin is too interested in a new hospital, they are acting surprised to hear that hospital closure was a fraud and illegal. They knew it all along. Cao is just a good reader. Obama doesn't give a damn about New Orleans--and he rode to power on the disaster. Check out his "quiet riot" speech. He's got a short memory.
I've understood that the VA was set on moving forward with their plans for their new facility, regardless of what LSU is doing. Is that not correct? And since the anti-new hospital contingent has taken such pains to make the case that there's not much of a physical connection between the planned facilities it's hard to buy into that the VA, while looking to be working with and cooperating with LSU, is taking their orders from them, which I would find pretty hard to buy into anyway. Charity Hospital was the most sensible hospital to have operating? Sure, the emergency room was. If you take that part out of the whole, then what of the rest of it was/is that remarkable and how much of the rest of it was actually being used as a hospital at the time? It was nasty and the non-emergency room part was very much offices and clinics. As soon as patients were stabilized they were moved to University Hospital which if it didn't exist to make Charity and University essentially as one unit Charity Hospital would not have been accredited by itself. It's not the building so much as the people who worked there who made it into the place that it was. Also, any hospital's emergency room has to accept you regardless of ability to pay. It's just that at the Touro's etc. the paying population subsidizes the others whereas at Charity the state does. But...the whole point that you're going to have the troops work on clean-up of the state hospital but not on the one which serves the former members of the military itself, which itself was quite a significant operation and also while you're screaming for LSU to use the old Charity Hospital building you're not also screaming for the VA to use their existing building? There just seems to be a double standard from the anti-(LSU) new hospital contingent.
Also, as regards Charity Hospital being the main locus of care for those without the ability to pay, they, too, were looking to greatly tighten up on that and make sure that anyone who had any kind of ability to pay was going to have to do so.
The VA is going no matter what happens. Anon is correct to raise these issues.
I don't think that's true at all jeffrey. I'll work on teasing this out as soon as possible - I think it's important.
The VA is going no matter what happens, but that doesn't mean that they were going WHERE they are going no matter what LSU did/does. The Galvez site was TOTALLY taking queues from LSU. VA isn't without blame at all in this, but they deferred to LSU on a great deal when it came to site selection and the pretenses of a joint hospital.I'm just curious: it's my impression that the VA is far more responsive to community input, and their design is far better than LSU's (it's patently not a land grab on their part), but do others feel that way?
I thought the Nagin administration made the original suggestion for the change in VA location. I'm not just fixated on Nagin. I definitely remember something about that, just not the extent of it.
I've always considered it a Nagin/Blakely collaboration to rally the VA to accept dictation from LSU on site selection.
And weren't there others who wanted the VA to move to Jefferson Parish? However, the basic point is that it does seem to be pretty certain that the VA is moving somewhere and wiping out a historic part of Jefferson Parish, perhaps, or a historic part of New Orleans East or somewhere and not looking to re-establish operations at the existing locale. And no one seems to be very upset about it and holding rallies to "Save the Old VA Hospital." And the "Save the Old Charity Hospital" contingent doesn't know the facts of whatever is going on with the VA.
I think that's inaccurate, Anon. I know I'll have to show you why.
Interesting how the response is just to say what's been asserted is not accurate rather than to refer to any fact which proves that what's been asserted is not accurate. Moreover, what specifically is not accurate? That the VA is not going to re-establish their operation at the existing facility on Perdido St.? That the contingent attempting to raise a brouhaha about LSU and their plans has said nothing about the VA facility angle?
Post a Comment