Lack of healthcare a national emergency
Published Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:09 PM
Summerville Journal Scene ®
Dear Editor, As of Nov. 1, the government says over 100 people have died from the Swine Flu. The government says this is a national emergency. Why, then, is 122 people dying each day from lack of healthcare not a national health emergency? Write your representatives today...lack of healthcare is a national emergency too! Another interesting thing...if 122 people were being killed by terrorists each and every day don't you think MSNBC, CNN, and others would have wall to wall coverage...122 people each day are dying, over 40,000 a year from healthcare terrorism. Patrick C. Labbe Lebsl Court Summerville
....which delineates your argument to date, even throws it out the door, since you obviously don't know this subject at all. Self-employed pay 15.3% of the NET - check out the 1040 SE. Since you obviously don't know SQUAT about this topic, yet continue to spew out arguments on it and others, you've lost all possible points your weak arguments could have made. Goodbye, uninformed. Everybody else? Wake up to the fact that a national health insurance program is for the betterment of the nation as a whole, and it won't affect anyone else's insurance in any way, either, except to lower its costs due to competitive reasons and because of reduction in insurance companies being charged by health providers for the services to the uninsured.
Posted by:
You seem to think that you've "earned" your health care because you have money. Why should wealthier people have more of a right to access health care? It's really in EVERYONE'S best interest if more people have access to healthcare. It doesn't help if you can afford the latest technology and medications if everyone around you has contagious illnesses that they can't afford to treat or prevent. Nobody's trying to take away your health care. They're just trying to find ways to make it more affordable for everyone. If you've got a plan, you keep it. The vast majority won't change.
Posted by:
A broken system causes people to label this a national crisis. You already pay over $1000 extra per year to cover the uninsured. And you think health insurance giants have a right to our hard earned money when it's proven it can be cheaper all over the world? You either are a shill for the health care industry or You've got some serious, fearless denial going on.
Posted by:
Fear causes people to label things a "national emergency." If you walk with God, there is no fear. You DO NOT have rights to other people's money and call it "healthcare." They earned it. You go do the same!
Posted by: Granolajoe
"...the selfemployed only pay that 15.3% upon their net, not their gross like other folks - that's after all deductions applied to a self-employed person, which are many. As a self-employed person, I pay LESS to ss/medicare than I would if I were employed by a company for the same income." *** If you're ever audited by the IRS, you're going to be in some really deep s**t if you've been paying 15.3% on your net income and not your gross (as the IRS defines "gross income").
Posted by:
So lessee, now - using the same example as before of a consistent 45K for 40 years, that makes it $117,000 entered. And still amounts to $153,000 returned to you guaranteed. And which continues to your spouse, should you have earned more, throughout the rest of his/her life. And to your disabled child, too, should there be one. And which still means that social security taxes are NOT 15%, like "m" claims. thanks to the invisible, unidentified person who made the correction to my incorrect attribution between SS and Medicare. As for the claims of hte 15.3% for the selfemployed, however, you're overlooking that the selfemployed only pay that 15.3% upon their net, not their gross like other folks - that's after all deductions applied to a self-employed person, which are many. As a self-employed person, I pay LESS to ss/medicare than I would if I were employed by a company for the same income. I also get that total amount of FICA as an additional deduction.
Posted by:
Here is an illustrated chart on health care costs and how much they have risen:
http://media.artdiamondblog.com/images2/HealthCareCostsGraph.jpg
Posted by:
Bor was wrong. See the SSA website under FAQ regarding "What is the Social Security (AKA FICA) rate? The 2009 contribution rate is 7.65% for employees and 15.30% for self-employeed people. The rates are broken out as follows: 6.2% Social Security portion and 1.45% Medicare portion. "M" stated the facts correctly, you should check the Social Security website and learn them too.
Posted by:
The problem with us as a people is we want things but don't want to pay for it. A majority of Americans want a fix of health care, but they are balking because they're realizing there's a pricetag. Yes, it WILL be expensive, but it will be even more expensive if nothing is done. The irony is , the health care industrial machine is paying out big bucks to get us riled up about the pricetag for this deal, knowing that if we're up in arms THEY get to keep making obscene profits. It's an investment for them to pay to get us to do their dirty work, and we're falling for it.
Posted by:
social security taxes are 1.5% on individuals. What you're talking about is Medicare, which is also deducted from a paycheck. And it's not 15%, but 15.3%. And only half of that amount (7.65%) comes out as a deduction from your paycheck; the other half comes from the employer. So it *is* only 1.5 percent of the pay coming out for social security. Learn your facts, m ...
Posted by:
Get your facts straight. Impoverished people DO NOT receive free health care at emergency rooms. They are simply billed later - at rates often considerably higher than insured patients. Agressive collection tactics pursue those who are unable to pay the bill, often forcing bankruptcies and foreclosures. Whatever you want to call it, it isn't by any measure FREE.
Posted by:
"bor" posted: **As for social security, if you work for 45 years at an average income - let's say a set $45K annual in the terms of dollar value in the year you retire. You're paying about 1.5 percent of that amount to Social Security. That amounts to approximately $30,000 that you paid until you turned 65. You then receive that back in payments of about $850 a month for the next 15 years until you pass away at the average age of 80. That amounts to $153,000 you receive from your investment.** .. Social Security taxes are 15% NOT "1.5%" (counting both the employee and employer portions) -- which amounts to over $300,000 paid in in your example. No where near the $153,000 received "back."
Posted by: m
For those of you insisting that the uninsured should just show up to clog up our emergency rooms, please see today's Post&Courier. If you're uninsured, you're more likely to die there. A diabetic friend of mine who could not find insurance had a hypertensive event and his kidneys were damaged because the hospital insisted on transferring him to County Hospital for treatment. He went all day without care before his transfer. He eventualy had to have a much more expensive transplant and died in his thirties. The system is very sick and needs treatment. And the more serious crisis is the sickness in our national character that gives us an "I've got mine so I don't care about you" mentality.
Posted by:
jed, if you don't have a healthy public, that public can't work and produce adequately to support our industries and our economy. And if they don't work enough, they don't make enough money to purchase from our industries to support our economy. and if our public health is poor, which makes their work poor, which makes their earnings poor, which makes their purchasing poor, which makes our economy poor - then our country will go belly up while all the money goes outside the US. Already happening. What's also happening is that medical companies are actually charging private insurance for services to uninsured patients. Last year, they didn't collect $48 billion; they divvied up that $48 billion on charges to insured patients, which insurance companies paid; the insurance companies then raised their rates ($800 average this year alone), and those rates have more than doubled in the last eight years. If everyone is insured, then everyone will benefit, and in many ways. Quit your "socialist" claims, too - that's the socialist (don't want any competition to their small clique that will lead to a competitive market) insurance companies making that claim. Democratic republics across the globe have guaranteed healthcare and guaranteed health insurance. And their citizens live longer, too. US ranks 40th in quality of healthcare; 1st in cost for healthcare.
Posted by:
because I can't find anything on SSA.gov that says that. If you're going to try to make the claim that you're providing source, then DO SO - actual link - not some made up statement with false attribution. I looked up and found the annual report from 1982 (http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/1982/1982.pdf); it makes no such claim of "zero balance." I also looked up the report you claim from Sloan (whose role as senior editor of Fortune magazine, which endorsed privatization of SSI, should indicate his true intentions). http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fortune/index.htm and it says "It currently holds about $2.5 trillion of Treasury securities and is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion, even as Social Security begins to take in far less cash in taxes than it spends in benefits. For instance, in 2023 it projects a cash deficit of $234 billion. However, the trust fund will grow because it will get $245 billion of Treasury IOUs as interest." His reference to "IOUs" is a scrambling of the fact that SS funds are maintained by the Treasury, and not independently by SSA - just like all other govt programs until those branches/divisions/offices actually get the money. Either you're trying to use the same twist of actual fact, or you're a sucker who's falling for that scheme. He ALSO says in that same article that "Since 1983, when it suffered a cash crisis, Social Security has been collecting more in taxes each year than it has paid out in benefits." THe cash crisis he refers to is a twisting off of the fact that '83 was a year when it actually spent more than collected, which was due to high number of retirees and low number of employed. This is the same argument that Bush & Co. tried to use to get SS funds to go to the stock market (which was a scam to benefit brokers only). They also twisted the facts, stating that the SS funds would go bust by 2040 (or some such year); they didn't tell us that it would only go bust in that year if THERE WERE NO OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS MADE. In other words, SS could actually survive for over 30 years, and by giving out money to seniors every month at the same rate, even if it had no other collection. Sloan should give up that attempt to let Wall Street profit from the middle class' SS funds, which would only rob the middle class, too. Come on, jed, your turn now. Let's see you make an actual, factual claim with a defending source this time.
Posted by:
But the lack of affordable health care certainly IS a crisis. Especially if you're one of the ones in a health care crisis now. The reason the Obama adinistration is focused on this is because it has the potential to wreck an already weakened economy if not remedied.
Posted by:
The information I posted about Social Security is correct. Their own website states that the trust fund actually went to a zero balance in 1982, requiring special legislative action to shore it up. Also, the "trust fund" currently is comprised entirely of treasury securities (IOUs) to the tune of almost $2.5 trillion. It is backed by zero assets or hard currency. For example, if SS had to pay out $10 million more next year than it took in from taxes, it would get that money by having the Treasury redeem $10 million of trust fund treasury securities. The Treasury would then get the necessary cash by selling $10 million of treasury bonds to investors. That means that $10 million has been moved from the national debt that the government owes itself to the debt it owes investors. The SS trust fund isn't a savings program, it's simply a bookkeeping entry. For a complete explanation see CNN Money article dated 30 July 2009 written by Allan Sloan, senior editor of Fortune magazine. I've provided references for the material I've posted, so people are free to research and draw their own conclusions. Please try to do the same. Back to the topic at hand - the lack of socialized healthcare still isn't a national emergency.
Posted by: Jed
there was no "zero account balance" in SS funds in '82. There was talk that the amount in SS funds was too low to guarantee regular rates of disperse to the growing group of collectors. that's why SS funding improved, and by an increase in the maximum salary amounts to which is SS deductions applied. At the moment, there is over $2 trillion in reserves in the SS Trust Fund, which consists of actual bonds and securities, not any IOUs like you continue to imply, and not any "treasury bills" either. Jed don't know Jack on this subject. And if you want some source to credit, you can't use wikipedia. Anybody can add to that site, can change that site, alter that site - which has employees on the clock 24/7 to correct the blatant errors that some folks continue to apply. (Like from that Repuglican congressman in CA who paid his stuff to flood it with false info about himself during the superbowl?) And the only circumstance in which a person can receive SS benefits without having made any contribution would be if that person was an unemployed spouse of a SS recipient - shoot, to get SS disability, you need to have made minimum payments to SS in your work. Give up all the lies you're telling about this, jed - you make yourself, not to mention your argument, look worse and worse as you go on.
Posted by:
I don't think you can equate the choice to buy a corvette and get speeding tickets with preexisting conditions. Many illnesses are not of our own choosing. Your logic is flawed.
Posted by:
I wonder how many "anti-gun" nuts are living in Walterboro today??
Posted by: Gun Control Ain't Anti-Gun
Hope you had a happy veterans day! Never said you didn't earn veterans benefits, so please don't read anything into it not written. Of course you deserve benefits. What I did write was that we have several of those evil socialism benefits systems in place already, including the VA system. You prove my point with your angry blast- it's evil to have anything for the greater public that smacks of socialism, but it's ok for you, huh? People need to think for themselves and think things through rather than spout Limbaugh rants.
Posted by:
Well put Doug. Perhaps we should use the logic of the anti-gun nuts and ban automobiles to solve the drunk driving problem. And why not nationalize car insurance while we're at. The person with the corvette and 10 speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) should pay the same amount as the person driving the sub-compact with a perfect driving record. "Progressives" are are really funny!
Posted by: Jed
A far greater national emergency than either swine flu or regular flu, are the numbers of Americans who are killed in auto wrecks.
Posted by: Doug Stewart
The poster below is correct. There is nothing socialist about the VA. "Provide for a strong national defense" is clearly spelled out in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. That means supporting our warriors before, during, and after the fight. Regarding the history of public education in the U.S., while off-topic, the information is readily available online (wikipedia - history of U.S. public education)for others to research and the information I presented is correct. Your statements regarding the Social Security Trust fund are completely inaccurate. The "trust fund" approached a zero account balance back in 1982. In 1983, Congress appropriated about $17 billion from other funds to help shore up the fund. Congress created a new law in 1984 mandating that just 10% of annual expenditures be maintained in the trust fund. If the trust fund received no new money, it would be bankrupt in just 3 months, not 37 years. There is no such thing as a "trust fund" backed by hard currency or assets anymore, just government IOU's in the form of Treasury Bills. And for the record, you don't need to contribute anything to Social Security to get SSI. Back to the topic at hand - socialized healthcare. If you want a federal program like this, amend the U.S. Constitution or move to a socialist (progressive) nation.
Posted by: Jed
and just who is this commentator below who claims that VA benefits are "socialist"? If a person risks his life for the benefit of his democratic government, to guarantee the freedoms of its citizens, to protect the lives of all within its borders ... are you saying he is NOT entitled to benefits? And that if he gets any, that makes our country SOCIALIST? *get out* **move** ***get out of my country if you don't think a soldier who defended you, your country and YOUR LIFE are NOT entitled to benefits for doing so***
Posted by:
Free elementary education was available in every state following its incorporation and no later than its ratified statehood. Its been here in SC since 1678, in fact. In Mass., it's been public education since 1642. Where you get your figures (maybe out of your ears?) remains to be seen. Including those regarding funding for public education. The federal government has been the principal funder of public ed throughout, albeit much less since the Reaganites chopped it up (and since then, the US fell from first place in worldwide rankings to 17th). You're also using some funky years. You cite 1870, but fail to recognize that much of the US was undeveloped at that time. All actual states had federal funding for public education at that time, and before that time - after they became states, that is. The NDEA and ESEA are of no pertinence regarding the proportion of federal funding for public education, either. Those are secondary and pertain to particular types of funding. And your jump to 1990, after the Reagan years that dropped funding to states for all projects (education, health, roads, etc.), seems to indicate that you're trying to bypass the fact that republicans DEfunded the states' educational programs. You also lack any mathematical skills, indicating that you went through public education primarily after Reagan's 80's realm; either that, or you never completed an educational plan. For example, how does a plan that utilizes money best, and guarantees better return, and doesnt' unwarrantedly give your money to someone else with no affiliation, equal bankruptcy in comparison? Do you not know that if the SS system ceased all collection, that it could continue operation of all persons, including new annual additions, for another 35 years? Don't tell me that you fell for that Bushco line....that'd be sad if you did. SS has been operating properly, fully, and with no faults since its incorporation. Meanwhile, just check the variation in teh interest rates that your bank pays over the years; tell me what's been more concise and secure. And those "deadbeats" you refer to do not receive ANYTHING if they did not contribute themselves, and they only receive portions relevant to what they themselves contributed. They don't get your money; they get THEIR money. As for your fallacies about New Deal programs, you fail to mention that all of the programs debated by the SCOTUS later went into effect in revised formats - they include Social Security, the FDIC, the FHA and the SEC, all of which protect the money of individual Americans from mishaps caused by the private companies in America. If you don't like Social Security in the reserved, secured and guaranteed format that it operates, then move to some Communist or Socialist country - that seems to be what you favor, Jed-boy. Because that "toss your money to the chiefs only to let them spend it on themselves" concept of yours seems more appropriate in one of those countries. Send me a postcard when you get there, too. If you can afford the postage on what little bit of your own money you'll get over there that is. You want to protect your own money? Your own right to life? To live like you'll deserve when you retire? Then stop sending it over to repuglicans, who only spend it on themselves while they toss out lies to you.
Posted by: bor
As of 1940, local and state funding accounted for 98% of all financing for "public education". In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act and in 1965 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. By 1990, state and local funding accounted for only 47% of financing, with the federal government picking up the rest of the tab. "Public Education", as we know it today and in the context of this discussion has been around for only about 60 years. Free elementary education wasn't available in every state until 1870, so your statement that public education has been compulsory in the U.S. for 100 years before we even became the U.S. is false. Your numbers on Social Security explain exactly why the system is bankrupt and the socialist program is doomed to fail. People can take out far more than they put in. For example, the folks who go on Social Security "disability" in their 30's and draw that money for life, while having put in only minimal contributions for 10 years. Granted, alot of folks work to 65 and die shortly thereafter and fund many deadbeats, but there needs to be a correlation between the amount an individual puts into the system versus takes out. To the poster below regarding a business or agency compared to the Post Ofiice - google FEDEX. Regarding citizens complaining about the New Deal at the time - there was a huge fight against FDR and his plans to redistribute wealth. In fact, during 1935-36, the Supreme Court struck down eight of FDR's New Deal programs as unconstituional including the National Recovery Act. It was so bad, that by 1937 FDR introduced a plan to increase the total number of Supreme Court justices (which his administration could then appoint) in an effort to promote his socialist agenda. He failed in his efforts, but the cost to U.S. taxpayers for FDR's programs continues to harm our Republic to this day.
Posted by: Jed
Public education has been compulsory in the US for over 100 years before it was the US. Your 'industrial revolution' claim is only pertinent to expanded high school education, and which was already available in most of the country by that time. Its principal funding is the federal govt, and so is the principal funding of local police, fire departments, schools and colleges ... wherever you get your information from indicates that you never completed high school yourself. As for social security, if you work for 45 years at an average income - let's say a set $45K annual in the terms of dollar value in the year you retire. You're paying about 1.5 percent of that amount to Social Security. That amounts to approximately $30,000 that you paid until you turned 65. You then receive that back in payments of about $850 a month for the next 15 years until you pass away at the average age of 80. That amounts to $153,000 you receive from your investment. If you'd taken that same amount, stocked it away in the bank or a stock market, for the same amount of time - even if you were lucky enough to average a 5 percent annual return (which is slightly above the historical annual average of the stock market), you'd only have realized about $115,000. Social Security is a wise, secure and no-risk safety investment for workers in the U.S., and that can keep people out of the welfare lines and from hitting up the government for MORE benefits. SOcial Security is NOT this "socialist" plan you and other Limbaugh fans claim it to be - it PREVENTS garbage like that, and while ensuring teh safety and security of all.
Posted by: bor
The average American gets more back from Social Security and Medicare than they ever put in because we're living longer. That's a fact. On retirement, US servicemen get VA benefits, which is a form of socialism. As for the PO, what other business or agency has as its mission to move huge volumes of packages and mail six days a week to almost every habitable location and worksite in the nation? As for New Deal- you didn't hear too many people moaning about socialism then when the country was on the brink of collapse. See today's P&C article about a speech given by an analyst- we can't be run like a business. And George Bush with his MBA found that out too.
Posted by:
The US Armed Forces having nothing to do with socialism. "Provide for a strong national defence (now spelled defense) is found in the preamble of the US Constitution. Police Departments, Fire Departments, Universities, and Public Schools are a function of state and local governments, not the Federal Government. Also, public schools (as we know them) did not come about until the Industrial Revolution and were used a tool to prevent child labor from competing with the adult workforce for jobs. By keeping the federal government out of these areas, it permits US citizens a choice of where to live within the Republic based upon taxes, services, laws, etc. If a local government of state becomes too opressive in terms of regulation and taxes, people move, the local or state government tax base dries up, and they are forced to reform. I won't see a dime from Social Security of Medicare, but to the folks who received the services or funds that I paid for, your welcome. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, both programs will be declared unconstitutional like most of the other New Deal programs of the 1930s. I respect your right to have your opinion heard, so let's start the socialist ball rolling. Send me your paycheck and all savings (assuming you work and aren't on welfare/disability/foodstamps/ or live in Mom's basement), send me your car, your cellphone, your computer, your designer clothes, and even your Playstation. I'll give you back what I think that you need to live and keep the rest. I promise I'll take care of you....aka socialism.
Posted by: Jed
Jed.,,,sounds like the uneducated Jed Clambett...wow! Socialized Medicine, huh? MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENTS and PUBLIC SCHOOLS...not to mention THE US ARMED FORCES, VA and many other sevices...all socialized. ALKLK GOOD. SOCIALISM IS GREAT AND CAPITALISM NEEDS TO DIE A SLOW DEATH! WILL YOU GIVE UP YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION, PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES NOT TO MENTION PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY WITH OUR SOCIALIZED ARMY????...IDIOT!!!!
Posted by: FOR SOCIALISM...THE AMERICAN WAY!!
See the Wall Steet Journal article date 21 Oct 2009 for information regarding this "ranking" and the out-dated and incorrect data used to justify it. Notice the quote from the editor-in-chief of WHO, which released the data, also dismissing it as "meaningless". And regarding Social Security and Medicare, I've paid more into it than I'll ever get out. To those who receive the services or funds that I paid for..consider it a gift, your welcome. Regarding the Post Office, if you think they could even begin to compete with private industry without the massive government infusion of taxpayer money they receive, your sadly mistaken. This country is a Republic where individual freedom and responsibilty is paramount. If you want socialized medicine, amend the U.S. Constitution or move to a socialist (progressive) nation.
Posted by: Jed
People are dying out there. We are the only industrialized country without national single payer healthcare. And by the way we rank 37th in the world in terms of QUALITY of our healthcare, We've got it wrong. So very wrong. It is healthcare terrorism!!!
Posted by: Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN, Progressive Democrats of America SC State Coordinator
What kind of idiocy encourages people to swamp our emergency rooms with petty problems? You have not a clue about either economics or health care. And I expect you've sworn off your Social Security and Medicare, and never use the P.O., huh? More propaganda brainwashing from unwitting shills for the insurance industry. A tragedy. They know not what they do. Or do they??
Posted by: And the PO does a good job too
Your numbers are based on a federally-funded "study" released by the Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors socialized, government-run healthcare. Some facts: 21% of the uninsured are currently eligible for public coverage but do not use it. 26% of the uninsured have a family income over $75,000 a year. Approx 15% are illegal immigrants. If you need medical care and are not eligible for public assistance, are not an illegal immigrant, and really can't afford it, then just go to the emergency room. We, the taxpayer, will pay for it. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than $1.2 trillion dollars and a new federal program from the same folks who brought us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Post Office, and Amtrak (all bankrupt).
Posted by:
Dear Editor, As of Nov. 1, the government says over 100 people have died from the Swine Flu. The government says this is a national emergency. Why, then, is 122 people dying each day from lack of healthcare not a national health emergency? Write your representatives today...lack of healthcare is a national emergency too! Another interesting thing...if 122 people were being killed by terrorists each and every day don't you think MSNBC, CNN, and others would have wall to wall coverage...122 people each day are dying, over 40,000 a year from healthcare terrorism. Patrick C. Labbe Lebsl Court Summerville
Comments
Notice about comments:Journalscene.com ® is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Journalscene.com ® does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Journalscene.com ®. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by reading our terms and conditions, and then signing up below!
you obviously don't know taxes
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:51 PM
....which delineates your argument to date, even throws it out the door, since you obviously don't know this subject at all. Self-employed pay 15.3% of the NET - check out the 1040 SE. Since you obviously don't know SQUAT about this topic, yet continue to spew out arguments on it and others, you've lost all possible points your weak arguments could have made. Goodbye, uninformed. Everybody else? Wake up to the fact that a national health insurance program is for the betterment of the nation as a whole, and it won't affect anyone else's insurance in any way, either, except to lower its costs due to competitive reasons and because of reduction in insurance companies being charged by health providers for the services to the uninsured.
Posted by:
Another I've Got Mine So Everything's Fine Story
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:59 AM
You seem to think that you've "earned" your health care because you have money. Why should wealthier people have more of a right to access health care? It's really in EVERYONE'S best interest if more people have access to healthcare. It doesn't help if you can afford the latest technology and medications if everyone around you has contagious illnesses that they can't afford to treat or prevent. Nobody's trying to take away your health care. They're just trying to find ways to make it more affordable for everyone. If you've got a plan, you keep it. The vast majority won't change.
Posted by:
Diagnosis
Monday, December 07, 2009 10:26 PM
A broken system causes people to label this a national crisis. You already pay over $1000 extra per year to cover the uninsured. And you think health insurance giants have a right to our hard earned money when it's proven it can be cheaper all over the world? You either are a shill for the health care industry or You've got some serious, fearless denial going on.
Posted by:
godwiser
Monday, December 07, 2009 7:30 PM
Fear causes people to label things a "national emergency." If you walk with God, there is no fear. You DO NOT have rights to other people's money and call it "healthcare." They earned it. You go do the same!
Posted by: Granolajoe
Sunday, November 29, 2009 12:50 AM
"...the selfemployed only pay that 15.3% upon their net, not their gross like other folks - that's after all deductions applied to a self-employed person, which are many. As a self-employed person, I pay LESS to ss/medicare than I would if I were employed by a company for the same income." *** If you're ever audited by the IRS, you're going to be in some really deep s**t if you've been paying 15.3% on your net income and not your gross (as the IRS defines "gross income").
Posted by:
thanks for those corrections!
Saturday, November 28, 2009 6:50 PM
So lessee, now - using the same example as before of a consistent 45K for 40 years, that makes it $117,000 entered. And still amounts to $153,000 returned to you guaranteed. And which continues to your spouse, should you have earned more, throughout the rest of his/her life. And to your disabled child, too, should there be one. And which still means that social security taxes are NOT 15%, like "m" claims. thanks to the invisible, unidentified person who made the correction to my incorrect attribution between SS and Medicare. As for the claims of hte 15.3% for the selfemployed, however, you're overlooking that the selfemployed only pay that 15.3% upon their net, not their gross like other folks - that's after all deductions applied to a self-employed person, which are many. As a self-employed person, I pay LESS to ss/medicare than I would if I were employed by a company for the same income. I also get that total amount of FICA as an additional deduction.
Posted by:
Health care costs
Thursday, November 26, 2009 11:01 PM
Here is an illustrated chart on health care costs and how much they have risen:
http://media.artdiamondblog.com/images2/HealthCareCostsGraph.jpg
Posted by:
RE: Nope, "m" - bor is absolutely correct
Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:00 AM
Bor was wrong. See the SSA website under FAQ regarding "What is the Social Security (AKA FICA) rate? The 2009 contribution rate is 7.65% for employees and 15.30% for self-employeed people. The rates are broken out as follows: 6.2% Social Security portion and 1.45% Medicare portion. "M" stated the facts correctly, you should check the Social Security website and learn them too.
Posted by:
Pricetags
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:23 PM
The problem with us as a people is we want things but don't want to pay for it. A majority of Americans want a fix of health care, but they are balking because they're realizing there's a pricetag. Yes, it WILL be expensive, but it will be even more expensive if nothing is done. The irony is , the health care industrial machine is paying out big bucks to get us riled up about the pricetag for this deal, knowing that if we're up in arms THEY get to keep making obscene profits. It's an investment for them to pay to get us to do their dirty work, and we're falling for it.
Posted by:
nope, "m" - bor is absolutely correct
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:59 PM
social security taxes are 1.5% on individuals. What you're talking about is Medicare, which is also deducted from a paycheck. And it's not 15%, but 15.3%. And only half of that amount (7.65%) comes out as a deduction from your paycheck; the other half comes from the employer. So it *is* only 1.5 percent of the pay coming out for social security. Learn your facts, m ...
Posted by:
HOLD ON
Saturday, November 21, 2009 1:26 PM
Get your facts straight. Impoverished people DO NOT receive free health care at emergency rooms. They are simply billed later - at rates often considerably higher than insured patients. Agressive collection tactics pursue those who are unable to pay the bill, often forcing bankruptcies and foreclosures. Whatever you want to call it, it isn't by any measure FREE.
Posted by:
"bor" is full of bull
Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:28 PM
"bor" posted: **As for social security, if you work for 45 years at an average income - let's say a set $45K annual in the terms of dollar value in the year you retire. You're paying about 1.5 percent of that amount to Social Security. That amounts to approximately $30,000 that you paid until you turned 65. You then receive that back in payments of about $850 a month for the next 15 years until you pass away at the average age of 80. That amounts to $153,000 you receive from your investment.** .. Social Security taxes are 15% NOT "1.5%" (counting both the employee and employer portions) -- which amounts to over $300,000 paid in in your example. No where near the $153,000 received "back."
Posted by: m
Very Sick
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:20 AM
For those of you insisting that the uninsured should just show up to clog up our emergency rooms, please see today's Post&Courier. If you're uninsured, you're more likely to die there. A diabetic friend of mine who could not find insurance had a hypertensive event and his kidneys were damaged because the hospital insisted on transferring him to County Hospital for treatment. He went all day without care before his transfer. He eventualy had to have a much more expensive transplant and died in his thirties. The system is very sick and needs treatment. And the more serious crisis is the sickness in our national character that gives us an "I've got mine so I don't care about you" mentality.
Posted by:
and back to the point
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:30 AM
jed, if you don't have a healthy public, that public can't work and produce adequately to support our industries and our economy. And if they don't work enough, they don't make enough money to purchase from our industries to support our economy. and if our public health is poor, which makes their work poor, which makes their earnings poor, which makes their purchasing poor, which makes our economy poor - then our country will go belly up while all the money goes outside the US. Already happening. What's also happening is that medical companies are actually charging private insurance for services to uninsured patients. Last year, they didn't collect $48 billion; they divvied up that $48 billion on charges to insured patients, which insurance companies paid; the insurance companies then raised their rates ($800 average this year alone), and those rates have more than doubled in the last eight years. If everyone is insured, then everyone will benefit, and in many ways. Quit your "socialist" claims, too - that's the socialist (don't want any competition to their small clique that will lead to a competitive market) insurance companies making that claim. Democratic republics across the globe have guaranteed healthcare and guaranteed health insurance. And their citizens live longer, too. US ranks 40th in quality of healthcare; 1st in cost for healthcare.
Posted by:
well, I know not to trust YOU, jed
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:20 AM
because I can't find anything on SSA.gov that says that. If you're going to try to make the claim that you're providing source, then DO SO - actual link - not some made up statement with false attribution. I looked up and found the annual report from 1982 (http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/1982/1982.pdf); it makes no such claim of "zero balance." I also looked up the report you claim from Sloan (whose role as senior editor of Fortune magazine, which endorsed privatization of SSI, should indicate his true intentions). http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fortune/index.htm and it says "It currently holds about $2.5 trillion of Treasury securities and is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion, even as Social Security begins to take in far less cash in taxes than it spends in benefits. For instance, in 2023 it projects a cash deficit of $234 billion. However, the trust fund will grow because it will get $245 billion of Treasury IOUs as interest." His reference to "IOUs" is a scrambling of the fact that SS funds are maintained by the Treasury, and not independently by SSA - just like all other govt programs until those branches/divisions/offices actually get the money. Either you're trying to use the same twist of actual fact, or you're a sucker who's falling for that scheme. He ALSO says in that same article that "Since 1983, when it suffered a cash crisis, Social Security has been collecting more in taxes each year than it has paid out in benefits." THe cash crisis he refers to is a twisting off of the fact that '83 was a year when it actually spent more than collected, which was due to high number of retirees and low number of employed. This is the same argument that Bush & Co. tried to use to get SS funds to go to the stock market (which was a scam to benefit brokers only). They also twisted the facts, stating that the SS funds would go bust by 2040 (or some such year); they didn't tell us that it would only go bust in that year if THERE WERE NO OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS MADE. In other words, SS could actually survive for over 30 years, and by giving out money to seniors every month at the same rate, even if it had no other collection. Sloan should give up that attempt to let Wall Street profit from the middle class' SS funds, which would only rob the middle class, too. Come on, jed, your turn now. Let's see you make an actual, factual claim with a defending source this time.
Posted by:
It IS a national emergency
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:31 AM
But the lack of affordable health care certainly IS a crisis. Especially if you're one of the ones in a health care crisis now. The reason the Obama adinistration is focused on this is because it has the potential to wreck an already weakened economy if not remedied.
Posted by:
You probably won't trust the SSA gov website either Bor
Monday, November 16, 2009 8:46 PM
The information I posted about Social Security is correct. Their own website states that the trust fund actually went to a zero balance in 1982, requiring special legislative action to shore it up. Also, the "trust fund" currently is comprised entirely of treasury securities (IOUs) to the tune of almost $2.5 trillion. It is backed by zero assets or hard currency. For example, if SS had to pay out $10 million more next year than it took in from taxes, it would get that money by having the Treasury redeem $10 million of trust fund treasury securities. The Treasury would then get the necessary cash by selling $10 million of treasury bonds to investors. That means that $10 million has been moved from the national debt that the government owes itself to the debt it owes investors. The SS trust fund isn't a savings program, it's simply a bookkeeping entry. For a complete explanation see CNN Money article dated 30 July 2009 written by Allan Sloan, senior editor of Fortune magazine. I've provided references for the material I've posted, so people are free to research and draw their own conclusions. Please try to do the same. Back to the topic at hand - the lack of socialized healthcare still isn't a national emergency.
Posted by: Jed
now you're making stuff up, jed
Monday, November 16, 2009 9:55 AM
there was no "zero account balance" in SS funds in '82. There was talk that the amount in SS funds was too low to guarantee regular rates of disperse to the growing group of collectors. that's why SS funding improved, and by an increase in the maximum salary amounts to which is SS deductions applied. At the moment, there is over $2 trillion in reserves in the SS Trust Fund, which consists of actual bonds and securities, not any IOUs like you continue to imply, and not any "treasury bills" either. Jed don't know Jack on this subject. And if you want some source to credit, you can't use wikipedia. Anybody can add to that site, can change that site, alter that site - which has employees on the clock 24/7 to correct the blatant errors that some folks continue to apply. (Like from that Repuglican congressman in CA who paid his stuff to flood it with false info about himself during the superbowl?) And the only circumstance in which a person can receive SS benefits without having made any contribution would be if that person was an unemployed spouse of a SS recipient - shoot, to get SS disability, you need to have made minimum payments to SS in your work. Give up all the lies you're telling about this, jed - you make yourself, not to mention your argument, look worse and worse as you go on.
Posted by:
Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:09 PM
I don't think you can equate the choice to buy a corvette and get speeding tickets with preexisting conditions. Many illnesses are not of our own choosing. Your logic is flawed.
Posted by:
Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:38 PM
I wonder how many "anti-gun" nuts are living in Walterboro today??
Posted by: Gun Control Ain't Anti-Gun
To "Get Out" Vet
Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:37 PM
Hope you had a happy veterans day! Never said you didn't earn veterans benefits, so please don't read anything into it not written. Of course you deserve benefits. What I did write was that we have several of those evil socialism benefits systems in place already, including the VA system. You prove my point with your angry blast- it's evil to have anything for the greater public that smacks of socialism, but it's ok for you, huh? People need to think for themselves and think things through rather than spout Limbaugh rants.
Posted by:
National auto insurance reform a real emergency
Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:08 AM
Well put Doug. Perhaps we should use the logic of the anti-gun nuts and ban automobiles to solve the drunk driving problem. And why not nationalize car insurance while we're at. The person with the corvette and 10 speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) should pay the same amount as the person driving the sub-compact with a perfect driving record. "Progressives" are are really funny!
Posted by: Jed
The Greater National Emergency . . .
Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:59 AM
A far greater national emergency than either swine flu or regular flu, are the numbers of Americans who are killed in auto wrecks.
Posted by: Doug Stewart
Having socialized healthcare is still no emergency
Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:47 AM
The poster below is correct. There is nothing socialist about the VA. "Provide for a strong national defense" is clearly spelled out in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. That means supporting our warriors before, during, and after the fight. Regarding the history of public education in the U.S., while off-topic, the information is readily available online (wikipedia - history of U.S. public education)for others to research and the information I presented is correct. Your statements regarding the Social Security Trust fund are completely inaccurate. The "trust fund" approached a zero account balance back in 1982. In 1983, Congress appropriated about $17 billion from other funds to help shore up the fund. Congress created a new law in 1984 mandating that just 10% of annual expenditures be maintained in the trust fund. If the trust fund received no new money, it would be bankrupt in just 3 months, not 37 years. There is no such thing as a "trust fund" backed by hard currency or assets anymore, just government IOU's in the form of Treasury Bills. And for the record, you don't need to contribute anything to Social Security to get SSI. Back to the topic at hand - socialized healthcare. If you want a federal program like this, amend the U.S. Constitution or move to a socialist (progressive) nation.
Posted by: Jed
serve your country, get called a socialist?
Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:51 AM
and just who is this commentator below who claims that VA benefits are "socialist"? If a person risks his life for the benefit of his democratic government, to guarantee the freedoms of its citizens, to protect the lives of all within its borders ... are you saying he is NOT entitled to benefits? And that if he gets any, that makes our country SOCIALIST? *get out* **move** ***get out of my country if you don't think a soldier who defended you, your country and YOUR LIFE are NOT entitled to benefits for doing so***
Posted by:
History lesson for Jed
Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:43 AM
Free elementary education was available in every state following its incorporation and no later than its ratified statehood. Its been here in SC since 1678, in fact. In Mass., it's been public education since 1642. Where you get your figures (maybe out of your ears?) remains to be seen. Including those regarding funding for public education. The federal government has been the principal funder of public ed throughout, albeit much less since the Reaganites chopped it up (and since then, the US fell from first place in worldwide rankings to 17th). You're also using some funky years. You cite 1870, but fail to recognize that much of the US was undeveloped at that time. All actual states had federal funding for public education at that time, and before that time - after they became states, that is. The NDEA and ESEA are of no pertinence regarding the proportion of federal funding for public education, either. Those are secondary and pertain to particular types of funding. And your jump to 1990, after the Reagan years that dropped funding to states for all projects (education, health, roads, etc.), seems to indicate that you're trying to bypass the fact that republicans DEfunded the states' educational programs. You also lack any mathematical skills, indicating that you went through public education primarily after Reagan's 80's realm; either that, or you never completed an educational plan. For example, how does a plan that utilizes money best, and guarantees better return, and doesnt' unwarrantedly give your money to someone else with no affiliation, equal bankruptcy in comparison? Do you not know that if the SS system ceased all collection, that it could continue operation of all persons, including new annual additions, for another 35 years? Don't tell me that you fell for that Bushco line....that'd be sad if you did. SS has been operating properly, fully, and with no faults since its incorporation. Meanwhile, just check the variation in teh interest rates that your bank pays over the years; tell me what's been more concise and secure. And those "deadbeats" you refer to do not receive ANYTHING if they did not contribute themselves, and they only receive portions relevant to what they themselves contributed. They don't get your money; they get THEIR money. As for your fallacies about New Deal programs, you fail to mention that all of the programs debated by the SCOTUS later went into effect in revised formats - they include Social Security, the FDIC, the FHA and the SEC, all of which protect the money of individual Americans from mishaps caused by the private companies in America. If you don't like Social Security in the reserved, secured and guaranteed format that it operates, then move to some Communist or Socialist country - that seems to be what you favor, Jed-boy. Because that "toss your money to the chiefs only to let them spend it on themselves" concept of yours seems more appropriate in one of those countries. Send me a postcard when you get there, too. If you can afford the postage on what little bit of your own money you'll get over there that is. You want to protect your own money? Your own right to life? To live like you'll deserve when you retire? Then stop sending it over to repuglicans, who only spend it on themselves while they toss out lies to you.
Posted by: bor
History lesson for bor
Friday, November 13, 2009 3:51 PM
As of 1940, local and state funding accounted for 98% of all financing for "public education". In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act and in 1965 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. By 1990, state and local funding accounted for only 47% of financing, with the federal government picking up the rest of the tab. "Public Education", as we know it today and in the context of this discussion has been around for only about 60 years. Free elementary education wasn't available in every state until 1870, so your statement that public education has been compulsory in the U.S. for 100 years before we even became the U.S. is false. Your numbers on Social Security explain exactly why the system is bankrupt and the socialist program is doomed to fail. People can take out far more than they put in. For example, the folks who go on Social Security "disability" in their 30's and draw that money for life, while having put in only minimal contributions for 10 years. Granted, alot of folks work to 65 and die shortly thereafter and fund many deadbeats, but there needs to be a correlation between the amount an individual puts into the system versus takes out. To the poster below regarding a business or agency compared to the Post Ofiice - google FEDEX. Regarding citizens complaining about the New Deal at the time - there was a huge fight against FDR and his plans to redistribute wealth. In fact, during 1935-36, the Supreme Court struck down eight of FDR's New Deal programs as unconstituional including the National Recovery Act. It was so bad, that by 1937 FDR introduced a plan to increase the total number of Supreme Court justices (which his administration could then appoint) in an effort to promote his socialist agenda. He failed in his efforts, but the cost to U.S. taxpayers for FDR's programs continues to harm our Republic to this day.
Posted by: Jed
where'd you get *your* edumacation, jed?
Friday, November 13, 2009 10:09 AM
Public education has been compulsory in the US for over 100 years before it was the US. Your 'industrial revolution' claim is only pertinent to expanded high school education, and which was already available in most of the country by that time. Its principal funding is the federal govt, and so is the principal funding of local police, fire departments, schools and colleges ... wherever you get your information from indicates that you never completed high school yourself. As for social security, if you work for 45 years at an average income - let's say a set $45K annual in the terms of dollar value in the year you retire. You're paying about 1.5 percent of that amount to Social Security. That amounts to approximately $30,000 that you paid until you turned 65. You then receive that back in payments of about $850 a month for the next 15 years until you pass away at the average age of 80. That amounts to $153,000 you receive from your investment. If you'd taken that same amount, stocked it away in the bank or a stock market, for the same amount of time - even if you were lucky enough to average a 5 percent annual return (which is slightly above the historical annual average of the stock market), you'd only have realized about $115,000. Social Security is a wise, secure and no-risk safety investment for workers in the U.S., and that can keep people out of the welfare lines and from hitting up the government for MORE benefits. SOcial Security is NOT this "socialist" plan you and other Limbaugh fans claim it to be - it PREVENTS garbage like that, and while ensuring teh safety and security of all.
Posted by: bor
Friday, November 13, 2009 9:10 AM
The average American gets more back from Social Security and Medicare than they ever put in because we're living longer. That's a fact. On retirement, US servicemen get VA benefits, which is a form of socialism. As for the PO, what other business or agency has as its mission to move huge volumes of packages and mail six days a week to almost every habitable location and worksite in the nation? As for New Deal- you didn't hear too many people moaning about socialism then when the country was on the brink of collapse. See today's P&C article about a speech given by an analyst- we can't be run like a business. And George Bush with his MBA found that out too.
Posted by:
Take a canoe to Cuba for socialized healthcare
Friday, November 13, 2009 6:50 AM
The US Armed Forces having nothing to do with socialism. "Provide for a strong national defence (now spelled defense) is found in the preamble of the US Constitution. Police Departments, Fire Departments, Universities, and Public Schools are a function of state and local governments, not the Federal Government. Also, public schools (as we know them) did not come about until the Industrial Revolution and were used a tool to prevent child labor from competing with the adult workforce for jobs. By keeping the federal government out of these areas, it permits US citizens a choice of where to live within the Republic based upon taxes, services, laws, etc. If a local government of state becomes too opressive in terms of regulation and taxes, people move, the local or state government tax base dries up, and they are forced to reform. I won't see a dime from Social Security of Medicare, but to the folks who received the services or funds that I paid for, your welcome. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, both programs will be declared unconstitutional like most of the other New Deal programs of the 1930s. I respect your right to have your opinion heard, so let's start the socialist ball rolling. Send me your paycheck and all savings (assuming you work and aren't on welfare/disability/foodstamps/ or live in Mom's basement), send me your car, your cellphone, your computer, your designer clothes, and even your Playstation. I'll give you back what I think that you need to live and keep the rest. I promise I'll take care of you....aka socialism.
Posted by: Jed
SOCIALISM GOOD, CAPITALISM BAD
Friday, November 13, 2009 5:52 AM
Jed.,,,sounds like the uneducated Jed Clambett...wow! Socialized Medicine, huh? MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENTS and PUBLIC SCHOOLS...not to mention THE US ARMED FORCES, VA and many other sevices...all socialized. ALKLK GOOD. SOCIALISM IS GREAT AND CAPITALISM NEEDS TO DIE A SLOW DEATH! WILL YOU GIVE UP YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION, PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES NOT TO MENTION PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY WITH OUR SOCIALIZED ARMY????...IDIOT!!!!
Posted by: FOR SOCIALISM...THE AMERICAN WAY!!
Ranking is false
Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:56 PM
See the Wall Steet Journal article date 21 Oct 2009 for information regarding this "ranking" and the out-dated and incorrect data used to justify it. Notice the quote from the editor-in-chief of WHO, which released the data, also dismissing it as "meaningless". And regarding Social Security and Medicare, I've paid more into it than I'll ever get out. To those who receive the services or funds that I paid for..consider it a gift, your welcome. Regarding the Post Office, if you think they could even begin to compete with private industry without the massive government infusion of taxpayer money they receive, your sadly mistaken. This country is a Republic where individual freedom and responsibilty is paramount. If you want socialized medicine, amend the U.S. Constitution or move to a socialist (progressive) nation.
Posted by: Jed
Peiple are Dying out There
Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:13 AM
People are dying out there. We are the only industrialized country without national single payer healthcare. And by the way we rank 37th in the world in terms of QUALITY of our healthcare, We've got it wrong. So very wrong. It is healthcare terrorism!!!
Posted by: Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN, Progressive Democrats of America SC State Coordinator
Yes, It is an Emergency
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:18 PM
What kind of idiocy encourages people to swamp our emergency rooms with petty problems? You have not a clue about either economics or health care. And I expect you've sworn off your Social Security and Medicare, and never use the P.O., huh? More propaganda brainwashing from unwitting shills for the insurance industry. A tragedy. They know not what they do. Or do they??
Posted by: And the PO does a good job too
Not a national emegency
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:18 AM
Your numbers are based on a federally-funded "study" released by the Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors socialized, government-run healthcare. Some facts: 21% of the uninsured are currently eligible for public coverage but do not use it. 26% of the uninsured have a family income over $75,000 a year. Approx 15% are illegal immigrants. If you need medical care and are not eligible for public assistance, are not an illegal immigrant, and really can't afford it, then just go to the emergency room. We, the taxpayer, will pay for it. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than $1.2 trillion dollars and a new federal program from the same folks who brought us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Post Office, and Amtrak (all bankrupt).
Posted by:
Poll Question
Which high school team are you cheering for this football season?
- Most Viewed
- Most Commented
- Boy stolen from popular sculpture
- Dorchester teams notch wins in Week 1
- SC elementary school closed by mold
- 2-year-old Calif. boy killed by car in SC driveway
- South Carolina teacher wins national award
- Re-enactors keep memory of black Civil War troops
- Fort wins opener with Woodland
- Farm Fresh
- Dorchester 2 sets background check policy
- New Rotary Club chartered in Summerville
- SC town moving to ban on illegal immigrants (14)
- SC town moving to ban on illegal immigrants (14)
- SC town moving to ban on illegal immigrants (14)
- SC town moving to ban on illegal immigrants (14)
- SC military veteran accused of killing 2 men (1)
- SC military veteran accused of killing 2 men (1)
- SC military veteran accused of killing 2 men (1)
- SC military veteran accused of killing 2 men (1)
- Green Party US Senate candidate to open SC office
- More high surf, rip currents as Earl passes SC
- 2nd SC sheriff's deputy fired in inmate beating
- SC lawmaker wants to expand safe haven law
- Clemson LB Maye to have arthroscopic knee surgery
- Man arrested in 2005 shooting death of SC man
- Sheheen wants 5 SC governor debates with Haley
- Thieves steal forklifts, then steal ATMs in SC
- Santee Cooper sets comment period on proposed changes to residential leases
- Santee Cooper sets comment period on proposed changes to residential leases
- Educators take part in Santee Cooper energy series
- Santee Cooper organizes 'flash mob' to celebrate major milestone in energy efficiency
- Santee Cooper approves 2010 bond sale
- Santee Cooper President and CEO Lonnie Carter assumes APPA chairmanship
- Santee Cooper hosts annual dinner
- Santee Cooper’s GOFER celebrates 20 years