Those Detestable Hospital Parking Tabs
Makes a lot of good sense. To finally do away with exorbitant and irritatingly stupid parking fees at area hospitals. As though people do not experience enough distress and stress as it is, attending a hospital clinic or meeting a scheduled appointment, or arriving for a surgical procedure, either as an out-patient or for a stay; people really do not appreciate the aggravation of worrying about parking fees.
It isn't convenient for many people to take public transit to get to a hospital, even for those patients - perhaps particularly for those patients - who must attend regularly for something like chemotherapy or kidney dialysis. Fretting about the nuisance of finding a parking space, and paying for the privilege of parking their vehicle reasonably close to where they're getting treatment is an additional burden for people.
Let alone the exorbitant price to park; $3.50 a half-hour, a $13.00 limit each day. Even passes for a week or a month are hefty and represent another financial burden. Which some have pointed out is simply yet another surtax on top of already-burdened taxpayers who have little other option than to pay and get on with it. Worrying all the while if they're going over their limit on parking.
An editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, written by its interim editor-in-chief, Rajendra Kale, addresses this very issue. And comes out squarely in favour of abolishing the hated tariff. "And what about parents who have to drive sick children to hospital?" Dr. Kale, an Ottawa neurologist writes: "a more civilized society might offer volunteer-run valet parking."
He's right there. The tally for parking amounts to roughly 1% of a hospital's income. Not too much of a burden, it seems, that it cannot come from another source. The Canada Health Act guarantees Canadians access to health care without financial barriers. It can be stated that the burden of paying for repeated and necessary visits to hospitals can impose a real hardship through expensive parking fees.
Hospital administrators point out that the money collected for parking is streamed directly into purchases of new technological devices to benefit the hospital and its patients. That's food for thought, that there is a defined usefulness involved in the additional taxes imposed on already-stressed individuals. But it's not good enough.
It isn't convenient for many people to take public transit to get to a hospital, even for those patients - perhaps particularly for those patients - who must attend regularly for something like chemotherapy or kidney dialysis. Fretting about the nuisance of finding a parking space, and paying for the privilege of parking their vehicle reasonably close to where they're getting treatment is an additional burden for people.
Let alone the exorbitant price to park; $3.50 a half-hour, a $13.00 limit each day. Even passes for a week or a month are hefty and represent another financial burden. Which some have pointed out is simply yet another surtax on top of already-burdened taxpayers who have little other option than to pay and get on with it. Worrying all the while if they're going over their limit on parking.
An editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, written by its interim editor-in-chief, Rajendra Kale, addresses this very issue. And comes out squarely in favour of abolishing the hated tariff. "And what about parents who have to drive sick children to hospital?" Dr. Kale, an Ottawa neurologist writes: "a more civilized society might offer volunteer-run valet parking."
He's right there. The tally for parking amounts to roughly 1% of a hospital's income. Not too much of a burden, it seems, that it cannot come from another source. The Canada Health Act guarantees Canadians access to health care without financial barriers. It can be stated that the burden of paying for repeated and necessary visits to hospitals can impose a real hardship through expensive parking fees.
Hospital administrators point out that the money collected for parking is streamed directly into purchases of new technological devices to benefit the hospital and its patients. That's food for thought, that there is a defined usefulness involved in the additional taxes imposed on already-stressed individuals. But it's not good enough.
Labels: Economy, Health, Human Relations
posted by Pieface @ 6:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home