Yes and no.
Kim Ruhl
Description
Collection
Title:
Yes and no.
Creator:
Kim Ruhl
Date:
1/24/2004
Text:
Jim,
I agree with you to an extent, but there are some nuances to consider here. In this instance providing an interpreter is a free public service performed at a financial loss forcing the business owner to absorb the entire cost. This discriminatory tactic adds yet another financial burden to an already encumbered profession.
In contrast the cost and maintenance of your parallel bars can still (maybe not) be directly offset by the sale of a prosthesis or an orthosis. They are equipment used to deliver the final product and can be factored into the overall cost of providing the service and device. There is currently no way to factor in the expense of providing an interpreter (or similar services). These services must be provided in toto, at a loss of income. The problem, you have to be able to raise your prices in order to offset your costs. Have you been able to raise your prices lately? Isn't controlling prices restraint of trade and discriminatory?
I think greater than the loss of income is the continuing loss of liberty. A select population of professionals is being constrained and discriminated against by law to provide free services to the disabled population. I frequently and willingly provide services at no charge of my own choice and accord. But I tend to draw the line when the government steps in, singles me out, and simply orders me to. What they are essentially saying with this law is if and when I want your opinion I'll tell it to you.
Sincerely,
Kim L. Ruhl CPO
In response to Nathan Keepers, I would suggest that it is about the money. I, too, felt indignant when I first read the NAOOP response to his post. However, when I considered that I have parallel bars that are never used by my upper extremity or spinal patients, it occurred that they too, are only for the benefit of some of my patients and not all, but I don't feel bad about having them.
Certainly, we all have more patients that require parallel bars than those who require interpreters, but I can't see the difference from a philosophical view point.
Jim Fenton, LPO
I agree with you to an extent, but there are some nuances to consider here. In this instance providing an interpreter is a free public service performed at a financial loss forcing the business owner to absorb the entire cost. This discriminatory tactic adds yet another financial burden to an already encumbered profession.
In contrast the cost and maintenance of your parallel bars can still (maybe not) be directly offset by the sale of a prosthesis or an orthosis. They are equipment used to deliver the final product and can be factored into the overall cost of providing the service and device. There is currently no way to factor in the expense of providing an interpreter (or similar services). These services must be provided in toto, at a loss of income. The problem, you have to be able to raise your prices in order to offset your costs. Have you been able to raise your prices lately? Isn't controlling prices restraint of trade and discriminatory?
I think greater than the loss of income is the continuing loss of liberty. A select population of professionals is being constrained and discriminated against by law to provide free services to the disabled population. I frequently and willingly provide services at no charge of my own choice and accord. But I tend to draw the line when the government steps in, singles me out, and simply orders me to. What they are essentially saying with this law is if and when I want your opinion I'll tell it to you.
Sincerely,
Kim L. Ruhl CPO
In response to Nathan Keepers, I would suggest that it is about the money. I, too, felt indignant when I first read the NAOOP response to his post. However, when I considered that I have parallel bars that are never used by my upper extremity or spinal patients, it occurred that they too, are only for the benefit of some of my patients and not all, but I don't feel bad about having them.
Certainly, we all have more patients that require parallel bars than those who require interpreters, but I can't see the difference from a philosophical view point.
Jim Fenton, LPO
Citation
Kim Ruhl, “Yes and no.,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed May 15, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222419.
