Excessive vet bills
I recently read an article that South Carolina veterinarians are pushing a bill that would limit free or low-cost services to animals provided by shelters.
I think that’s appalling.
I understand that veterinarians have businesses to run, and they need to make a living. But many people in the state are struggling to make ends meet and can’t afford staggering vet bills to keep their pets healthy.
Apparently some vets in South Carolina are more interested in making a profit than caring for animals.
I recently took my dog in for his annual check-up. He didn’t even have to have any shots.
The vet spent all of 10 minutes with him, and it cost me over $140.
All I really needed was a prescription refilled, but they said they couldn’t do that without checking him out first.
So, $140 later, I had the piece of paper I needed.
Last year my dog was very ill. After he regained his health, I was out over $2,500.
I can no longer afford those kinds of bills, and I worry constantly about my dog’s health.
People who love animals but are not wealthy should be allowed to have an animal, but not go bankrupt when their animal gets sick and needs medical care.
I think veterinarians in South Carolina should be ashamed of trying to limit free or low-cost services for animals.
I believe it’s a good thing that people are taking their animals to these shelters and not having to pawn their possessions to pay the bill.
Many pets are considered family members and we shouldn’t have to choose between getting them cared for or having to let them suffer simply because we can’t afford to take them to the vet.
Voting a privilege
I am one of the Mount Pleasant voters who were disappointed with the outcome of the recent election.
However, regardless of which candidates won, I am most disappointed with the over 80 percent of registered voters who chose not to exercise their right to have a say in who should lead their town.
Even if you have moved here from out of state as I have, being able to help select the individuals who will be making important decisions about the direction of Mount Pleasant is not only a privilege, but a responsibility.
To all those who did not vote: I really hope that none of you are among those complaining about the decisions made by these newly elected officials in the months ahead.
Royal Links Drive
I love a good contradiction. Recently Hampton Park was re-paved and re-striped to allow a “recreation lane,” which includes a pedestrian path and bike lane. Overwhelmingly, it was supported.
Oddly a small vocal group of “Old Charlestonians” resisted the change. Indeed, I surveyed some longtime residents to gauge their position on change.
The question I posed was, “How many Charlestonians does it take to change a light bulb?”
The summary is — about two dozen.
The homeowner must call “the help.”
A close neighbor will organize a soiree.
One person required to mix the drinks.
Six to form the “Light Bulb Preservation Society.”
Six to create the “Charleston Historical Bulb Society” to expound upon the “brilliance and gentle glow of the deceased orb.”
Six persons to sit on the BAR (Bulb Advisory Review) to judge the new bulb’s worthiness and suggest a bulb similar to the extinct bulb.
Finally, one Charlestonian of pedigree to inform all that they are mispronouncing “bulb.”
Please, take note. One comment was, “Change? Oh, no. I’d rather live in the dark.”
F.X. Clasby, III
Wagener Terrace Neighborhood Association
So let me get this, as I am not too well informed and may be missing something.
During the 2012 general election, while the country was making another gigantic mistake, the generous people of Dorchester County voted on a bond referendum that is going to raise my property taxes to build schools for their children.
Then this year, officials try to lessen the blow, but the voters decide not to allow the fine citizens of Dorchester County a break on their property taxes via the LOST (Local Option Sales Tax) referendum.
Yet these same people have no problem going to Azalea Square, Tanger Outlet and various malls, spending their money and helping the citizens of Berkeley and Charleston counties lower their property taxes.
Thank you, guys.
Don’t count on it
Just to ensure no surprises and to hold our leaders accountable, I assume that Kathleen Sibelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, who emphatically stated that the software problems with the Obamacare sign-on would be resolved by Nov. 30, will freely fall on her sword (resign) if they are not.
Don’t hold your breath.
This administration doesn’t equate job performance pertinent to holding the job.
Recently, a University of South Carolina freshman from the Upstate was the collateral damage in a gunfire incident in Five Points.
There have been so many gun incidents lately that it seems the public has grown immune to the normal outrage and disgust.
I can relate in a way with the parents of this victim because my daughter was also the victim of a gun incident that was initiated with a stolen weapon. Unfortunately, she did not survive.
This is not a “get the guns” letter, nor a blanket “blame the gun owners” letter.
However, it was reported that the gun used was stolen.
My question is to all gun owners:
If you consider yourselves legal, responsible gun owners, when is it not appropriate to report a lost or stolen weapon?
Part of being responsible is taking responsibility. That may sound redundant but it is a fair statement. We are held responsible for what happens with our cars, pets, swimming pools, and children (but lately to a lesser extent for some reason).
Why aren’t gun owners held responsible for the weapons they own?
Homeowners, car owners, owners of certain breeds of dogs deemed “dangerous,” pool owners, and a variety of other categories are legally required to have liability insurance to cover these possessions and situations.
None of these has the sole purpose of firing deadly ammunition at a human, animal, and/or target.
So why aren’t gun owners required to have additional liability insurance?
A gun is intended to be a lethal weapon. It is inherently more dangerous than a car, pool or dog. So why is its ownership treated with less responsibility than the other categories?
In response to “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” why are we not checking the backgrounds and qualifications of gun purchasers (if indeed people do the killing)?
Why is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the only one not scrutinized, clarified and in some cases, restricted? Is it some sort of Holy Grail?
Is it not equal in value to all other rights and privileges spelled out in our Constitution?
These are legitimate questions that should be answered in serious discussions about the safety of all citizens, those who own guns and those who don’t.
White Falls Drive
No democratic country, certainly not America, can be governed without compromise. But there are some issues where compromise should never be warranted.
For example, we have long had a policy of never negotiating with terrorists.
Because to do so once establishes a precedent that encourages further events of extortionist terror.
In the latest near crisis entailing the government shutdown and near default, The Post and Courier accused President Obama of displaying some partisan stubbornness of his own by refusing “to negotiate spending cuts as a condition of the debt-ceiling increase.”
First of all, that is inaccurate. The president repeatedly indicated a willingness to negotiate spending cuts as soon as the extortionist threat of putting the country into default (a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution) was off the table.
Are you taking the president to task for not giving in to this outrageous, irresponsible attempt to govern by blackmail?
Don’t you recognize that to have done so would have opened the door to blackmail of future administrations?
The president should be praised by us all for having honored his oath in defending the Constitution and our well-being against the recent idiotic, insane threat led by Sen. Ted Cruz and other partisans.
On the other hand, South Carolina’s congressional delegation, with the exception of Rep. James Clyburn and Sen. Lindsey Graham, committed what I consider to be an act of sedition in voting to prevent the United States from honoring its debt.
We are ill-served by those who put partisan party politics over the best interest of the country.
Right-wing partisans have every right to attempt to legislate their extreme agenda, but when they employ extortion and disdain parts of the Constitution, they not only go over the line, they take us all over the cliff.
Crooked Creek Lane
Statement from President Barack Obama to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:
If your job performance is sub-par, and you like your job, you can keep your job.
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.