• Comment

GOP lawmaker seeks Arkansas Medicaid audit

Posted: November 8, 2013 - 10:20am
Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, replaces his glasses after questioning the state budget director during a meeting of the Joint Budget Committee at the Arkansas state Capitol in Little Rock, Ark., Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)
Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, replaces his glasses after questioning the state budget director during a meeting of the Joint Budget Committee at the Arkansas state Capitol in Little Rock, Ark., Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

LITTLE ROCK — A legislative subcommittee has approved a Republican lawmaker’s request for an audit of Arkansas’ Medicaid expansion.

The executive committee of the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee authorized the audit Thursday, which was requested by Republican Sen. Bryan King of Green Forest. King voted against legislation this year authorizing the state to use federal Medicaid money to buy private health insurance for low-income residents.

King says the audit is not “a witch hunt.” He says it’s important to “double check” numbers provided by state agencies. He says he is troubled after the Department of Human Services notified 40,000 recipients of food stamps this week that they were automatically assigned to health-insurance plans under the expansion.

Republican Rep. John Burris said the audit request is “theatrics.”

  • Comment
Comments (14) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Igor Rabinowitz
8719
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 11/08/13 - 10:31 am
3
3
It really is time

Time for the Republican party (and never was a worse use of "party") to admit they work for the insurance companies. It would save everyone so much time coming up with left-handed justifications.

conwaygerl
5518
Points
conwaygerl 11/08/13 - 03:23 pm
2
2
Right

That's why Democrats and the Democratic President decided to force all Americans to purchase health insurance from insurance companies?

Because there's no way legislating three hundred million forced customers benefits the insurance companies.

I say the Democrats are just as in-bed with the insurance companies as any GOP member.

Igor Rabinowitz
8719
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 11/08/13 - 03:39 pm
2
1
You make a point

Clinton tried to end-run insurance with his healthcare reform, and that died due to the money the healthcare/finance hacks pumped in.

So healthcare reform at this stage in our country required insurance companies to be on board (begrudgingly, granted) for this thing to fly at all.

That insurance remains as our broker for healthcare in the US remains a failing.

conwaygerl
5518
Points
conwaygerl 11/08/13 - 03:48 pm
1
1
insurance

Is necessary because the maximum potential expense is too great for one person to bear.

If a meal could cost anywhere from $.50 to $500,000 then there would be meal insurance.

You can plan for meals, you can plan for utilities, you can't plan for medical emergencies.

Igor Rabinowitz
8719
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 11/08/13 - 05:11 pm
3
1
And sometimes

I need police, and sometimes it's an expensive service, does that require insurance to provide a quality of care?

What if my house is on fire, am I to insure in order to pay the firemen and women?

A meal is a luxury, healthcare is not.

conwaygerl
5518
Points
conwaygerl 11/08/13 - 05:29 pm
2
2
You gotta eat

Rallys

Think of property tax as your insurance premium for police and fire departments.
Or a portion of your rent, if you are renting.
You pay fire and police insurance whether you realize it or not.

reader
18438
Points
reader 11/08/13 - 09:50 pm
2
0
Yes, you have to eat

and as long as we have LEOs and first responders, many will continue doing so, without the previously mentioned being paid a comparative salary.

Igor Rabinowitz
8719
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 11/08/13 - 11:30 pm
0
0
Well wait....

You're changing horses in mid-stream here, using $50 thousand meals as an example.

One presumes that would be a quality meal, and a luxury.

What, when you're in the hospital, is the appropriate quality of care? Should a level of treatment only be allowed if one has a large enough insurance plan? So you have cancer, I have a treatment, but your insurance doesn't cover it -- sorry dude. Is that fair?

So you have cancer and treatment begins using what means are available, doesn't that seem more fair? Is that a luxury?

Or would you rather have fast-food grade healthcare? "Well that's all you got the money for. At least someone around here has a medical degree or something."

Who, then, would we let eat cake? Should not a chef prepare the meal? For you?

conwaygerl
5518
Points
conwaygerl 11/09/13 - 09:37 am
2
2
A better example

Home insurance. Covers anything from a broken window to an EF5 tornado direct hit. No one complains about insurance for their home.

The point is the insurance is necessary when the maximum expense is excessive I.e cancer or ALS.

Once government controls healthcare, you will see nothing but fast-food quality healthcare. Bet on it

fdsjfsdjfsda543543543
2748
Points
fdsjfsdjfsda543543543 11/09/13 - 07:05 pm
2
1
And your evidence for

And your evidence for "nothing but fast-food quality healthcare" is?

Back to Top