We have yet so see any major players actually leave any major markets due to over-regulations. You underestimate the power of greed.
I never said the rich paid 90%; I said that they were taxed at 90% (specifically incomes of $300K+); you have yet to prove that there is no pay gap; and I never said that "most" people didn't have insurance prior to the ACA. I said millions didn't; and now millions of them do who didn't have it before.
We have yet so see any major players actually leave any major markets due to over-regulations
Now it's limited to "major players?" How convenient. What's a "major player" in your mind? Why are they important and smaller businesses not?
I never said the rich paid 90%; I said that they were taxed at 90% (specifically incomes of $300K+)
On effective rates, "Even with the loopholes I guarantee you it wasn't below 70 percent." (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4334998.html?thread=98355862#t98355862)
you have yet to prove that there is no pay gap
Yes, I have (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4300583.html?thread=97375527#t97375527).
and I never said that "most" people didn't have insurance prior to the ACA
"The majority of people in this country had no insurance at all because the majority of people were in the individual market." (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4300583.html?thread=97417255#t97417255) Emphasis mine.
I said millions didn't; and now millions of them do who didn't have it before.
And even when you said that, you had to mislead, saying "You forget that while most Americans who do have insurance in the USA have it through group health plans, there are many millions more who had no insurance at all." There were not and are not more people without insurance than with group plans. 61% of the population was covered by group plans as of 2011 (http://web.archive.org/web/20120605190131/http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/72528shadac201106.pdf), and well under 20% lacked insurance coverage for any segment of a year.
Now it's limited to "major players?" How convenient. What's a "major player" in your mind? Why are they important and smaller businesses not? Because the major players are the ones to whom most regulations and government interventions apply. Most small, Mom and Pop businesses are exempt, as you well know. Mid-sized businesses have, on occasion, chosen to close shop, but not at the rate you and your ilk would have us believe. Most small and mid-sized businesses are put out of business by the major players, not by regulations or government intervention.
Yes, I have. No you haven't. The 77¢ on the dollar figure is a genuine statistic, as your so-called "proof" clearly states. It doesn't matter, however, in terms of the same type of jobs--women will soon be out-distancing men, just as they currently are academically.
61% of the population was covered by group plans as of 2011, and well under 20% lacked insurance coverage for any segment of a year. Oh, so 39% is not a significant number of people to you, even though it's almost half? Maybe it wasn't a majority, but being close to half is pretty significant. As for your second statement, that figure is generally accepted as profoundly inaccurate.
Because the major players are the ones to whom most regulations and government interventions apply.
Actually, most regulations exist to try and keep competition out. That's why big business likes to pick and choose which ones to support. See: CISPA, net neutrality, etc.
No you haven't. The 77¢ on the dollar figure is a genuine statistic, as your so-called "proof" clearly states.
And one with no real basis for anything, as the statistics show.
Oh, so 39% is not a significant number of people to you, even though it's almost half?
I didn't say that, now did I?
Maybe it wasn't a majority, but being close to half is pretty significant
But we're looking at what you claimed, not what's "pretty significant." Especially for someone who was complaining about being misquoted after being so profoundly wrong about basically everything she's said, we should probably stick to what's being said, right?
As for your second statement, that figure is generally accepted as profoundly inaccurate.
I agree, but most on your side don't. But, then again, you probably think (erroneously) that the number is higher and not lower. It's actually much lower.
Actually, most regulations exist to try and keep competition out. Nonsense. There are thousands of regulations that have to do with clean air, clean water, clean food, worker and consumer safety, etc., etc. whose goals are in no way to stifle competition but to keep consumers and employees safe and free from harm. These are the ones that businesses of all sizes complains about the most. Because they'd love to be able to make money without having to worry about harming anyone.
I didn't say that, now did I? You said it was significantly lower.
we should probably stick to what's being said, right? Not when it isn't significant.
you probably think (erroneously) that the number is higher and not lower. I didn't say that, now did I? And aren't you sticking to what's being said?
There are thousands of regulations that have to do with clean air, clean water, clean food, worker and consumer safety, etc., etc. whose goals are in no way to stifle competition but to keep consumers and employees safe and free from harm.
Excellent. Those would qualify as the ones that are not "most."
You said it was significantly lower.
Correct. Because it was significantly lower.
Not when it isn't significant.
Your complete lack of knowledge concerning statistics, numbers, and the world we exist in is pretty significantly.
I didn't say that, now did I? And aren't you sticking to what's being said?
Well, you've already stated that you believe a majority don't have insurance at all (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4300583.html?thread=97417255#t97417255), so yes, you did say that.
Those would qualify as the ones that are not "most." Please give me a list of all the regulations that are purely in place to stifle competition. Not the ones you believe are, but the ones that have actually been proven to stifle competition.
That's only one. You''ve said that most regulations are meant to stifle competition. Let's see a list, please. The anti-net neutrality could possibly be another, but let's see a list of all the regulations meant to stifle competition, since you believe that's what most regulations are designed to do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
I never said the rich paid 90%; I said that they were taxed at 90% (specifically incomes of $300K+); you have yet to prove that there is no pay gap; and I never said that "most" people didn't have insurance prior to the ACA. I said millions didn't; and now millions of them do who didn't have it before.
Misquoting me doesn't help your case, Jeff.
no subject
Now it's limited to "major players?" How convenient. What's a "major player" in your mind? Why are they important and smaller businesses not?
I never said the rich paid 90%; I said that they were taxed at 90% (specifically incomes of $300K+)
On effective rates, "Even with the loopholes I guarantee you it wasn't below 70 percent." (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4334998.html?thread=98355862#t98355862)
you have yet to prove that there is no pay gap
Yes, I have (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4300583.html?thread=97375527#t97375527).
and I never said that "most" people didn't have insurance prior to the ACA
"The majority of people in this country had no insurance at all because the majority of people were in the individual market." (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4300583.html?thread=97417255#t97417255) Emphasis mine.
I said millions didn't; and now millions of them do who didn't have it before.
And even when you said that, you had to mislead, saying "You forget that while most Americans who do have insurance in the USA have it through group health plans, there are many millions more who had no insurance at all." There were not and are not more people without insurance than with group plans. 61% of the population was covered by group plans as of 2011 (http://web.archive.org/web/20120605190131/http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/72528shadac201106.pdf), and well under 20% lacked insurance coverage for any segment of a year.
Misquoting me doesn't help your case, Jeff.
That's why I was very careful to use your words.
no subject
Because the major players are the ones to whom most regulations and government interventions apply. Most small, Mom and Pop businesses are exempt, as you well know. Mid-sized businesses have, on occasion, chosen to close shop, but not at the rate you and your ilk would have us believe. Most small and mid-sized businesses are put out of business by the major players, not by regulations or government intervention.
Yes, I have.
No you haven't. The 77¢ on the dollar figure is a genuine statistic, as your so-called "proof" clearly states. It doesn't matter, however, in terms of the same type of jobs--women will soon be out-distancing men, just as they currently are academically.
61% of the population was covered by group plans as of 2011, and well under 20% lacked insurance coverage for any segment of a year.
Oh, so 39% is not a significant number of people to you, even though it's almost half? Maybe it wasn't a majority, but being close to half is pretty significant. As for your second statement, that figure is generally accepted as profoundly inaccurate.
no subject
Actually, most regulations exist to try and keep competition out. That's why big business likes to pick and choose which ones to support. See: CISPA, net neutrality, etc.
No you haven't. The 77¢ on the dollar figure is a genuine statistic, as your so-called "proof" clearly states.
And one with no real basis for anything, as the statistics show.
Oh, so 39% is not a significant number of people to you, even though it's almost half?
I didn't say that, now did I?
Maybe it wasn't a majority, but being close to half is pretty significant
But we're looking at what you claimed, not what's "pretty significant." Especially for someone who was complaining about being misquoted after being so profoundly wrong about basically everything she's said, we should probably stick to what's being said, right?
As for your second statement, that figure is generally accepted as profoundly inaccurate.
I agree, but most on your side don't. But, then again, you probably think (erroneously) that the number is higher and not lower. It's actually much lower.
no subject
Nonsense. There are thousands of regulations that have to do with clean air, clean water, clean food, worker and consumer safety, etc., etc. whose goals are in no way to stifle competition but to keep consumers and employees safe and free from harm. These are the ones that businesses of all sizes complains about the most. Because they'd love to be able to make money without having to worry about harming anyone.
I didn't say that, now did I?
You said it was significantly lower.
we should probably stick to what's being said, right?
Not when it isn't significant.
you probably think (erroneously) that the number is higher and not lower.
I didn't say that, now did I? And aren't you sticking to what's being said?
no subject
Excellent. Those would qualify as the ones that are not "most."
You said it was significantly lower.
Correct. Because it was significantly lower.
Not when it isn't significant.
Your complete lack of knowledge concerning statistics, numbers, and the world we exist in is pretty significantly.
I didn't say that, now did I? And aren't you sticking to what's being said?
Well, you've already stated that you believe a majority don't have insurance at all (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4300583.html?thread=97417255#t97417255), so yes, you did say that.
no subject
Please give me a list of all the regulations that are purely in place to stifle competition. Not the ones you believe are, but the ones that have actually been proven to stifle competition.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject