Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

      • From:

      To:


Other Searches

Sorting by Review Rating

Comment Archives: Stories

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

Travis have u been to upper King, at 1:30 on a Saturday night lately? Not trying to pick an argument, but I would like to know.

2 of 2 people like this.
Posted by gnu name on May 16, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Re: “The problem with for-profit hospitals”

These companies you see advertising all sorts of medical products (catheters, diabetic supplies, ED products, scooters, etc.) on TV are making money hand over fist and every penny is coming from the 50% paying taxes!

Here's how it works ... They charge Medicare patients the $100 annual deductible, I think $0 for Medicaid, and say they require the client 20% co-pay, but most waive that under the guise of a "hardship" waiver. They then pocket the Medicare allowable. People paying the extra 20% are suckers and that's more profit to the supply company. If you call them and say you want to pay cash they refer you to another company. You call that company and get quoted a significantly lower cash price. This other company is owned by the same people, but they keep cash transactions separate from insurance so they don't get caught charging far less to the cash customers. The Medicare allowable is much more than the cash price, which also has a huge profit margin. There is no telling how much profit they are making on insurance based transactions. It's absolutely obscene I'm sure!!

The scooters you see on TV cost $40 to $60k each. A basic wheelchair can easily cost $2 to $5k. Yet you can but a luxury car for under $40k and a bicycle for $100.

Why are scooters & wheelchairs so expensive? Medicare, Medcaid, & other forms of insurance. Get the gubment out of medical & insurance transactions and the cost of these items would be pennies on the dollar compared to current costs.

Wanna know why the SEC never catches big Wall Street banks breaking the law? They don't want to. Go work for the SEC for 5 years then parlay that into a cushy high 6 figure salary at Goldman Sachs.

The bigger, more far reaching, and intrusive gubment is, the more opportunity there is for corruption and easier it is to get away with it.

When the banking crisis happened guess who was a high ranking executive at FannieMae? Barney Franks boyfriend!! And Frank was chairman of the powerful Banking Committee, which has oversight of the GSE's like Fannie & Freddie. And Frank constantly cried foul for years as the Bush administration warned of a coming banking & housing collapse. Then the Dems blamed Bush!!

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Ned Hill on May 16, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

Statism? It's the opposite of "statism." This is the privatization of a basic government function. Isn't this the stuff your libertarian wet dreams are made of?

Also, the ordinance gives the responsibility to the establishment to police the sidewalks and parking lots, but it doesn't require that that function be performed by an employee. I'm sure the responsibility (and probably any associated liabilities) can be contracted out. This ordinance looks like a great opportunity for someone looking to start a security firm.

2 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Travis Austin on May 16, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

It is interesting to note that, it is the city's smoking ban which is putting so many people on a narrow stretch of concrete in front of AC's, which was a popular smoking bar long before upper King became so wildly popular.

But there is a problem, please anyone take a stroll up King St at 1:30am on any Saturday before you disagree. In the long run closing King to traffic on certain nights from Cannon to Radcliffe may be the only solution.

I do have to agree with Haire on the gist of his article; if the police can barely contain the drunken masses (which is true, I've seen it), how can private enforcement hope to cope short of cracking skulls like security at a Stones concert?

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by gnu name on May 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Re: “The problem with for-profit hospitals”

Good points Ned. I think it is important to point out that the P&C article was specifically referencing what hospitals bill Medicare. No mention of it, but I assume it is the same for Medicaid, which is free medical care for the professional poor.

For reference regarding Trident Medical being crooks, let me share my experience. Last summer my collar bone was broken in an accident in Mt Pleasant. The emergency room visit ending up costing me $2,300, and here's the rub. It was a bad break which required surgery, so they did nothing. Understandable, but that kind of money seems like a lot for a doctor spending less than 10 minutes on me and providing a recommendation.
So my private practice ortho specialist normally preforms surgeries at the Trident East Cooper facility. His bill for the surgery was slightly under 2k, the anesthesiologist charged $750. Both reasonable prices.
The price Trident wished to charge me for JUST the room for a 2 hour outpatient surgery?...15,300$ !!! Is it just me or does that seem a bit extreme?
If I were on medicare or medicaid that ridiculous bill would have gone directly to the taxpayers.

2 of 3 people like this.
Posted by gnu name on May 16, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

In this morning's P&C, big article about the how closing the sidewalks around hospitals has forced smokers into parks and neighborhoods to smoke.
Huh.
Who could have seen that coming?
Here's my question: If the city has such power over the sidewalks, why is it abdicating that same responsibility when it comes to bars? Will Hanks have to have same requirements as AC's.
Statism's really cool until it affects you, eh?

8 of 9 people like this.
Posted by David Farrow on May 16, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

IF the bars have to provide that service in conjunction with the officers, then I'm all for it. A bit of shared responsibility between the city and the "Late Night Entertainment Establishment" would be a good thing.

I hope the same rules apply for the Spoleto events too?

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by goodkarmasc on May 16, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

Did city council not just vote against providing the "entertainment" areas with extra police? I believe they did......

If we can enforce the drinking age we would be A-Ok. Bars that do it, do not have issues nearly as much as the bars that do not.

And as far as the line about lawsuits, and frantic 911 calls "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING"

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Jack Handegan III on May 16, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Re: “Late Night law would force bar owners to create powerless police force, endanger lives”

You are correct. Drunks are not the most reasonable people to speak with. You will either have bar security getting hurt or stepping over the line and hurting a drunk. Either way the Police will need to come anyway.

14 of 16 people like this.
Posted by markfullercot on May 16, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Re: “Gearing up for a sober summer on Folly Beach”

1) 357 citizens was the number of signatures that had been validated by the Elections Board when they called it quits; there were many more pages of signatures had they wanted to continue, but there was no point. I think it took a grand total of two weeks to gather all these signatures.

2) The Council had no legal right to "[consider] a partial ban or another compromise". By law they had to consider the proposal "substantially as written" on the petition. If it passed (as it did), the petition language was enacted as an ordinance. Please note that any CHANGES in this ordinance are MUCH EASIER given that it's a Council-passed ordinance rather than as a plebiscite-enacted one. It it had failed before Council, the proposal would have gone to plebiscite (vote of the residents). Quite a risk, given the stirred-up nature of the electorate following the fracas regularly termed a "riot" by papers, TV, and radio. ONLY if the proposal had FAILED both in Council and in a popular vote could any "compromise" proposal be made... but what would be the point if those were the facts?

3) Astoundingly, tax receipts from businesses ROSE over the previous year for the months following the widely-reported "riot". I would think most people who'd heard of a "riot" occurring somewhere would avoid that place until they heard more reassuring news. It's hardly significant to highlight year-over-year comparisons until some kind of stasis has been established.

Posted by Jim W on May 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Re: “Bourbon be damned, it's time to return to rum”

This Pronghorn is sticking to his Islays.

0 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Pronghorn on May 16, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Re: “Bourbon be damned, it's time to return to rum”

I'd love it if rum became the "it" spirit and bourbon was shunned as a hillbilly drink. That would make all those single-barrel varieties way cheaper!

2 of 4 people like this.
Posted by factoryconnection on May 16, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Re: “Bourbon be damned, it's time to return to rum”

If you think Gosling's gets its color from Bourbon barrels, then I'd like to discuss a certain real estate opportunity with you involving the Cooper River Bridge.

2 of 3 people like this.
Posted by Josh Miller on May 16, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Re: “School of the Arts tweet exposes Charleston County Schools' hypocrisy”

Are we now clear on "White Flight"?

4 of 6 people like this.
Posted by VaSteve on May 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Re: “Gearing up for a sober summer on Folly Beach”

Fuck the Ban; drink covertly.

10 of 11 people like this.
Posted by Pronghorn on May 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Re: “Columnist Erin Perkins goes to boogie at Republic Reign”

I think I've asked you before: may I please join you and your friends for a fun night on the town? I'm innocent, and I like to have a good time. I would look good in all of your pictures.

2 of 5 people like this.
Posted by Pronghorn on May 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Re: “Republic Reign touches down like a fabulously stylish mothership on King Street”

Looks like the CP has another "restaurant" in their back pocket. Congrats rep reign, enjoy ur three months of staying in business......until tourist season is over. Then we will welcome a new craft beer bar into ur spot in the fall. And bid u a farewell

7 of 17 people like this.
Posted by nuthnBUTtheTRUTH on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Re: “Columnist Erin Perkins goes to boogie at Republic Reign”

Erin Perkins articles are all pathetic. Another "big city feel" club....really?! bottle service, come on!! U love the big city, please go back to Ohio missy and spend ur nites behind a velvet rope In Toledo please!

6 of 13 people like this.
Posted by nuthnBUTtheTRUTH on May 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Re: “If you need a beer run”

I endorse covert, discreet, illegal drinking.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Pronghorn on May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Re: “School of the Arts tweet exposes Charleston County Schools' hypocrisy”

Let us not also forget about the hoplophobic, neo-segregationist bigotry in government schools. Zero tolerance/intelligence teachers and administrators punishing children, and sometimes calling the police, for children who are drawing a picture of a firearm, or having paper folded like a firearm, or chewing a poptart into the shape of a firearm. That's like punishing a child for violating racial segregation laws for bringing a black crayon to school. The teachers and administrators who punished kids for the "offenses" above, are, literally, mentally infirm, and need to have their mental capacity tested by a licensed psychologist, before they are allowed to be near children again. Any children the offending teachers or administrators may have should be kept safe by the state until such tests can be performed. This is what Neale Bortz means when he says that government schooling is child abuse.

3 of 7 people like this.
Posted by trustmajor on May 16, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews
Most Viewed

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2013, Charleston City Paper   RSS