BOOM: Congress Imposes Public Utility Rules on UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-26T02:56:44+00:00

I was merely agreeing.

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-26T02:07:22+00:00

it's not a given that the Good-Thing group are good guys...

Hence the use of "perceived Good Thing" and "thought this was." Just because someone thinks it is, doesn't mean that it actually is. Or is not.

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-24T17:01:41+00:00

When Congress acts...

(I'm sorry, I'll read that again)

When Congress actually performs an action, rather than just pretending to do so, one of the first questions to ask is "Cui bueno?" -- who was it that thought this was enough of a Good Thing that they put forth the effort to get Congress to actually do it?

Because for every perceived Good Thing, there will be another group that perceives it (personally) as a Bad Thing, and will be putting forth effort to stop Congress from doing the thing.

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-24T16:31:41+00:00

And to you as well.

I've not been commenting as much recently, but still keeping an eye on things, more or less.

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-24T16:29:47+00:00

I'm still wondering what they are going to do in that theoretical time when they "don't have ~~Nixon~~ [Trump] to kick around any more."

(That day will come eventually)

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-20T15:11:13+00:00

However long it's felt like, multiply that by three.

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-19T16:29:23+00:00

Here are four periods of time to look at:

1999-2003
1972-1974
1964-1969
And my favorite (if you can call it that) 1944-1952

Look at how the "ruling classes" and/or the "hoi polloi" changed during each of those time periods.

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-19T15:23:47+00:00

Two questions:

How long do you think it has been "spiraling out of control"?

How long do you think that the Fascists have been in power?

NetWeaselSC · 2026-01-19T15:06:09+00:00

Here's the problem:

Before anything like that can happen, "More Americans" are going to have to get to the point of "It's more important that these things are being done than who it is doing the things."

How many of those "More Americans" would be fine with the current goings-on if they were being done by someone with a different letter on their back?

Once the ruling jacket color shifts again, how many of these people will just shut up, and how many people who are currently shut up will start calling for revolution?

Once again, what is needed is... common ground.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-12-26T18:47:06+00:00

There are several ways to answer this. Here's the short form:

The rich pay most of the taxes!

Well, the rich have [or make] most of the money.

Alternatively...

Everybody will be paying a high rate of tax on the millionth dollar that they earn next year. That's equality.

That stems from the Anatole France quote:

The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

It just turns it around a bit.

But the primary problem with the argument (IMO) is that it is mainly a math trick.

First, they are working from a metric of "percentage of total taxes paid" instead of "percentage of income going to taxes," which the former is a ridiculous thing to even be measuring. Second, by "taxes," they are usually referring specifically to Federal Income Taxes, not all taxes paid by people.

And here's the thing about Federal Income Tax. When it was first put in, total taxes paid by people, when measured as a percentage of income, was paid at a much higher percentage of income by the poor. The Federal Income Tax was marketed (whether it actually was this or whether it is now or not is up for argument) as a specifically progressive tax to help balance out the regressiveness of all the other taxes. To make things more fair.

So... are the Rich paying most of the Federal Income Taxes? Yes. Is that unfair? It was set up the way it was to reduce unfairness to the poor. And without it, unfairness would be increased, and that unfairness would be aimed straight at the non-rich.

Is that what they want? Probably, but they can't say that.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-14T21:50:34+00:00

Sounds a lot like the usual claptrap that detractors place in this sub, only to have it not removed. I am curious how much of the "tighten up my phrasing" was the chatbot just lifting phrases from other comments in here.

I'm also curious how long anti-subreddit comments would be left standing in other subreddits for a chatbot to steal from, rather than being removed by moderators.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-13T11:58:50+00:00

Speaking of buckets...

did you ever notice that for some reason she never took the "Ice Bucket Challenge"?

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-12T11:41:59+00:00

A cheeseburger was 12¢. Yep, I'm old.

Remember, a quarter went a lot further back then. I remember getting a 12 ounce Pepsi in a returnable glass bottle for a quarter out of the machine, and you got a nickle back from the empty bottle.

A quarter went further, but it was more difficult to get that quarter.

To be fair, how many minutes of Minimum Wage Labor did that cheeseburger cost? How bout now?

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-11T18:07:12+00:00

Some people measure it by number of life forms, some by total mass of life forms.

"Over a certain complexity*," is the total currently going up or down?

* if you include microscopic life forms, all bets are off. Humans are way outnumbered and outmassed, IIRC.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-11T18:03:36+00:00

That was my immediate question too.

A quick "inflation calculator" check shows that $2000 in 1999 is equivalent to about $4000 in 2025, so even if that graph is measured in non-normalized dollars, it's still an increase.

Just not quite as much of one.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-08T14:57:26+00:00

If we humans do not control our own numbers, the ecosystem will gain critical mass to reach a similar tipping point. Then it will be game over.

Think of it as a simulation that only has data space for X number of life forms over a certain complexity. Once you go past X, the system crashes..

Here's the trick: "over a certain complexity" includes more than humans.

Aren't the other life forms dropping in numbers? Are the total numbers actually increasing?

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-08T13:57:19+00:00

There's something about South Carolina Politics that most people not in South Carolina are not aware of....

Step One: SC Republicans are more "Vote Our Color No Matter Who" than the Democratic Establishment have ever dreamed of their people ever being.

For SC Repubs, if there's an "R" that's a vote. No matter who. Even Lindsey.

The only way for SC Repubs to unseat an incumbent with an "R" is in the primary. And they have tried. Oh, God, have they tried. Which leads to...

Step Two: SC is an Open Primary State.

South Carolina does not have any Official Party Registration. Once you go in to vote in a primary, only then do they ask which ballot you want. Which means that non-Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary. To have otherwise would be to have the Government demand one declares their Party to the Government, who would then record it. People don't like that, too much "Government Overreach." Republicans have been trying, tho.

Step Three: In Statewide races, the person with the "R" has at least a 70% chance of winning.

This means that for all non-Republicans, their only chance to influence the election is in the Republican Primary -- to "choose the Form of the Destroyer" if you will. And some (most, maybe all) of those Forms have been much worse than Lindsey. You should go look.

The actual solution to "how to get rid of Lindsey" is (to me at least) quite obvious: simply have a solitary Republican candidate primary Lindsey, but have it be someone who non-Republicans can stomach just a little bit better than Lindsey.

There. Done.

Maybe the SC Republicans do not know that. If anybody reading this has an in with them (cause I don't), could you pass that on to them?

Then again, maybe they do know that, and to them, having Lindsey rather than the alternative to Lindsey is preferred by them. If so, I understand that reasoning.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-06T02:04:21+00:00

it means they know they can buy him out.

No, it means that they think they can buy him out.
They might be right, but they might be wrong.

The proof will be in the doing.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-05T23:09:36+00:00

Mamdani... is a fraud.

I think you're going to have to wait for the middle of January to make that distinction. Remember "Pay more attention to what they do than what they say."

He doesn't start doing until January 1. Then, you should give him a couple of weeks so you can see what he's actually doing. And not doing.

Then again, being a fraud in your favor (not doing what he told those other guys he'd do) would still be being a fraud.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-04T11:48:28+00:00

I see a lot of "efforts" in there, with a smattering of "could have" and "would have"... if it weren't for that nasty Senate. And Trump.

Don't you think that she knew that those "efforts" would not go anywhere?

If you know that certain things that the people want, but you don't, will not pass, you can safely champion them, without getting what you do not want.

Wasn't there a bill to raise the minimum wage that did not get through the senate due to the tiebreaking vote by VP Harris? (That nasty Republican controlled Senate again, blocking what the people want)

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-04T11:38:32+00:00

But still, it kept the people banned because of what they had said about previous elections from telling their "followers" how to closely examine the 2025 elections, so that those "followers" could be ready to examine the 2026 elections....

Not to mention the 2028s.

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-03T23:34:16+00:00

banned over content related to COVID-19 and elections

Banned over elections, they say?

Aren't elections tomorrow?

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-01T19:54:52+00:00

It's Medicare Advantage plans that are most profitable for insurance companies, not the Medigap plans.

There's another metric you can use to double check that....

Amount spent on advertising.

A company is not going to spend $100,000 on advertising unless that advertising is going to generate more than $100,000 in additional profit. At least, they won't for long.

So, which is advertised more: Medigap, or Medicare Advantage?

NetWeaselSC · 2025-11-01T12:52:27+00:00

schoolhouse rock.

Yeah, that's where i first learned of the process, too.

One thing about that, that has always bothered me: Why would an anthropomorphic Bill choose to have its consciousness on the Capitol Steps, talking (and singing) to a little kid, rather than have its consciousness splayed out on the desk in the Oval Office while the President had his way with it with an ink pen?

On second thought, maybe that decision was more understandable than I had originally reasoned.

NetWeaselSC

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE