Is NWA being 'milked' by the rest of the state?

[jdevers]

I agree with the discontent of the major metro areas subsidizing the smaller communities, particularly where the improvements are lavish, unwarranted and based on economic speculation. The larger problem, as I see it, is at the federal level. The opposite seems true. Arkansas, being a poor state is a "Donor" state with regard to how federal fuel tax money is distributed. States like NY and CA, and other larger metro areas across the country gobble up the lions share of those funds that we pay into everytime we fill the tank.

Actually, CA is a donor state, as are Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Most of the "donee" states are actually predominantly rural states. NY and Pennsylvania are really the only exceptions, but both of those states are actually predominantly rural with one or two really large metro areas.

Doner Donee state map

[Aporkalypse]

Following up on the original comment that started the thread is an article by Max Brantley in this week's Arkansas Times:

Region envy

Max Brantley

Updated: 7/20/2006

On an airplane out of town last week, I was jolted from a fitful redeye slumber by a short article in the Democrat-Gazette business section. It recounted a talk in Rogers by Jeff Collins, director of the Sam M. Walton College of Business Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Arkansas. He told a group of business people that Northwest Arkansas was being used as a

[Mith242]

In today's NWA edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette there is an editorial mentioning Jeff Collins and his idea that NWA is being 'milked' by the rest of the state. It mentioned even trying to give Jeff Collins the benfit of the doubt that despite how well unified NWA gets that there are some things it's going to still have to rely on the rest of the state for things like highway money. It also stated instead of adding more fuel to the fire and alienating the rest of the state even more from us that we should be building more bridges between us and develop a partnership with other areas of the state. Anyway I thought it was an interesting counter arguement to the previous statements which is how this topic got started in the first place.

[Aporkalypse]

In today's NWA edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette there is an editorial mentioning Jeff Collins and his idea that NWA is being 'milked' by the rest of the state. It mentioned even trying to give Jeff Collins the benfit of the doubt that despite how well unified NWA gets that there are some things it's going to still have to rely on the rest of the state for things like highway money. It also stated instead of adding more fuel to the fire and alienating the rest of the state even more from us that we should be building more bridges between us and develop a partnership with other areas of the state. Anyway I thought it was an interesting counter arguement to the previous statements which is how this topic got started in the first place.

It sounds like he's a professor who's angry about the other state universities diverting money for the UA. I tend to be one of the few that agrees with strongly supporting the state's flagship university with funding and trying to get it to become a Virginia/UNC/Michigan/Texas type of state school. I think he should be a bit more sensible, though. Arkansas is a one-school state - we don't fund two major state flagship universities the way Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kansas, Iowa, etc, etc, do. ASU, UALR, and UCA are regional universities and are funded as such - per capita spending is much lower than at UA. You have to have these types of schools to provide college opportunities to those who aren't at the top tier academically.

In any case, though, his argument about higher education holds no water since NWA (meaning UA) receives a disproportionate amount of the state's higher education funding.

As far as political influence, NWA's lack of influence in terms of governors, senators, etc is easily explained. I can't remember a Democrat running from the area in recent memory. The Republicans that run, guys like the Hutchinsons and Holt, are so absurdly conservative the rest of the state can't relate. If a Democrat or moderate Republican from NWA ran for these positions he might actually have a fighting chance.

[jdevers]

As far as political influence, NWA's lack of influence in terms of governors, senators, etc is easily explained. I can't remember a Democrat running from the area in recent memory. The Republicans that run, guys like the Hutchinsons and Holt, are so absurdly conservative the rest of the state can't relate. If a Democrat or moderate Republican from NWA ran for these positions he might actually have a fighting chance.

All I can say about that is we should ALL be glad that not enough people vote for candidates like Holt. Regardless of your political ideology, you should be able to see that that man and his ilk should never get any sort of power whatsoever.

[Aporkalypse]

Interesting statistic I read this morning in an article reporting that DHS is asking for considerably more money for Arkansas Medicaid. There are 750,000 people in Arkansas on Medicaid - in a state of 2.7 million that's an extremely high number. You have to be well below the poverty line to qualify. I guess this is a prime example of a VERY expensive way the Northwest and Central regions of the state are subsidizing the Southern and Eastern portions.

[masons_dad1]

Interesting statistic I read this morning in an article reporting that DHS is asking for considerably more money for Arkansas Medicaid. There are 750,000 people in Arkansas on Medicaid - in a state of 2.7 million that's an extremely high number. You have to be well below the poverty line to qualify. I guess this is a prime example of a VERY expensive way the Northwest and Central regions of the state are subsidizing the Southern and Eastern portions.

With something like 60% of Arkansans below the poverty line high Medicaid costs are to be expected. Another thing to consider is that every child 0-18 in Arkansas is fully covered by ArKids (Medicaid) and their parents need only make 300% of the poverty level. To receive ArKids Plan A the maximum monthly income for a family of 3 is around $30,000 and up to around $33,000 to receive ArKids PLan B, or partial Medicaid coverage. Plan B is actually the closest thing to a National Health Plan like in the UK since you just pay what you're able to. Planned Parenthood also provides full Medicaid coverage to expecing mothers and even "want-to-be moms" who meet similar criteria as ArKids.

This way at least hospitals in Arkansas actually get paid instead of being forced to pursue collections against families that can't afford to have children. Since the US has so many living in poverty, doesn't have a National Health System and is in such a state of "Healthcare Crisis" I'd say that Medicaid is the American way.

[Aporkalypse]

With something like 60% of Arkansans below the poverty line high Medicaid costs are to be expected. Another thing to consider is that every child 0-18 in Arkansas is fully covered by ArKids (Medicaid) and their parents need only make 300% of the poverty level. To receive ArKids Plan A the maximum monthly income for a family of 3 is around $30,000 and up to around $33,000 to receive ArKids PLan B, or partial Medicaid coverage. Plan B is actually the closest thing to a National Health Plan like in the UK since you just pay what you're able to. Planned Parenthood also provides full Medicaid coverage to expecing mothers and even "want-to-be moms" who meet similar criteria as ArKids.

This way at least hospitals in Arkansas actually get paid instead of being forced to pursue collections against families that can't afford to have children. Since the US has so many living in poverty, doesn't have a National Health System and is in such a state of "Healthcare Crisis" I'd say that Medicaid is the American way.

I briefly went to school in the UK. NHS was awful with terribly long waits and there was a parallel private system.

The way almost all hospitals and clinics are paid is via private insurance or Medicare. Medicaid is actually a small percentage (<5%) and actual private pay via collections is even smaller (1-2%). Most bills are so high that pretty much all uninsured can't afford to pay cash and they get their bills written off. Very few actually get sent to collections.

[masons_dad1]

I briefly went to school in the UK. NHS was awful with terribly long waits and there was a parallel private system.

The way almost all hospitals and clinics are paid is via private insurance or Medicare. Medicaid is actually a small percentage (<5%) and actual private pay via collections is even smaller (1-2%). Most bills are so high that pretty much all uninsured can't afford to pay cash and they get their bills written off. Very few actually get sent to collections.

NHS is generally more desirable than a strictly privatized health system because people who would not normally go the doctor are more inclined to under a NHS meaning the nation's health is better overall and there are far less lawsuits pertaining to hospitals billing uninsured patients too much. Today's NHS in the UK is supposed to have improved quite a bit over the years, but where the long waiting occurs now is for cancer patients and people needing specialized treatment. Another problem with the UK's NHS is that it's available to students and workers from other countries while they're in the UK. Now in Canada the waiting is much longer than in the UK. I think that since the US is supposed to have the strongest and most diverse economy in the world that a NHS would work well here. Unfortunately the US is more interested in spending Trillions of $$$ on military weapons than on healthcare.

I'm one of those few who ended up going to collections, but that was before the state restructured the way hospitals operate in Arkansas and now most hospitals in NWA have flexible payment options based on a persons income. Unfortunately I didn't wait until the new options were available before my wife had a baby.