picking the winners and losers

[kiryan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Collection

Its becoming standard faire for this government to pick the winners and losers. Next up, credit card companies. The fed is proposing restrictions that drop fees charged by CC companies by 86%. Let me ask again, HOW DO YOU RUN A BUSINESS WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE. 86% is worse than the CC's worst case scenarios. Can you lose 86% of anything you do and be hunky dory? Do you expand your business with proposed 86% cuts on the horizon?

Who are the winners? Retailer profits. The losers, Visa and Mastercard down 10%. The other loser, the American consumer. We're not going to get cheaper prices at checkout because these fees went down. We're not going to continue to get credit cards with no interest or low interest or guarantee fraud protection or reward points. There are necessary costs to running a credit card company and although I agree the fees are too high and the contracts too draconian... government mandated price controls don't work and have numerous unintended consequences...

This is really beyond scary... Insurers MUST spend 85% of their premiums on healthcare (as defined by the government)... Credit Card companies are to have their swipe fees reduced by 86%. WHAT INDUSTRY IS NEXT? If price controls worked, Cuba and Venuzela would be economic power houses. The USSR would've never fallen.

We don't have capitalism anymore, its "state capitalism" aka communism. The state may not OWN the means of production, but it certainly has totalitarian control over everything ... and apparently can even require you to spend up to a certain % of your income (11% I believe at 120k) on health insurance. Really, this is what you libearls want?

[Sarvis]

require you to spend up to a certain % of your income (11% I believe at 120k) on health insurance. Really, this is what you libearls want?

I really didn't feel like reading your entire insane rant, but caught this part... and no. What we wanted was government paid for healthcare. What we got was polluted with Republican ideas we ended up with some deformed mutant instead of truly First World healthcare.

[kiryan]

government can't pay for anything. It has no income of its own, no existence of its own. The people are supposed to own the government.

government paid for healthcare is citizen paid for healthcare is you're paying for my healthcare. Healthcare is 15% of the economy? If its 15% of the economy, how can that translate into anything less than 15% of your income on average?

No matter how you slice it, IT MUST BE PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE. Wehther by direct tax, by forced purchase or by labor "stolen" from healthcare professionals through lower reimbursements.

[Sarvis]

government can't pay for anything. It has no income of its own, no existence of its own. The people are supposed to own the government.

government paid for healthcare is citizen paid for healthcare is you're paying for my healthcare. Healthcare is 15% of the economy? If its 15% of the economy, how can that translate into anything less than 15% of your income on average?

No matter how you slice it, IT MUST BE PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE. Wehther by direct tax, by forced purchase or by labor "stolen" from healthcare professionals through lower reimbursements.

Like everything else in this country that the government pays for and you make use of? Why is healthcare cheaper in all countries with socialized? Why is it rated better/more effective? You WANT to pay more for a worse product.

The people are paying for it already. Let's pay for it in an effective manner and stop letting our neighbors suffer and die.

[kiryan]

Its cheaper because its different. Some would call it better, Canadians on the other hand drive to the US to get necessary healthcare. This is well documented.

--

No, actually I'm not paying for healthcare. I go to the doctor only when we are truly sick, but you want me to pay for people like my mom who eats a bowl full of spicy food despite me repeating her doctor's admonitions against it, then goes to the doctor for a $10,000 test because her stomach hurts. I cut a 2-3" gash in my inner thigh clear down to the fat and didnt go to the doctor. I cleaned it up and bandaged it for about $15 in supplies I already had because I'm prepared.

Why should I pay for people who want a prescription or an MRI every time they have a headache? Or someone who wants cancer drugs that cost 1 million but only extend your life 3 months? or for a family who has a comatose member in critical care at a cost of $10,000 a day for several years? or for a kid to be in residential treatment at $600 a day because his parents failed at parenting? WHY AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES AND BILLS?

[Sarvis]

Its cheaper because its different. Some would call it better, Canadians on the other hand drive to the US to get necessary healthcare. This is well documented.

So is the reverse. Canada is also the worst of the socialized systems, so that's not saying much.

They still rate better than ours in every objective measure for quality of care though.

No, actually I'm not paying for healthcare.

Medical costs rise. Insurance companies raise rates. Employers who offer healthcare raise prices to cover increased cost of doing business. You buy products at increased cost.

[kiryan]

point well taken that I am paying for medical care. Still that is far more indirect than what healthcare reform mandates. With health insurance mandated, you can not personally do anything to reduce your expenditures other than pay the fine.

LOL many countries in Europe are dialing back care or are starting to privatize healthcare. I read a particularly interesting article on UK's privitization in the last few months, but couldn't find it.

http://www.basilandspice.com/healthcare ... -care.html

The fact of the matter is that a significant percentage of people like my patient will get worse while waiting for tests. A few days is acceptable, a few weeks might be reasonable if they stay stable, but 3-6 months (as is the case in many socialized countries) significantly raises the risks for a bad outcome. US hospitals know that they are liable from the time they see a patient until the time the patient’s testing and treatments are all done. Therefore, tests are done quickly.

http://thenationalscene.com/obama-pushe ... socialism/

Sweden and the Netherlands were the first two countries to recruit more private investment in health care. France and Italy are seeking ways to transfer some public health care to the private sector. Regions of Germany and Spain have already sold state-owned hospitals to for-profit companies to raise money and increase efficiency.

---

And here is a really interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?”

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices.

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Canada is also the worst of the socialized systems, so that's not saying much.

They still rate better than ours in every objective measure for quality of care though.

The limited empirical international data on quality that exist—life expectancy and infant mortality statistics—place the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/3/89.full

United States of America Ratings from the same study
#1 in 5 year breast cancer survival rate
#1 in prevention of measles deaths
#1 in smoking rate mitigation
#1 in cervical cancer screening

Why do you insist on pulling "facts" out of your... whever it is you get your "facts" from?

[Sarvis]

Canada is also the worst of the socialized systems, so that's not saying much.

They still rate better than ours in every objective measure for quality of care though.

The limited empirical international data on quality that exist—life expectancy and infant mortality statistics—place the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/3/89.full

United States of America Ratings from the same study
#1 in 5 year breast cancer survival rate
#1 in prevention of measles deaths
#1 in smoking rate mitigation
#1 in cervical cancer screening

Why do you insist on pulling "facts" out of your... whever it is you get your "facts" from?

Ok, so we're only at the bottom quartile and there are a few statistics we are good at. You haven't actually damaged my point at all, and in fact just supported it: There are better healthcare systems out there that are socialized.

All you've shown is that I was slightly hyperbolic when I said we were the worst. Good for you.

[Kindi]

they're starting to think that screening for cancers (what we're really good at) is actually more harmful than helpful using the standard methods. too many false positives, too many radiation doses that could have been avoided, etc. that kind of stuff isn't measured alongside 'cancer screening success rates'.

which isn't to say we aren't good at finding the cancer. just that our methods are a bit self-destructive.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cancer+screening+danger

[Teflor Lyorian]

Ok, so we're only at the bottom quartile and there are a few statistics we are good at. You haven't actually damaged my point at all, and in fact just supported it: There are better healthcare systems out there that are socialized.

All you've shown is that I was slightly hyperbolic when I said we were the worst. Good for you.

The limited empirical international data on quality that exist—life expectancy and infant mortality statistics—place the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system.

You seriously need to learn how to read. We are at the bottom quartile among industrialized nations ONLY in life expectancy and infant mortality and there is limited empirical international data. Although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system you seem to think you're smarter than most experts.

Let me give you a hint: you're not, and you're wrong. You've framed your entire, baseless, unsupported bullshit claim that we're worse than Canada...

in every objective measure for quality of care

Not only is it a complete bullshit claim, as we are rated better than Canada in nearly 50% of dimensions from the commonwealth study and equal to them in several others (we actually BEAT CANADA in the commonwealth study, READ MORE)

Facts:
We beat Canada in an objective study overall, given a number of objective measurements.

Your arguments are more than hyperbole, they're wrong, they have no basis, and you don't read linked studies that compare the nations.

[Sarvis]

Ok, so we're only at the bottom quartile and there are a few statistics we are good at. You haven't actually damaged my point at all, and in fact just supported it: There are better healthcare systems out there that are socialized.

All you've shown is that I was slightly hyperbolic when I said we were the worst. Good for you.

The limited empirical international data on quality that exist—life expectancy and infant mortality statistics—place the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system.

You seriously need to learn how to read. We are at the bottom quartile among industrialized nations ONLY in life expectancy and infant mortality and there is limited empirical international data. Although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system you seem to think you're smarter than most experts.

Let me give you a hint: you're not, and you're wrong. You've framed your entire, baseless, unsupported bullshit claim that we're worse than Canada...

in every objective measure for quality of care

Not only is it a complete bullshit claim, as we are rated better than Canada in nearly 50% of dimensions from the commonwealth study and equal to them in several others (we actually BEAT CANADA in the commonwealth study, READ MORE)

Facts:
We beat Canada in an objective study overall, given a number of objective measurements.

Your arguments are more than hyperbole, they're wrong, they have no basis, and you don't read linked studies that compare the nations.

Sounds like the experts are saying "poor performance." That we're better than Canada is practically meaningless, since their healthcare system is so poorly ranked itself.

But hey, keep insulting me. It's an effective argument technique. Especially coupled with studies showing poor performance when you're trying to prove how great our system is.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Sounds like the experts are saying "poor performance." That we're better than Canada is practically meaningless, since their healthcare system is so poorly ranked itself.

But hey, keep insulting me. It's an effective argument technique. Especially coupled with studies showing poor performance when you're trying to prove how great our system is.

If you read the study, Sarvis, or even looked at the results table you would have seen that Canada in many measures outperforms the other commonwealth nations.
"Poor performance," if you knew how to read, in this case discusses life expectancy and infant mortality and NOT health care.

The limited empirical international data on quality that exist—life expectancy and infant mortality statistics—place the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system.

Did you actually get it this time? If you actually GET it this time, I can tell you why we have excellent health care but rank low on the two specific, narrowly defined metrics of life expectancy and infant mortality. Trouble is, with the grandiose claims you've made and your pointed misinterpretation or negligence in even looking at the study, I have my doubts as to your intellectual honesty.

You've been presented with a fine point, yet you are set to ramble on about the same thing you've been shown to be wrong about.

[Sarvis]

If you read the study, Sarvis, or even looked at the results table you would have seen that Canada in many measures outperforms the other commonwealth nations.

And if anyone else had posted it, I would have. If I were talking to anyone else, I would have taken the time to look up other studies that corroborate what I said. But with you there's just no point, so I didn't.

[Teflor Lyorian]

And if anyone else had posted it, I would have. If I were talking to anyone else, I would have taken the time to look up other studies that corroborate what I said. But with you there's just no point, so I didn't.

Since you admit to blatant intellectual dishonesty and a lack of integrity, there's no reason to continue discussion with you, Sarvis. See you around.

[kiryan]

but of course the point of this whole thread is government picking the winners and losers. They just picked the CC companies to lose by proposing to arbitrarily cut their fees by 86%.

Mind you these companies... CREATED... out of thin air, a system that dominates the globe and has made people's lives more convenient. Could you imagine writing a check for everything? Going to the bank constantly for "cash" or a "loan"? And their reward for this innovation is to have the government come in and take their ball away.

If you're view is that they are exercising a monopolistic power or gouging... then the solution should be to increase competition... not arbitrary price controls. AMEX seems to compete ok, Discover actually has higher interchange fees which is why most retailers don't accept discover. There are probably fundamental business reasons why no one can comete with Visa/Mastercard. Its probably volume coupled with barriers to entry.... but it should be noted that paypal managed to compete and excel although not in a traditional model.

Also, it should be noted that Europe did this about 5 years ago. We should just call the democrats the european socialist party.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Yeah, that there are two major competitors means that competition is probably still alive. Monopoly isn't the same when it's not just one.

Regulating profit is definitely a strike against capitalism and liberty. When you tell a man how much money you can make, you may not own him, but you certainly are keeping him firmly in his cage.

[Sarvis]

but of course the point of this whole thread is government picking the winners and losers. They just picked the CC companies to lose by proposing to arbitrarily cut their fees by 86%.

Mind you these companies... CREATED... out of thin air, a system that dominates the globe and has made people's lives more convenient. Could you imagine writing a check for everything? Going to the bank constantly for "cash" or a "loan"? And their reward for this innovation is to have the government come in and take their ball away.

Well, to be fair, they did pretty much just go around hitting people with that ball.

Its probably volume coupled with barriers to entry....

Yes. As a company gets larger it becomes increasingly hard to compete against them. I don't think PayPal really competes with credit card companies at all, actually. It's a secure method of online payment from a debit account... a specific niche that credit cards don't really cover.

The problem is that with a few large credit card companies they can pretty much call the shots. The near necessity of credit cards today coupled with their ubiquity means the companies don't have to try hard to compete with each other. I have both master card and visa, and used to have a Discover card. Most people probably have all three, and far too many have far too much debt on all three as well.

Also, it should be noted that Europe did this about 5 years ago. We should just call the democrats the european socialist party.

Except that by comparison to the ACTUAL leftists in Europe Democrats are almost Conservative. Or at least I keep hearing that.

[kiryan]

Really... hitting people with their ball.

Its amazing to me that people who are extended credit and willingly sign up and use extensively to fulfill their personal happyness are actually being abused... either through interest rates, over balance fees or predatory lending.

Its amazing to me that you can lose your credit card, and report it lost within 30 days and still receive 100% credit on fraudulent transactions. Or that you can "dispute" a charge on some (my wells fargo) for 90 days. That you can buy something from a retailer in another country without worry that you'll receive the product you expected or waiting for a check to be delivered.

And to top it off, for decades you could discharge all that debt automagically in bankruptcy court. You can still get it discharged, just not as automagically and not if you're abusing it.

Yea, you really wish they would stop that all that meanness and actually have to have cash in your bank account.

--

As a company becomes larger it becomes increasingly hard to compete against them.

Is that so. Kind of a blanket statement don't ya think? I can list a dozen reasons or at least half dozen why its easier to compete against a big company than a small one. To be fair, some industries favor large companies, where the barriers to entry are high, others are easier. Big companies have big costs that are only sometimes mitigated by pricing advantages (like walmart vs GM). Death by meeting? Do you think that happens in the small company? Innovation? I mean really, history is full of small companies kicking the pants off big companies (or growing so aggressively they get bought out for ridiculous sums of money).

Paypal offers credit cards. It I suppose isn't a direct competitor because it really consumes services from the CCs, but it does compete successfully for "method of payment" with credit cards online. Its a preferred transaction method between private parties where CC's don't/can't compete. The biggest barrier to paypal going into brick and mortar establishments is the time requirements to handle a paypal transaction in the checkout line and the hardware interface requirements.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Reminds me of the arepa socialista. The government opens up a fast food joint that sells food at 25% of the market going price in order to 'prove' the efficiency and and effectiveness of the government.

The truth is that the credit card companies Visa and Mastercard don't set the terms and condition under which the banks that use their network set for the consumer. Rules about how payments are applied, what credit limits are set, and even the money used to cover your transactions are the bank's.

Late fee? Bank. Interest rate? Bank. Charge dispute? Bank.

And yes, there are credit cards that are ALSO the bank, but that's not the norm. So the charge of monopoly just doesn't really have teeth.

[kiryan]

I'm not sure thats exactly how it works, but assuming that all the credit card companies do is process transactions and get paid a fee... what happens when you cut that fee by 86%.... other than investors losing 10% of their share value in less than a couple of hours...

[Botef]

CC processing companies also get revenue from the business' that take your card...My business loses about 3% on every CC sale we make, including debt cards. I won't comment on the consumer end, but I've seen all kinds of shady things on the business end of it. PCI DSS compliance is probably the biggest load of crap I've ever seen, charging business around $100 a year to be 'compliant' with their security practices...In reality, you send them a check and they send you a certificate.

[kiryan]

PCI compliance is usually handled for you by the manufacturer of the equipment/software you are using... if you are doing your own custom credit card scanning or using outdated technology, I can see you needing to pay for certification. THis should not be a factor for most business as far as I am aware. I doubt your $100 is a factor in the CC's revenue either.

I agree, CC's skim money off the top of every transaction. I dealt with this first hand with my parents' convenience store. Theres a swipe fee and a % fee and both can go up or down depending on your volume and negotiation skills. IIRC I paid about 35 cents a swipe plus 1.8% when we sold, when I first looked at it we were paying 75 cents plus 2% plus renting the credit card machine.

But regardless of all that... what gives the government the right to slash their main... only real source of income by 86%... Are you goign to cut your prices by 3% to pass those savings along? So in essence, they are taking the CC's "profit" and giving it to you. Are you ready for them to take your "profit" and give it to the national endowment for the arts? or the homeless? or to fund lavish state department parties? What makes this price control different than the ones Hugo Chavez implements on food or China implemented on coal?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Of course the card processors charge a fee. Consumers aren't complaining about that. They're far more concerned with what the banks are doing to them, but they inadvertently blame the cc processors.

[kiryan]

Consumers may or may not be complaining... but businesses have been complaining about the fees which are quite significant and it got added into financial reform and they just released their proposal to cut the creditcard transaction fees by 86%.

Think about it, they're skimming 2-3% off the top of pretty much every financial/retail transaction in the world. Its a lot of damn money. I won't call it a tax, but its like a VAT of 2-3%. Not sure what McDonald's pays, but Imagine all those $3 purchases with a 35 cent fee... thats > 10%... when your profit margin at a grocery store is 2-3% ... that 2-3% overhead for credit cards is very significant.

You know why Costco doesn't accept credit cards and only accepts debit? Because most debit transactions are a flat fee no matter how large the transaction (usually around 75 cents) and Costco is committed to charging no more than I think 12% over their cost. You know why Walmart started a bank? Yea... to get advantageous pricing on credit card processing (interchange) fees for being a "bank". Sure there was an element of one stop check cashing, grocery shopping etc, but the real prize is the savings on fees.

[Sarvis]

I won't call it a tax, but its like a VAT of 2-3%. Not sure what McDonald's pays, but Imagine all those $3 purchases with a 35 cent fee...

Am I missing something or did you screw up the math? 3% of a $3 purchase would be 9 cents...

[kiryan]

There is a swipe fee + a % usually in every credit card agreement. The swipe fee for my parents convenience store ranged from 35 cents to 75 cents per transaction... plus a %.

So if you came in and bought a candy bar for $0.89 and I accepted your credit card for payment (paying $0.35 to run it + a %), the fee is somewhere around 40% of that transaction... which leaves me abuot $0.54 cents to cover my costs. Running a small convenience store, my wholesaler prices are really no better than at Costco so I'm paying easily $0.50 cents a candy bar without considering overhead. So I made MAYBE 4 cents. If you used a debit card (or a high fee CC) at $0.75 a swipe, I lost $0.31 selling you a candybar.

That is why lots of small businesses have a minimum CC charge (often illegal under the terms of their CC agreement) and others charge you a swipe fee (another term illegal under seriously every CC agreement). They lose too much money running cards on the fees... but they lose too much money not accepting customers who don't have cash...

Then the customer complains that he never bought a candybar, so they put it into dispute and I lose the entire sale. Actually for amounts under $50 they generally treat it like no fault and I get to keep the sale unless I have a history. How long do you think that will last when CCs have 86% of their revenue killed?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Honestly, I don't know what the complaint about the CC fees is all about. It's pretty small, all other business costs considered.

The per-swipe fee definitely harms the micro-payments market, but it just sounds like rich people bitching to me.

[Teflor Lyorian]

You know why Costco doesn't accept credit cards and only accepts debit? Because most debit transactions are a flat fee no matter how large the transaction (usually around 75 cents) and Costco is committed to charging no more than I think 12% over their cost. You know why Walmart started a bank? Yea... to get advantageous pricing on credit card processing (interchange) fees for being a "bank". Sure there was an element of one stop check cashing, grocery shopping etc, but the real prize is the savings on fees.

Still not what is pushing the popular politics change in Washington. It's the consumers that are harping on how their banks treat them and the processors that get caught up in the crossfire.

[kiryan]

sure, not quite. its crisis politics... they had a crisis that justified pushing through financial reforms. The business lobbyists got the swipe fees thrown in there.

[kiryan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... management

people sold off tons of stock because Obama been saying he's going to let tax cuts for the rich expire. Here is government picking the winners and losers again. Not as insiduously as they have in the past, but because there is a lack of stability... people can't make good decisions.

[kiryan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40772705/ns ... ss-cnbc_tv

Student loans leave crushing debt burden

Maybe we should apply an 86% unilateral cut to tuition. its win win win. Win for consumers, win for American competitiveness and a win for our children.

What could be more American than an equal opportuntiy and fairly priced education?

[Teflor Lyorian]

sure, not quite. its crisis politics... they had a crisis that justified pushing through financial reforms. The business lobbyists got the swipe fees thrown in there.

But it seems like we are in a continual crisis politics mode. I still feel that this is the people driving it.

[kiryan]

lets assume it is the people driving it.

can we get together and vote to reduce doctor pay by 86%?

At what point does this become the tyranny of the majority?

[Sarvis]

At what point does this become the tyranny of the majority?

When we become a true democracy where every issue is voted on by everyone, instead of by a tiny minority of representatives.

[Teflor Lyorian]

lets assume it is the people driving it.

can we get together and vote to reduce doctor pay by 86%?

At what point does this become the tyranny of the majority?

It's already tyranny of the majority, the heat is both populist and misguided. Democrats sponsoring brutal repression of free enterprise are seizing upon it to their political favor.

I'm not making a value judgement on the part of the people, but they have to know that politicians will seize upon their stupidity and fear to use the violence of Federal government to political ends that result in the empowerment of their own party. I hold America responsible for placing blame on others for their own situations.

[kiryan]

lets assume it is the people driving it.

can we get together and vote to reduce doctor pay by 86%?

At what point does this become the tyranny of the majority?

It's already tyranny of the majority, the heat is both populist and misguided. Democrats sponsoring brutal repression of free enterprise are seizing upon it to their political favor.

I'm not making a value judgement on the part of the people, but they have to know that politicians will seize upon their stupidity and fear to use the violence of Federal government to political ends that result in the empowerment of their own party. I hold America responsible for placing blame on others for their own situations.

ok and you are right, we are acting as a tyranny of a majority to deprive other private parties of their liberty and pursuit of happyness by allowing these targetted... unreasonable... essentially taxes/redistribution. We all need to wake up and look at what is going on here... That tired old story about when they came for x I did nothing is fulfilling itself every day. Where is the outrage and the protest about the government taking 86% of a businesses income? The government mandating 85% of your gross revenue must be spent on "patient care" as defined by the government.

Where is the limit on government's power to deprive you of your private property?

[Teflor Lyorian]

ok and you are right, we are acting as a tyranny of a majority to deprive other private parties of their liberty and pursuit of happyness by allowing these targetted... unreasonable... essentially taxes/redistribution. We all need to wake up and look at what is going on here... That tired old story about when they came for x I did nothing is fulfilling itself every day. Where is the outrage and the protest about the government taking 86% of a businesses income? The government mandating 85% of your gross revenue must be spent on "patient care" as defined by the government.

Where is the limit on government's power to deprive you of your private property?

On the other hand, consumers are too stupid to protect themselves from banks. They will allow banks to charge them ridiculous interest rates, and by the millions, just because the consumers have not reason or intelligence.

If the government won't protect the idiots, they'll no doubt ruin the economy for the rest of us.

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03 ... -showdown/

How are those new Walmart discounts working out for you? Still waiting for the price of taquitos to drop at 7-Eleven?

== well the law doesnt go into effect until July, so no I haven't seen it yet... and will I really notice a 1% decrease in my bill? really?

According to the preliminary proposal by the Federal Reserve put forth in December, the Federal Reserve would reduce debit card swipe fees from their current level of 1 to 2 percent of each transaction to a flat fee of no more than 12 cents per transaction -- a 70 percent reduction in the $20 billion-a-year practice that would eat into the profits of card networks Visa and MasterCard as well big banks such as Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase

== yea... pretty amazing, with a stroke of the pen you can force a business to reduce its charges by 70%... what exactly was the justification for telling a private business who has built a private system how much it can charge? Right, someone else thought they were making too much money. Why not just outlaw it all together and go back to cash? right, cuz plastic is better (I pay mostly with cash and check... but even my checks are electronicized now).

"Year after year, the credit card industry has extracted billions of dollars in fees from small businesses around the country," Welch and Shuster wrote. "Visa and MasterCard cash in every time a credit or debit card is swiped, leaving small businesses and consumers to pay the tab

== who the fuk should pay for it dipshits. businesses benefit the most.. consumer's get a lot of flexibility which is nice (but obviously has a cost).

In 2009, consumers used debit cards in nearly 38 billion retail transactions valued at $1.45 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Banks collected on average 44 cents in debit card swipe fees that year -- slightly more than 1 percent of each sale, which adds up to about $16 billion.

== 1%. We wrote a law to get all up in the middle of private transactions for ONE fucking percent. My parents owned a convenience store... I know what the fees are like and while I agree its too high and especially the smaller you are the more you get screwed... but seriously ONE fucking percent. Why the fuk is government involved in reducing fees from 1% to 0.3%?

I mean fuk, I think we paid 2 or 3% for EVERY DOLLAR WE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. yes with commercial accounts they charge you for your deposits. Put that in your hat and smoke it.

[Teflor Lyorian]

stop letting our neighbors suffer and die.

Here, Sarvis believes that people don't suffer and die in foreign countries.