blueinaredstate | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Jun 14, 2011

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “The costs of rejecting the "private option" and doing nothing

1. I am a huge supporter of Medicaid expansion.
2. I have serious concerns about the way it is being implemented in Arkansas. Once the "private option" was put on the table, all objective comparisons went out the window. Everyone developed myopia, DHS rejected their own previous cost estimates, and the insurance companies started salivating.
3. Have you seen the study that projects $670 million in state savings over 10 years compared to the "do-nothing" option? I have. The numbers don't add up. It was obviously created to justify a pre-determined conclusion.
4. Have you heard that DHS has signed a letter of commitment to contract with Emrick Consulting, LLC, for a review of the Medicaid program and how it can better fit with the overal health care market? No bid? No request for qualifications? Insistence of Senator Sanders?
5. And how about that Medicaid Inspector General bill? It will be a disaster for the few Medicaid providers left in the program who are trying to provide care to the state's neediest on often dismal reimbursement rates.
6. And then there's that state amendment by Sen. Dismang that will require the legislature to APPROVE all state agency rules and regulations--right now they just "review" the rules. Medicaid has become and will continue to be the plaything of the GOP legislative majority.
7. Like it or not, when it's all said and done, Arkansas will have been a leader in adopting Obamacare. Yes, no matter what other name you come up with for it, it's still Obamacare.
8. I am still a huge supporter of Medicaid expansion. I just wish the legislature weren't extracting several pounds of flesh in order for us to get it.

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by blueinaredstate on 04/15/2013 at 7:33 AM

Re: “DNA to VA: go away

And one other question. Don't you suppose that there might be a strong correlation between the people who do not want a liquor store in their neighborhood and those who don't want a center for homeless veterans in their neighborhood? Makes it tough to satisfy the mayor's concern about locating near a liquor store.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by blueinaredstate on 01/13/2012 at 9:04 AM

Re: “DNA to VA: go away

Just one question for that doctor--Where would be the appropriate place to locate a clinic where patients sometimes urinate on the doctor, throw feces at her, and stick her with needles? And how do those actions affect the neighborhood in which the clinic is located? These folks are desperate to keep these vets out of sight and out of mind.

(If the City of Little Rock Zoning Plan includes a zone for urinating-feces throwing-needle sticking, then I apologize for my question. That is where the clinic should go.)

7 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by blueinaredstate on 01/13/2012 at 8:52 AM

Re: “Chamber of Commerce seeks increase in taxpayer support

I'm not as opposed as Max is to the City providing funds to the chamber. Economic development is a legitimate public function. I see nothing inherently wrong with paying the Chamber to perform that function for us or to supplement what City staff may do. I do agree with Max that those expenditures, because they are public money, should be open for review at the same level of detail as would be required if the city was spending the $200,000 itself. I have no direct knowledge of what we get for our $200,000. I am just speaking regarding the concept.

But the Water Utility? How on earth can you justify taking water ratepayers' fees and handing it over to the chamber? The Water Commission is a utility--economic development is not their mission--providing clean, safe drinking water is their mission. I don't see how $25,000 or $50,000 to the chamber furthers that mission.

I know that there may be times when some kind of concession by the water utility might be part of an economic development package to entice a company to locate here (or stay here). But, in my experience in another city, there were always two conditions--(1) the benefit from the utility (in the form of lower hook-up costs or a negotiated rate or providing some of the infrastructure that would otherwise be the company's obligation) was always part of a larger package designed particularly for the project and deemed necessary for the project and (2) everyone was assured that the utility concessions would pay for themselves, not indirectly, but directly to the utility. After all, when you're treating millions of gallons of water, it doesn't cost much incrementally to treat more gallons. So, if you've got a company who is going to use a lot of water (and pay a big water bill, even though perhaps lower than it would otherwise be), then the water utility knows it's going to get a return on its investment.

CAW money to the Chamber of Commerce for unfettered, undiscoverable use--no way!

9 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by blueinaredstate on 01/13/2012 at 8:36 AM

Re: “Why stop with Dustin McDaniel?

Brummett touches on this, but keep in mind that other state agencies (as opposed to the AG) rely on the fees they collect to fund whatever regulatory function they were created to perform. In many cases, they get NO general revenue funding and exist solely on their fees collected. I agree that they shouldn't rent palatial office space with that money, and it should continue to be under review through the appropriations and contract review processes. But it is a different situation than the AG's windfalls.

Posted by blueinaredstate on 06/14/2011 at 8:33 AM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation