Kuddos to Lincoln Town Council President Jay O'Grady for leading the way on the issue of 24 hour gaming at Twin River. Here is part of the story in Today's Providence Journal:
"In November, the Lincoln Town Council voted unanimously to send a resolution to the General Assembly and Governor Carcieri reiterating its opposition to expanded gambling — either via longer hours of operation or more types of games — at the Twin River greyhound racetrack and video-slot hall. The resolution came after nearly two-thirds of voters in a nonbinding Nov. 10 referendum opposed a question that would have endorsed 24-hour-a-day operations at Twin River. At that time, Town Council President Jeremiah T. O’Grady said: “Lincoln residents clearly reject 24-hour operations at Twin River and do not relish the prospect of bleary-eyed, up-all-night gamblers getting behind the wheel just when Lincoln residents hit the road for work, school, or church in the mornings. … The 65-percent rejection of Question 1 [24-hour-a-day operations at Twin River] reflects these concerns.” Yesterday, however, in response to questions about his reported change in thinking, O’Grady e-mailed this explanation: “Over the past month it became quite clear to me that the question was no longer if hours at Twin River would be expanded, but had shifted to a question of when and to what extent. It is worth noting that 5 members of the House Finance Committee already have their names attached to hours expansion bills as do 3 other members of House leadership. Senate leaders are proposing expansion as well. “Given this climate of inevitability, I believe I have an obligation to work for a compromise solution that minimizes any additional burdens on the town, while maximizing our benefits,” he said.
Thanks, Pat
The Party received this message from Lincoln Republican Leader George Hadley from our web page. My response follows. original message
I would like to make a suggestion regarding the proposed court house. The Lincoln Democrat party as I read it, seems to be very much against the court house as it seems the vast majority of the town is also. I would like to see a consolidation of effort of the Lincoln Dems and the Lincoln Republican party to oppose this issue. This issue is so very important to the people of Lincoln who are seeking leadership to sink this effort. Judge Williams is not going to budge seemingly, so if a combined effort from the two partys could show that the political leadership in town could work together on this issue and effect a real chance of getting the proposed court house idea dropped at least at that location. I suggested a couple of years ago that certain issues in town were so important that the parties should/could work together for the "good of the town". And I haven't met one person in town who would like to see this court house go up at that location.
George W. Hadley Chairman District 1 Saylesville, Lincoln Republican party.
August 10. 2007
Dear Mr. Hadley:
Thank you for contacting the Lincoln Democratic Party and thank you for acknowledging our leadership on the Courthouse issue. At our Party meeting this past Wednesday, we passed a resolution thanking the Democratic leadership on the Town Council for it's stance against the Courthouse and asking the Judiciary to reconsider its decision. If the Republican Party would like to publicly second the actions of the council and follow our Party's lead I think that would be a very good thing.
Mr. Hadley, while you are certainly right about the importance of this issue, I think it is important for you to realize that I must greet your suggestion with a great deal of skepticism. The chairman of your Party has made many unfounded and ad hominem attacks on members of the Lincoln Democratic Party. You yourself have made comments that suggest not a neighborly difference of approach but a personal and bitter antagonism towards people that I consider not just fellow Party members, but friends. I want to make a counter suggestion. I am more than willing to let such comments to pass without further comment and work together on the courthouse issue; so long as the Town Republican Party is willing to make a commitment to change the way it communicates its opinions. The personalization, the attacks, and the deliberate divisiveness need to stop. I am sure you agree that such a change from the Republicans would be "for the good of the town." Since my election as Chair of the Democratic Party, I hope that a change of tone has been evident to friend and foe alike. We have not, however, been greeted in kind.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact the Lincoln Democratic Party and thank you for being willing to join our effort to stop the courthouse.
Respectfully,
Patrick Crowley
P.S. Not to sound persnickety, but please do not refer to us as the "Democrat" Party, or the "Dems." The National Republican Party has incorporated this language of limited value as a way to install an illegitimacy into the change of direction the people chose last November. If your group is truly interested in changing the tone and working together, this is a simple place to start.
This has been a successful week for two of Lincoln's Democrats. After a long battle, Lonsdale Member Derek Meiklejohn has seen the effort to put side walks on Great Road at the intersection of Front street come to fruition. See the Projo Story HERE.
And in an example that should be duplicated across the State, Councilman John Flynn's measure to create a 50/50 funding plan for repairing curbs has passed the Town Council. You can read more about that on Councilman Flynn's website HERE.
Great Job!
www.ridemocrats.org.
SHHHHH, its a secret.
According to today's Projo, Lincoln Councilman Keith Macksound (I) says that he convinced the Chief justice to look at 3 other sites in Lincoln for the proposed court house. He just won't tell where the other sites are.... I don't know about you, but it seems odd for an elected official to keep something like that secret. Do you?
Advocates for four adults with severe retardation who have lived together for 25 years in the same group home in Lincoln are fighting an effort to move them to another home in Smithfield.
It’s the same battle that was fought �" and won �" 12 years ago.
Beth Keeling, the home supervisor, says closing the home would devastate the men and women who live there.
“They know home, they want home, they sign for home,” she said.
The state Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals first closed the adults’ Southwick Drive home, in Lincoln, in 1995 and moved the group to a home on Rogler Farm Drive in Smithfield to save $100,000. Read More »
Advocates for four adults with severe retardation who have lived together for 25 years in the same group home in Lincoln are fighting an effort to move them to another home in Smithfield.
It’s the same battle that was fought �" and won �" 12 years ago.
Beth Keeling, the home supervisor, says closing the home would devastate the men and women who live there.
“They know home, they want home, they sign for home,” she said. Read More »
LDTC members, potential members and Friends of the LDTC who need a ride to the meeting may contact Tim McMahon at 401-722-0458 or tmcmahon@elevenlimited.com.
I wish I knew. but I wanted to pass along this story about the Town of Hazelton, PA, that got itself involved in the issue, now to its regret...
Link
02/09/2007
Lets take the profit out of health insurance
CRAIG OCONNOR , Ocean State Action
The health care crisis we face is real and Rhode
Islanders deserve an authentic solution.
In Rhode Island, employers are being priced out
of the system and dropping coverage for
employees; workers and their families have no
guaranteed continuity of coverage within the
employer-based system; young people are losing
coverage as they age-out of their family plans;
and local hospitals are struggling to provide
care to greater numbers of uninsured patients.
In this crisis, there is a central moral choice
we as a state, and a nation, need to make. Do we
have the courage to rethink our notion of how to
pay for health care? Or are we going to continue
with Band-Aid reforms that only postpone the
collapse of our irrational non-system of
for-profit health care?
At the national level, Bush administration
reforms, supported by for-profit insurance
companies and the pharmaceutical industry, have
focused on the idea that we as patients are the
problem in the health care system, and that the
�fix� is in the personal choices individuals
make. The administration�s proposals include
�high deductible health plans� that neglect to
control the real cost drivers in our system and
which, by raising out of pocket costs for
patients, may prevent them from getting the
health care they need. While everyone must take
responsibility for their own health, wellness is
only one small piece of the larger systems
reforms that must take place. Patients are not to
blame for out-of-control health cost inflation -
and simply shifting costs onto our shoulders is
not a solution.
Lacking leadership in Washington, states across
the nation have tried to tackle the complex
problem of health care in a variety of ways. But
in too many cases, these noble efforts fall short
of challenging the pattern of for-profit, private
health insurance. Plans like the one passed last
year in Massachusetts do not directly deal with
cost controls, fail to move coverage out of
employer-based systems, and continue to support
for-profit insurers. These reform efforts may
increase insurance coverage in the short-term,
but years from now, states like Massachusetts
will be back where they started: workers and
employers will be unable to pay, people will lose
coverage, and public programs will become more
expensive.
So what do we do to achieve a real and
sustainable universal health care system for
Rhode Island?
First, we must hold the line. We must protect
Rhode Island�s incredibly efficient and
successful public health care programs, including
RIte Care. Last year, lawmakers enacted changes
that bar hundreds of children from enrolling, and
take away health care from 1,800 parents. This
year, we must restore coverage to all kids and
parents who fall within the income eligibility
levels. More uninsured Rhode Islanders means more
emergency care that we all pay for. RIte Care
prevents future, and costly, health care
emergencies.
Second, lawmakers should pass legislation this
year to control costs through statewide
coordinated health planning and institute
�community rating,� a common-sense model of a
single insurance pool that shares risk equally
among our entire community. Our system must
reflect the reality that we are all in this
together.
Third, let�s take the profit out of health
insurance. The market may work for selling
dishwashers or tennis rackets, but doesn�t when
it comes to ensuring a basic right like access to
health care. Non-profit insurers use the money
they collect in premiums to pay for better health
care. For-profits use that same money to pay
higher dividends to investors and soaring
salaries to executives.
Right now, United HealthCare is proposing to send
more than $40 million from Rhode Island to its
parent company in Minnesota. Rhode Island
patients and providers can not afford to lose
these dollars. We also can not afford the higher
overhead costs associated with for-profit
insurance. Overhead costs for public programs
like RIte Care are just a few pennies on the
dollar, while for-profit overhead is often 20-25
cents or more.
By taking the profit out of health insurance, we
can make real systemic change based on specific
principles and goals that put patients and
community well being at the center of our system.
Now is the time for Rhode Island to tackle the
real problems in our health care system in order
to provide quality, guaranteed, affordable care
for all. Each of us must contribute to reform -
so that every one of us gains.
O�Connor is the associate director of Ocean State
Action, a social action and reform organization
based in Providence.
©The Call 2007
Posts