Comment 74911

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted March 01, 2012 at 00:14:37 in reply to Comment 74900

I believe the reasons for Public Health and Mac Family Health to co-habitate were for developing synergies in delivery of health services and introducing the much needed element of innovation in family health care. Their proximity was critical in achieving these goals.

I agree the consequences will be felt by all three parties for a long time to come if this deal were to implode. Let us hope for the best and work to clear the many, many misconceptions round this deal.

This comment by a local resident below in today's Spec editorial on this topic will have you seriously buckle down with laughter - it also show how much grounds need to be yet covered in the clear communication of ideas and intent around this project:

By: validpoint - Feb 29, 2012 - 7:59 AM

Kelton, Simmons, Bratina

"The Leaders of these PUBLIC institutions need to show and demonstrate some LEADERSHIP on this issue that is of the upmost importance to this community. Quit with the Egos and one upmanship theatrics and get to WORK. Split the costs 3 ways in regards to the additional "swing space" and one time related moving costs of approximatley 1.4 m. Thats 466k each to make this "deal" a reality that is a very small price to pay for demonstrating REAL LEADERSHIP for the greater PUBLIC good. Your collective lack of LEADERSHIP on this project turns the citizens stomach...."

After all the efforts, this may well be the reason we end up losing the farm :))

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-03-01 00:21:31

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools