jjamie12

Well... Yes, merchants want you to use debit, and banks want you to use credit, but that is really only on the margins. Let's look at this a different way by detailing the benefits to the merchants of the network payments system: 1- Cash right away. No waiting for checks to clear. 2- No fraud risk on the merchant side: You don't have to worry about the $100 bill or the check being counterfeit. 3- All the research that shows that consumers tend to spend more on their card than they do when they're using cash... this one is pretty obvious if you think about it. Because Visa / Mastercard / Discover all created these networks to use for payments merchants benefited greatly in the afermentioned ways. All of that infrastructure costs money (and so the network providers need to be paid), and fraudulent activity also costs $ (and so the banks need to be paid for that risk). What the Durbin amendment did was, quite literally, transfer wealth from banks to merchants.

That's exactly right! The 'Interchange Fee' is the fee that the banks collect, but it comes directly out of the merchant's pocket. For example: In a credit transaction for $100, the merchant will receive $98.50. The rest of that $100 ($1.50) gets split up between the acqiring and issuing banks... (acquiring bank is the merchant's bank, issuing is the credit card issuer). In a debit transaction, the merchant might receive $99, for example, rather than the $98.50, so they go out of their way to make it a debit transaction.

Close, but not *quite* right... Banks earn more 'interchange fees' on a credit transaction than on a debit transaction. They charged you that $.25 to 'encourage' you to use the credit network (and thus the highter interchange rate) vs. the debit network. It's pretty complicated, but basically it comes down to this: Credit transactions are more risky than debit transactions and so banks are compensated for the elevated risk levels.

What about BP's actions to date makes YOU believe that they WON'T pay?

I don't understand your... I just don't *get* what it is that you've been watching. BP has spent over $1 Billion already. They've ALREADY said that they will pay for any legitimate claims... What about their actions makes YOU think they WON'T pay? I don't understand what some of you people want.

What will their alternative be?

I wanted to get a thread up here talking, solely, about the great things that are in this bill, because I'm not sure that I really understand all of the talk about 'Historic' this and 'Transformational' that. Now, I fully admit that I come to this discussion with pre-conceived notions of general 'government-against-ness'. The question posed here (and hopefully answered to some level of satisfaction) is: What is in this bill that is historic and transformational? (With apologies to Magox, who I know did, at least, some of this work and posted it here last week - I couldn't find it in a cursory search) As I understand it, the central themes of this bill are: 1) Creates a 'health insurance exchange', so that uninsured folks can go buy health insurance as a group, rather than singly. (Presumably across state lines? Is this a national exchange?) 2) Subsidizes people on a sliding scale so that they are more able to afford the health insurance offered on this exchange. 3) Forces Insurance companies to not allow exclusion for: a)pre-existing conditions b)no lifetime caps c)no dropping people who get sick 4) In order to persuade folks to buy this insurance, there will be a 'penalty' if you do not. As I see it, the bottom line is: Essentially no exclusions allowed from the Insurance companies and 30 million more people will now be able to afford health insurance. Are there any other benefits that I'm missing?

Just to be clear: This is the split between Insurance Payouts and Administrative Costs, yes?

Just so we're clear. The CBO has a specific purpose, and that purpose is to score what's put in front of them. "They" (meaning the CBO) aren't using fuzzy math, they're doing what they're supposed to. Our representatives are the ones using the 'fuzzy math'. This bill starts taxing in year 1, and doesn't start paying off (for the most part) until year 4. No matter what the CBO says about deficit neutral and whatever changes this fact. Of COURSE it's deficit neutral. It taxes for 10 year and only pays for 6. Why do we do this? Because the President made a promise that "Health Care" reform would be deficit neutral. Since he made that promise, congressional members have to jump through 1,000 hoops to make it seem as though that is real. People aren't complaining that the CBO doesn't do its job. They're comlaining about the actual job they're asked to do by the people who are dishonestly peddling fabrications of reality.

Ha! I see you have Monday night covered... What about the rest of the week?!?!?

OC- In general, I think you're a smart guy. From what I know (admittedly, only in cyberspace, where anyone can lie about anything) about you, you have a nice education and have taken business chances in the world, and have done reasonably well for yourself. For that, I applaud you. In fact, I think that we agree FAR more than we disagreee about *the world*, in general. That is why I will wait to respond to your two posts until I am not drunk. Friday night, Sabres game = I had too much to drink to be coherent enough to respond to well reasoned thoughts tonight. I hope you understand.

OC, I swear to God, I don't want this thing to pass. However, 59-41 it is not. You know this, I know this. It's 59-41 FOR. In reality, I would LOVE for us to have a real debat about health care. Unforutnately, all we'll get is soundbytes. I think, no, I know, you know this.

Again... sometimes this place turns into an echo chamber. I think this piece should be required reading around here. In my opinion Mr. Brooks makes some very good points. Getting Obama Right Thoughts?

Some mixed results. I still don't really know. Not Bill Nye Relevant quote: "In current practice, actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses." Not Wikipedia Relevant quote: "In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster; critics say this makes the modern filibuster "painless." So... I still don't know. You'd think there would be some clear understanding of this out there somewhere. In any case, these people need to act like grown-ups for a change and if you're going to try and block the will of a majority of the Senate, your ass should be up there actually filibustering. This candy-ass rule that you only have to 'threaten' is really just, I don't know the word, but non-gravitas'y'. I mean, if you feel so strongly that you're willing to stand there for hours and hours, I can respect that. If you're just going to say 'FILIBUSTER!', I don't respect that.

I was under the impression that the Senate Majority leader can actually require the 'standing and talking'. I'll do some checking on this.

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. Let me re-state. If I were Dems, I would actually force the filibuster. Not just cave to the 'threat' of one. Make them stand there and talk for days, weeks, months, whatever. I hate this bill, but I hate parliamentary gimmicks even worse; there's nothing honorable in this nonsense (maybe there's nothing honorable left in the Senate... a point worth making and thinking about). A bill like this deserves to be debated and given an up or down vote, you know, like a republic is supposed to work. And then anyone who votes for this nonsense should get their ass handed to them in the next election. Elections matter.

Doc, I don't think I ever advocated passing this bill through reconciliation.

Personally, if I were the Dem leadership, I would force the Republicans to you know, ACTUALLY filibuster, not just threaten it. There really is no reason that there shouldn't be an up or down vote on this thing, even it its bad. We live in a republic. Elections matter. For the record, I hate this monstrosity. Just my opinion.

I totally agree that it is their right. The question being posed in this thread (well, not really... I mean, nobody's posing questions in this thread, we're all just spouting our opinions ) is the 'right-ness' of that, isn't it? We still live in a country where it is not totally uncommon (certainly in spots in the deep south... I have my own anecdotes) where overt racism is out in the open. I have my own take on this stuff, and I fully understand that I'll get flamed and what not for feeling the way I do. The 'racism' stuff is overblown. Prejudice, however, is alive and well (for fairly obvious reasons... Everyone is prejudiced, by definition, right?). I think that we spend alot of time seeking out opinions that are similar to ours. For example, this place sounds like an old-ish, white guy, echo-chamber most of the time. There's validity in that sentiment; we all (for the most part... I truly believe that) hope for a paradigm in which we are all judged on our ability, not on our parent's percieved stature. In essence, we all hope for a meritocracy, in the best sense of the word. I don't doubt that for a second. The problem I have is that we dont' *really* live in a meritocracy. We live in a world of prejudice, a world where contacts matter; a world where it *matters* where you grew up, where you went to school, who your daddy's friends are... We live in a world where the unqualified can potentially get opportunities that the qualified don't get. It's about time that we recognize that, isn't it? It's not just *black*. It's also white kids from small podunk towns all over the place whose mothers and fathers try their best to give them a better life; try to give them options that they themselves never had... To deny that black people have it harder than white people, even with all of the social programs we have put into place to try and even the playing field is just sort of silly, in my opinion. It's not an indictment of you, Joe in Macungie... it's an indictment of the institutionalized racism that pervaded the culture for a number of years. It's too easy to say: "Get over it." There are real social and psychological ramifications to what went on in this country from its inception to the 1960's. We all need to try and understand the *other* guy's point of view for a change. You don't have to agree with it, but you should try and see where people are coming from. That goes for white folks AND black folks. For example: black folks shouldn't hold Joe in Macungie accountable for what happened 100 years ago. It's not his fault. He didn't do anything back then. At the same time, it might be nice if you recognized that, in general, black folks have a tougher time of it than white folks, given the same pedigree.

Mark Schmidt... Go: maybe not ppp worthy.

Well... You aren't actually providing commentary on anything. Not that I'd expect you to understand that.

Are you suggesting that there aren't any rich black people who might want to join a golf club that can't get through the 'Membership Committee"?

"Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe" was right about where he lost me.

Nothing says peaceful like "You may know who we are, but we KNOW who you are" [/Jimmy "The Gent" Conway]