Comments
21 - 40 of 88 Comments Last updated Dec 11, 2012
guest

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>so pocahontas voted in favor of the franchise and won?
this tells me you didn't even vote in our city/county election
you can't even read and understand what other people are writing about.
this is what happens when all you watch is spongbob and msnbc.

also it's lying not lieing.
whazzup

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Isn't it funny the council BEGS the public to attend several Pretty Pool Meetings at community center, but they publicly discourage attendance of EMS MEETINGS by providing a single brief public EMS meeting? Are they saying our recreation is more important than health and safety?
And which council member said they wouldn't require reports by new service until something goes wrong?
Sounds like bad policy to me.
guest

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

when will the meeting be held?
whazzup

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Nov 29, 2012
 
Last word is public meeting Jan 08, 2013.... Crammed in BEFORE the regular council meeting. Unless the council chooses otherwise...
here

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Nov 29, 2012
 
whazzup wrote:
Isn't it funny the council BEGS the public to attend several Pretty Pool Meetings at community center, but they publicly discourage attendance of EMS MEETINGS by providing a single brief public EMS meeting? Are they saying our recreation is more important than health and safety?
And which council member said they wouldn't require reports by new service until something goes wrong?
Sounds like bad policy to me.
futrell? and olvey said the 2 services wouldn't be compared.
wonder how they are judging a new service, times, etc without looking at other past results.
http://www.cityofpocahontas.com/City_Ordiance...
whazzup

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Nov 29, 2012
 
council claims in paper that the new company is reporting...
i saw what you did there

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

guest wrote:
Where was this concern for a EMS board before all this started? Those same people who are fighting against Pro-Med never saw the need for one when it was medic one in there. NO matter you opinion of the council any oversight they do provide is a hell of a lot more oversight than there was before. no one can deny that. and the job of an ems board or council isn't to write medical protocols. It doesn't take a DR to understand statistics and seek advice. If the city can own and run a hospital why are they unqualified to have oversight of the administrative side of ems service.
Ask yourself this. IF Medic one had bid and been awarded the franchise would you see a push by medic one employees for an EMS board? Would have you have seen the push for the public vote? If medic one is awarded the bid this time is Andy Ball going to push for another vote to overturn it since it isn't about once service or another just "peoples wishes?" The answer to those questions is most definitely no. And it shows their hypocrisy. This is a political agenda by medic one plain and simple.
<quoted text>
obvious strawman set up there = make something up about something that didn't happen, and then attack them for it. weak.

unfair to blame medic one for wanting to deal with a professional countywide board rather than a few city politicians.

claim of hypocrisy and political agenda by medic one is laughable.
there WAS a plain and simple political agenda shown by the erc and council.
the franchise ordinance WAS INTRODUCED AND PASSED AT ONE MEETING. down hill for the council ever since, since they won't LISTEN!!!

the voters have said NO!!! to the franchise idea.
the council should listen and get over it.

btw -
do any of our surrounding counties have a franchise put in and overseen by a 3 man board or city?

competition seems to work elsewhere, right! why not here?

maybe medic one was too good for the competition?
no franchise/picking and protecting a favorite is needed.
free country - let em all run and compete.
reply to question

Princeton, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>so pocahontas voted in favor of the franchise and won?
I'll have to admit there may have been more than one person that asked a question like this.
It is a shame that the Star Herald did not do more detailed research and reporting of both sides of the ambulance issue. It would be fair to say that type of information could have greatly improved public understanding of the issue. By not focusing on the important local issue, the paper was negligent in it's social responsibility to the community. And, by paying lip service to the concept of appearing neutral, along with printing several obviously misleading errors, the
paper lessened it's credibility. Don't think that discriminating readers did not notice the publications slant favoring the council position.
Finally, to answer the question... The referendum needed more NO votes to cancel the award of franchise to ProMed. The majority "NO" votes was intended to prove to the city council that there was significaant opposition to the ambulance franchise.
Dan

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There was no competition before! There was only one service. At least now they have to compete against each other periodically for the franchise. For that reason competition wasn't working here. Randolph county is the only one of the surrounding counties that had only one for profit provider serving it. Coincidentally Randolph also had the second highest population of the surrounding counties and the least amount of ambulance coverage. It was insufficient and they refused to do anything to improve it. Keith said thath they told him what they were providing was all they were going to provide. That was their only agenda... Improving our ems service. I have talked with Keith and I have talked with several local paramedics amd emts that don't work for either service. I suggest you all do the same and don't get your political advice from anonymous hacks with obvious agendas on Topix.
i saw what you did there wrote:
<quoted text>
obvious strawman set up there = make something up about something that didn't happen, and then attack them for it. weak.
unfair to blame medic one for wanting to deal with a professional countywide board rather than a few city politicians.
claim of hypocrisy and political agenda by medic one is laughable.
there WAS a plain and simple political agenda shown by the erc and council.
the franchise ordinance WAS INTRODUCED AND PASSED AT ONE MEETING. down hill for the council ever since, since they won't LISTEN!!!
the voters have said NO!!! to the franchise idea.
the council should listen and get over it.
btw -
do any of our surrounding counties have a franchise put in and overseen by a 3 man board or city?
competition seems to work elsewhere, right! why not here?
maybe medic one was too good for the competition?
no franchise/picking and protecting a favorite is needed.
free country - let em all run and compete.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
this tells me you didn't even vote in our city/county election
you can't even read and understand what other people are writing about.
this is what happens when all you watch is spongbob and msnbc.
also it's lying not lieing.
um of course i didn't vote in your election look at where i live... never said i did... i can read.. but i don't see what the big deal is about a franchised ambulance service... don't see a big deal with it at all ... and i watch the hell out of some spongbob and msnbc.. and i do not care to be politcally corrected by some redneck hillbilly ... i type the way i type it all means well if you have a problem with that then don't read what i post simple fact.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

reply to question wrote:
<quoted text> I'll have to admit there may have been more than one person that asked a question like this.
It is a shame that the Star Herald did not do more detailed research and reporting of both sides of the ambulance issue. It would be fair to say that type of information could have greatly improved public understanding of the issue. By not focusing on the important local issue, the paper was negligent in it's social responsibility to the community. And, by paying lip service to the concept of appearing neutral, along with printing several obviously misleading errors, the
paper lessened it's credibility. Don't think that discriminating readers did not notice the publications slant favoring the council position.
Finally, to answer the question... The referendum needed more NO votes to cancel the award of franchise to ProMed. The majority "NO" votes was intended to prove to the city council that there was significaant opposition to the ambulance franchise.
i love yoour concern and applaud your patriotism .. but i honestly did not know about the franchise because i live in medford oregon.. like my tag says there... but i honestly do not see a problem with it since even though the size of the town is small it is still a spread out remote county.... and actually town for that matter for the size of the population...and if noone likes the city council why did a majority vote for them?... and if noone likes the newspaper why don't they protest or hold accountability to the publisher?... i mean i'm just asking i dunno ... and if it's "corrupt" why are state and federal officials not informed like what happend with the police department?... but before anyone starts degrading the integrity of anyone ... why do they not go straight to the person or persons involved and ask questions? and another question is what is so wrong with having a franchised ambulance service?... there are state requirements that each transporting service has to provide and adhear to .... so having enough ambulances instead of not enough would be more of a good thing right?
reply to question

Princeton, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>i love yoour concern and applaud your patriotism .. but i honestly did not know about the franchise because i live in medford oregon.. like my tag says there... but i honestly do not see a problem with it since even though the size of the town is small it is still a spread out remote county.... and actually town for that matter for the size of the population...and if noone likes the city council why did a majority vote for them?... and if noone likes the newspaper why don't they protest ohold accountability to the publisher?... i mean i'm just asking i dunno ... and if it's "corrupt" why are state and federal officials not informed like what happend with the police department?... but before anyone starts degrading the integrity of anyone ... why do they not go straight to the person or persons involved and ask questions? and another question is what is so wrong with having a franchised ambulance service?... there are state requirements that each transporting service has to provide and adhear to .... so having enough
ambulances instead of not enough would be more of a good thing right?
Thanks for your reply. Citizens have repeatedly tried all that you suggested, to no avail. Finally, the last option was to vote against the award of franchise, and the NO VOTES WON. That's the way it works in a democracy. The accusations by franchise supporters of poor EMS service are false and misleading. In fact several petitions by a great number of people were ignored. Another petition to form an independent EMS board was ignored. It had been signed by over 100 medical workers in our tiny town, including every physician except one. The old ambulance service has excellent regional coverage, and is a well trained and vey well liked company. The new service did not provide any additional service, although supporters will argue otherwise.
The real problem here was limiting public input and
rushing the ordinance through by city council. The opposition claims the council cherry picked and manipulated facts, which is true. I don't think voters are so much opposed to a franchise as they are the way the council pushed it through.
I've heard talk that the next step is an initiative to strip
the city of it's power to franchise, or other mechanisms exist as well.
do it

Princeton, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

The intative could work, thare were enough no votes
reply to question

Princeton, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Dan wrote:
There was no competition before! There was only one service. At least now they have to compete against each other periodically for the franchise. For that reason competition wasn't working here. Randolph county is the only one of the surrounding counties that had only one for profit provider serving it. Coincidentally Randolph also had the second highest population of the surrounding counties and the least amount of ambulance coverage. It was insufficient and they refused to do
anything to improve it. Keith said thath they told him what they were providing was all they were going to provide. That was their only agenda... Improving our ems service. I have talked with Keith and I have talked with several local paramedics amd emts that don't work for either service. I suggest you all do the same and don't get your political advice from anonymous
hacks with obvious agendas on Topix.
<quoted text>
Dan, it is simply NOT TRUE THAT THE OLD AMBULANCE SERVICE WAS INSUFFICIENT.
Guest

Horseshoe Bend, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"I've got one question...does one of the newspaper reporters work for one of the aldermen"

LOL
Pocahontas, AR
The reporters doesn't work for any of the aldermen - most of the folks that work at the Star Herald were born and raised in Pocahontas or out in the county, as were the ones at City Hall. With Pocahontas being as small as it is those that were born and raised in the area know or is aquainted with most every one. Everyone that is involved with the Pocahontas government grew up together or their parents grew up together and all knows one another closely. So now you can understand why Pocahontas needs to change it's name to "GOOD OLD-BOY".
Guest

Horseshoe Bend, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

dont know nothin" um what is so wrong with ambulance franchises anyways?...

According to our constitution government can not have a "monopoly" over anything. That means big government or little government. The people need to read up on their true rights.
With the city pulling their stunt with the abulance service they are creating a "monopoly" on anyone coming in using their rights to fair trade.
Little Rock lawyers are going to have a field day with this one!
reply to question

Princeton, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Guest wrote:
dont know nothin" um what is so wrong with ambulance franchises anyways?...
According to our constitution government can not have a "monopoly" over anything. That means big government or little government. The people need to read up on their true rights.
With the city pulling their stunt with the abulance service they are creating a "monopoly" on anyone coming in using their rights to fair trade.
Little Rock lawyers are going to have a field day with
this one!
The city is well within it's legal rights to award an exclusive franchise, that is spelled out in tha Arkansas Constitution.
However, the citizens were well within their rights to refuse the councils choice of EMS, as also written in the constitution. Whether or not the ordinance affected was administrative and the referendum not applicable is a moot point, because the vote is legal and valid. That red herring was raised by the city attorney as an attempt to make it appear as if the voters did someting wrong. It is obvious that the voters "got it right".
Perhaps a comprehensive comparison of the two EMS services will eventually be made. But the powers that be would never go for that without a struggle.
Constitution Protector

Ravenden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Nov 30, 2012
 
You are an idiot and have no understanding of the constitution. I am not writing this to address the franchise issue, just the fact that what you typed about the constitution is completely false. Please point out which article or amendment to the constitution addreses local government franchises. You will note that "all rights not reserved to the federal government is reserved to the states." I can't stand people misquoting the constiution.
Guest wrote:
dont know nothin" um what is so wrong with ambulance franchises anyways?...
According to our constitution government can not have a "monopoly" over anything. That means big government or little government. The people need to read up on their true rights.
With the city pulling their stunt with the abulance service they are creating a "monopoly" on anyone coming in using their rights to fair trade.
Little Rock lawyers are going to have a field day with this one!
reply to question

Princeton, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Nov 30, 2012
 
Constitution Protector wrote:
You are an idiot and have no understanding of the constitution. I am not writing this to address the franchise issue, just the fact that what you typed about the constitution is completely false. Please point out which article or amendment to the constitution addreses local government franchises. You will note that "all rights not reserved to the federal government is reserved to the states." I can't stand people misquoting the constiution.
<quoted text>
To specifically answer your question, Arkansas Code 14 266 105 authorizes municipal ambulance franchise. But, that doesn't make it a great idea.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Nov 30, 2012
 
reply to question wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for your reply. Citizens have repeatedly tried all that you suggested, to no avail. Finally, the last option was to vote against the award of franchise, and the NO VOTES WON. That's the way it works in a democracy. The accusations by franchise supporters of poor EMS service are false and misleading. In fact several petitions by a great number of people were ignored. Another petition to form an independent EMS board was ignored. It had been signed by over 100 medical workers in our tiny town, including every physician except one. The old ambulance service has excellent regional coverage, and is a well trained and vey well liked company. The new service did not provide any additional service, although supporters will argue otherwise.
The real problem here was limiting public input and
rushing the ordinance through by city council. The opposition claims the council cherry picked and manipulated facts, which is true. I don't think voters are so much opposed to a franchise as they are the way the council pushed it through.
I've heard talk that the next step is an initiative to strip
the city of it's power to franchise, or other mechanisms exist as well.
oh now i understand .. my grandmother lives there that is why i am concerend incase anyone was wondering why someone from medford would possibly be posting on a pocahontas forum... just concerned with her well being... if the city went against the vote of the general population that that case needs to be brought to the attention of kait and other local news back there... it also needs to be brought to the attention of your local and state congress men and women... and lastly the governor .. if no substantial reply is accurately giving some sort of resolution to the matter then it needs to be brought to the attention of the state and federal police.. noone is above the law .. noone can have their voice silenced ... and i applaud everyone back there for taking a stand and the initative to get things done.. haven't seen anything like that back there in years.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
wreck 30 min how stupid 20
jeff harris 36 min concerned 3
Pocahontas rock quarry 2 hr Rodadadadoe 1
Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 2 hr BARNEYII 29,432
looking for old friends 8 hr wondering 1
snitches 8 hr idiots 34
why are all the hot guys in this town gay? =( (Jul '10) 9 hr testing the waters 14

Search the Pocahontas Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Pocahontas Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pocahontas News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pocahontas
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••