Does Wall St. know how the Obamacare hearing ends?

posted at 9:30 am on April 1, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

How will the saga of Obamacare Goes To Court end? Everyone has an opinion, as usual. We’ve asked bloggers and lawyers and pundits of all stripes, with no two opinions being the same. But has anybody thought to check in with Wall Street and see if they’ve broken out the Magic Eight Ball yet? Matt O’Brien at The Atlantic did just that.

Nobody except Justice Anthony Kennedy knows what will happen to Obamacare. But Wall Street, whose predictive powers are dubious, thinks it does. The proof is in the healthcare stocks.

The below chart shows Aetna’s stock price the past week. Check out the vertical action today. That’s a single day increase of over 6.5 percent.

It’s not just Aetna. UnitedHealth Group, Humana, and Wellpoint are all up between 2 and 5 percent on the day too. What’s going on?

One reasonable conclusion is that Wall Street’s betting that Obamacare will either be struck down in its entirety or upheld in its entirety. Both would be very, very good news for healthcare companies. The death of the individual mandate, alone, would be bad news for Big Insurance.

As predictions go, that’s a fairly wishy-washy one. But the underlying theory looks pretty sound. If you’re a health care company – or, more to the point, one of their investors – it may not make all that much difference if the law is thrown out in its entirety or kept completely intact. If the former, then it’s business as usual. (And business is still pretty good in that particular market.) If the latter, it means that big changes are coming, but they include a new golden age where pretty much every person in the country will have to buy their product. To put this in perspective for progressive dreamland, that’s like owning stock in a solar panel company shortly before the federal government mandates that every single structure in the country down to the last dog house, chicken coop and rib shack will have to have panels on their roof. Sounds like a business I’d want to be in on.

But if the mandate is struck down and the rest of the government restrictions go into effect, the picture becomes much darker for the insurance companies. They won’t have any control over who they cover for what treatments, with nobody being turned away, but nobody will have to purchase their product. This essentially means that the young and healthy can keep their money in their pockets until they get sick and the only customers coming to their door will be there to claim increasingly expensive benefits. Not a good business model at first blush, eh?

But investors seem to think that is the least likely outcome and are picking up health insurance stocks at a brisk clip. Are they prescient or about to be sucked into a completely losing proposition? We won’t know until June at the earliest, but one stock analyst I trust, Joe Weisenthal, came to the same conclusion.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court was debating the constitutionality of the individual mandate — whether the Federal Government could demand that individuals buy health insurance. This law is a good thing for health insurers, since it means scads of new customers. And many of those customers will be ideal, since they’ll be young healthy people that don’t end up sucking much out of the insurer pool.

But when that had a bad day in the court the stocks fell.

However, the next day the Supreme Court took on the issue of “severability” and whether the death of the individual mandate would impact the rest of the law.

Let’s back up. …

Another angle of the law is that insurers can no longer deny people insurance for pre-existing conditions. The inability to deny people with pre-existing conditions is only economically feasible if you have the mandate, since otherwise people just don’t buy insurance until they get sick, and then sign up as soon as they do, turning the whole idea of insurance on its head.

An Obamacare without the mandate is horrible for insurers who end up getting a lot of people as customers who only exploit the system.

Well anyway, yesterday Obama had another bad day in court, suggesting that if the Supreme Court tosses out the individual mandate, they’ll also toss out the rest of the law, meaning insurers won’t have to take on people with pre-existing conditions.

So investors are buying up these stocks, because the nightmare scenario of having to accept customers with pre-existing conditions but not having the mandate may be off the table.

Sounds about right to me.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can’t we just check wooly bears or something for a more accurate indicator?

Don L on April 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Buy the rumor, sell the news, they teach you that on the first day.

Daveyardbird on April 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I worry about Roberts. I don’t think he has the stomach for the “Roberts Court” to have been responsible for sending Obama’s signature legislation to the dust bin of history. I imagine he is huddled with Kennedy looking for a way to do what’s right — find the unconstitutional mandate unconstitutional — while also helping their friend Barack save face.

Rational Thought on April 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Makes sense to me. It has to be all or nothing with this boondoggle of a bill.

Mord on April 1, 2012 at 9:42 AM

OT – are the OOTD’s/OOTW’s over? I didn’t see one on Friday & I haven’t seen a poll today.

22044 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I have no doubt that Kagan or Sottomayor have informed The Regime of the outcome of the initial vote, and it’s probably the mandate going down 6-3 or maybe even 7-2 and all of Obamacare going down 5-4.

They are probably going to try to keep the lid on it as long as possible. The LSM have tried some lame spin trial balloons saying that Obamacare going down hurts Republicans. It doesn’t. It embarrasses the CRAP out of Dear Leader, reducing his first (and only term) to only one accomplishment: FLAMING gays being allowed to serve in the military.

Worse, they know this is the outcome that the People WANT. Getting rid of Obamacare is why that giant gavel was ripped from Pelosi’s hand at the first opportunity.

No doubt Obamabundlers know of the outcome and are acting on the information. Only the news of Obamacare going down COMPLETELY favors insurance companies. Obama has already been “altering the deal” with them, such as the contraception and abortion pills “for free” mandate which will cost the insurance companies. And that won’t be the LAST such mandate. Obamacare means the government not only has the people by the balls, they also have the insurance companies by the balls.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

OT – are the OOTD’s/OOTW’s over? I didn’t see one on Friday & I haven’t seen a poll today.

22044 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Have we seen Ed at all this weekend? We also have had a lot of stories posted by no-names we’ve never seen here before…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

You righties are just hoping people DIE in the STREEEETTTTSSSS!!!!!

-LIB4

/

Sorry just had to beat it to the punch.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM

You righties are just hoping people DIE in the STREEEETTTTSSSS!!!!!

-LIB4

/

Sorry just had to beat it to the punch.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Has anyone mentioned to him/her/it that large numbers of people dying in the streets has happened in each and every “worker’s paradise” ever tried? IE: tens of millions in Russia, probably 100 million in China…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Do healthcare companies and their investors have their heads up their _______ that far?

Do they not realize they are going to be DESTROYED in favor of GOVERNMENT RUN healthcare?

Wow, they are still laying down with dogs……and gonna get fleas…

…..and these Progressive fleas are deadly.

I have a family friend that is a State Senator and he was SO GIDDY that he called and boasted about ObamaCare after it passed……..he knows exactly what it means. They will control every aspect of life in the name of “Health”.

ObamaCare…………Libertys Death Panel.

PappyD61 on April 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

OT – are the OOTD’s/OOTW’s over? I didn’t see one on Friday & I haven’t seen a poll today.

22044 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Ed is on vacation all this week, currently celebrating the 80th birthday of the Admiral Emeritus. The OOTD’s / OOTW’s will return when he gets back from goldbricking.

Jazz Shaw on April 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

We also have had a lot of stories posted by no-names we’ve never seen here before…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

They are only “no names” to no names that don’t pay attention.

cozmo on April 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Has anyone mentioned to him/her/it that large numbers of people dying in the streets has happened in each and every “worker’s paradise” ever tried? IE: tens of millions in Russia, probably 100 million in China…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Not sure if anyone has but one thing for sure it will not debate it anyway. It drops its load and runs.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I have a family friend that is a State Senator and he was SO GIDDY that he called and boasted about ObamaCare after it passed……..he knows exactly what it means. They will control every aspect of life in the name of “Health”.

ObamaCare…………Libertys Death Panel.

PappyD61 on April 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Yep, it’s literally the keys to the kingdom for liberals. Once they have control of healthcare they have control of everything. Government gets to decide who lives, and who dies. And you can’t tell me that a thin skinned jerk like Obama won’t use the death panels against his political opposition like he uses the IRS, DOJ, EPA, and NLRB, right?

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Not sure if anyone has but one thing for sure it will not debate it anyway. It drops its load and runs.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

That’s the problem with the current generation of Hot Gas libtrolls: They are all betatrolls.

Alphatrolls are a lot more fun.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Do healthcare companies and their investors have their heads up their _______ that far?

Do they not realize they are going to be DESTROYED in favor of GOVERNMENT RUN healthcare?

Wow, they are still laying down with dogs……and gonna get fleas…

Yes.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Yep, it’s literally the keys to the kingdom for liberals. Once they have control of healthcare they have control of everything. Government gets to decide who lives, and who dies. And you can’t tell me that a thin skinned jerk like Obama won’t use the death panels against his political opposition like he uses the IRS, DOJ, EPA, and NLRB, right?

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I read a piece a long while back by, I believe, Mark Steyn, and he pointed out that in Britain, once the government got control of health care, every election ever after was about health care — who would cut it and who would keep the spending going. Every election. Every single one. There simply were no more issues that politicians had to run on. Just health care. And as a result, the two parties became left and lefter. What a disaster. I pray the Court does the right thing for this country.

Rational Thought on April 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

22044 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Ed is on a vacay….we all know what the OOTW would be anyways….mr. i’ve got your back putin….

cmsinaz on April 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Kudos to Jazz and the rest of the posters this week…

Great job!

cmsinaz on April 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I have no doubt that Kagan or Sottomayor have informed The Regime of the outcome of the initial vote, and it’s probably the mandate going down 6-3 or maybe even 7-2 and all of Obamacare going down 5-4.

They are probably going to try to keep the lid on it as long as possible. The LSM have tried some lame spin trial balloons saying that Obamacare going down hurts Republicans. It doesn’t. It embarrasses the CRAP out of Dear Leader, reducing his first (and only term) to only one accomplishment: FLAMING gays being allowed to serve in the military.

Worse, they know this is the outcome that the People WANT. Getting rid of Obamacare is why that giant gavel was ripped from Pelosi’s hand at the first opportunity.

No doubt Obamabundlers know of the outcome and are acting on the information. Only the news of Obamacare going down COMPLETELY favors insurance companies. Obama has already been “altering the deal” with them, such as the contraception and abortion pills “for free” mandate which will cost the insurance companies. And that won’t be the LAST such mandate. Obamacare means the government not only has the people by the balls, they also have the insurance companies by the balls.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

From your lips to Gods Ears

I believe the justices know how this thing was passed. Scalia mocking about reading the whole bill I believe is the feeling by a majority. They cannot vote for something being constitutional without reading that 2700 page rag of a bill and they should know that. I believe they will strike this whole thing down, but if they do not and rule it constitutional without reading it, then they themselves are responsible of destroying the freedoms that we enjoy

Conservative4ev on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I was guessing Sotomayor would leak to the White House. Kagan has her faults, but I think she is also too shrewd to do this. If she wants to have any influence on the Court, i.e., with Kennedy, she has to act like a pro.

One of my DC lawyer friends told me Sotomayor is so dim that she couldn’t get argument protocol right, and had to be publicly reprimanded by Roberts. When two justices start asking a question at the same time, the junior justice stops, and waits until the senior justice finishes questioning. Sotomayor just kept on talking and Roberts called her out for it. Right there at the argument.

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

…mr. i’ve got your back putin…

cmsinaz on April 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Even with 0bama having a very bad week it was no contest.

cozmo on April 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

holy cow….no wonder we haven’t heard that from the lsm…

cmsinaz on April 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

cozmo on April 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM

indeed

cmsinaz on April 1, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The Supremes have voted in secret and for sure, elena “I donts have to recuse” Kegan has “leaked” the count to the commie white house. They know the score and now have insider info. Watch the usurper commie forger’s speeches coming up, he already started in vermont.

Mr. Sun on April 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I guess the stock price time-horizon isn’t long enough to reflect that the whole thing collapses fairly soon if implemented…

ParisParamus on April 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

NRO had an interesting post about a week ago. Both Roberts and Kennedy are Catholic, and there have been letters read out in church and notices in church newletters about the contraceptive mandate. They are smart enough to know it’s not about “access to contraceptives.” They have seen what this administration will do when given any kind of power.

Also, two of the unanimous opinions so far this term have been Hosanna-Tabor, and Sackett. Both were about government overreach and fundamental rights.

Hosanna-Tabor was freedom of religion (which is only “freedom of worship” to Obama), and Sackett was the right to due process and to private property.

The theme of overreach by Obama is already there. One hopes Roberts and Kennedy connect the dots to Obamacare.

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Watch the usurper commie forger’s speeches coming up, he already started in vermont.

Mr. Sun on April 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

What did he say in Vermont?

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Yep, it’s literally the keys to the kingdom for liberals. Once they have control of healthcare they have control of everything. Government gets to decide who lives, and who dies. And you can’t tell me that a thin skinned jerk like Obama won’t use the death panels against his political opposition like he uses the IRS, DOJ, EPA, and NLRB, right?

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Is not just the Liberal way, it is the Chicago Way. I lived there for over 8 years. You either go along with the Machine or the Machine destroys you.

KW64 on April 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

The Supremes have voted in secret and for sure, elena “I donts have to recuse” Kegan has “leaked” the count to the commie white house. They know the score and now have insider info. Watch the usurper commie forger’s speeches coming up, he already started in vermont.

Mr. Sun on April 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

This is the kind of thing that makes me so sick for my country. You know this is true. Everyone knows this is true. We all know that Kagan is going to leak this decision to the White House every step of the way, that they will know it weeks before the country does. It is just a given that she will act in the most unethical, corrupt way — and no one cares. That a sitting Supreme Court justice is nothing but a corrupt political hack doesn’t even raise a shrug of the shoulders from most people. Democrats. Corruption. It just is. So disgusting.

Rational Thought on April 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Has anyone mentioned to him/her/it that large numbers of people dying in the streets has happened in each and every “worker’s paradise” ever tried? IE: tens of millions in Russia, probably 100 million in China…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM

And it’s also happened in Blue States right here in the US.

Including the Blue State “in Asia” that O’bama claims to have been born in:

WAIANAE, Hawaii—A 3-year-old boy was killed and four of his family members were badly injured after a suspected drunk driver slammed into the West Oahu bus stop where they were sitting, police said.

The family, for which police had no local address, is apparently homeless. The boy, his mother, two sisters and a brother were waiting at the Makaha beach bus stop Wednesday night as the father was across the street setting up their camp for the night, KITV reported. The father and a 1-year-old boy were not injured.

The suspect is a recent parolee.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

When two justices start asking a question at the same time, the junior justice stops, and waits until the senior justice finishes questioning. Sotomayor just kept on talking and Roberts called her out for it. Right there at the argument.

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

B-b-but he’s a scary white conservative male on a court that is majority conservative, majority white, and majority male. She’s a sympathetic and courageous progressive Hispanic woman who is in the minority on the court in terms of ethnicity, ideology, and gender. Isn’t it written somewhere in the constitution that Roberts must defer to Sotomayor? Minority rights, y’all? No? Looks like that hundred-year-old document written by white male slave owners needs to either be updated or ignored to better reflect 21st century American realities.

/troll (Since it looks like some of the libs have taken the morning off, I’ve volunteered to fill in on this thread.)

JimLennon on April 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

In an era when every damn military and diplomatic “secret” is printed in the LSM within days, from “sources who wished to remain anonymous”, do you really think that there aren’t lots of people that already know how the initial voting went?

bofh on April 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

B-b-but he’s a scary white conservative male on a court that is majority conservative, majority white, and majority male. She’s a sympathetic and courageous progressive Hispanic woman who is in the minority on the court in terms of ethnicity, ideology, and gender. Isn’t it written somewhere in the constitution that Roberts must defer to Sotomayor? Minority rights, y’all? No? Looks like that hundred-year-old document written by white male slave owners needs to either be updated or ignored to better reflect 21st century American realities.

/troll (Since it looks like some of the libs have taken the morning off, I’ve volunteered to fill in on this thread.)

JimLennon on April 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Yeah, that’s what the libs will say. For me? I just say she’s ill-mannered and poorly educated.

Rational Thought on April 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I was suspecting that someone would leak to the White House. Then I wondered if Joe Biden would be unable to keep his mouth shut (remember when he outed Seal Team 6 over the Osama hit?), and blab it.

That might tick off Kennedy, and he’d swtich is vote. (They do switch votes. He was going to be the fifth vote to overturn Roe in the Casey case, and then Stevens and O’Conner got to him, and flipped him.)

Of course, they might not tell Joe Biden. One wonders how much has to be kept from him because he can’t keep his lip zipped.

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

One of my DC lawyer friends told me Sotomayor is so dim that she couldn’t get argument protocol right, and had to be publicly reprimanded by Roberts.

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This is an interesting anecdote, but I wouldn’t read too much into it. This is the kind of thing people do when they get excited or emotionally aroused. Real evidence of Sotomayor being dim would come from her questions themselves.

Dextrous on April 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Watch the usurper commie forger’s speeches coming up, he already started in vermont.

Mr. Sun on April 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

What did he say in Vermont?

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM

He said Abraham Lincoln couldn’t win the nomination in today’s Republican Party.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I believe the justices know how this thing was passed. Scalia mocking about reading the whole bill I believe is the feeling by a majority. They cannot vote for something being constitutional without reading that 2700 page rag of a bill and they should know that. I believe they will strike this whole thing down, but if they do not and rule it constitutional without reading it, then they themselves are responsible of destroying the freedoms that we enjoy

Conservative4ev on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That’s a good point. For anyone on the left arguing that a 5-4 decision striking down Obamacare is more evidence after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United that SCOTUS is an activist conservative court (as Terry Moran did on This Week this morning), I say how can you uphold legislation that no–NOT ONE–member of Congress read or can explain and that SCOTUS won’t read in it’s entirety. Mark Steyn posted an NRO article yesterday that essentially said that legislation like Obamacare is an abomination all the way around.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

OT: I saw on This Week a HuffPo video with three people supposedly offering anecdotal stories about having hope in 2008 and that now, even though Obama hasn’t done much, they still have hope.

The first was a laughable “single mother” who had lost her job. I think the second was a senior citizen yakking about something. But the third was supposed to be a Gitmo detainee–who spoke perfect English.

LOL. In this environment, people will swarm to Obama because they’re worried about Gitmo detainees. Yeah, run with it.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This is an interesting anecdote, but I wouldn’t read too much into it. This is the kind of thing people do when they get excited or emotionally aroused. Real evidence of Sotomayor being dim would come from her questions themselves.

Dextrous on April 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

And her reversal rate wehn she was on the Second Circuit. I think she wrote the Ricci reverse discrimination opinion that SCOTUS reversed. both she and the liberal district court judge selectively quoted facts from the record.

Justice Alito’s concurrence lays out in detail that Hartford dumped the firefighters’ exam results because Hartford’s equivalent of Al Sharpton turned up at a city council meeting and threatened a lot of bad publicity if they didn’t. The exams themselves were found by all test experts to not have any cultural bias.

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I read a piece a long while back by, I believe, Mark Steyn, and he pointed out that in Britain, once the government got control of health care, every election ever after was about health care — who would cut it and who would keep the spending going. Every election. Every single one. There simply were no more issues that politicians had to run on. Just health care. And as a result, the two parties became left and lefter. What a disaster. I pray the Court does the right thing for this country.

Rational Thought on April 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Someone needs to articulate a better plan as a counterpoint to Obamacare and the Democrats’ ultimate goal, government/single payer, and be able to sell it to the American people. I envision something like high deductible plans with tax deductible health savings accounts. People should pay for their own preventative care, that’s personal responsibility, not being forced to purchase expensive, comprehensive policies that cover things you don’t want or need. And if people are paying for basic care out of pocket, I expect prices will come down. I’m no expert, and this is just an idea, but I think the right person could sell something like that to the majority of the American people. I know some bills have been proposed by Republicans, but they don’t seem to be talking about them very much.

mbs on April 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

He said Abraham Lincoln couldn’t win the nomination in today’s Republican Party.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Well, given that Abraham Lincoln has been dead for nearly 147 years, I’m not surprised that he couldn’t win the nomination in 2012. Geez, are the Democrats so used to having the dead vote that they now take it for granted that the dead can run for office?

(Yes. I know what the President meant.)

Still, that’s not quite as brain-twisting as the guy (Richard Dawkins?) who said a few months back that if Jesus were born today, then Jesus would be an atheist.

JimLennon on April 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM

That a sitting Supreme Court justice is nothing but a corrupt political hack doesn’t even raise a shrug of the shoulders from most people. Democrats. Corruption. It just is. So disgusting.

Rational Thought on April 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

FOUR of them are, not just Kagan. Sottomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg are the same way, pure leftist ideologues who put politics ahead of everything.

Remember the LSM coverage going into the oral arguments? It ALL focused on the conservative justices like Scalia and Roberts, about how they’d be convinced to uphold Obamacare. Never ONCE was the possibility of any of the four socialists of the apocalypse VOTING AGAINST IT!

Judges should have to be judges, and that’s it. They should be impartial referees and the Constitution should be their ONLY rule book. Their only job should be to evaluate each case based on whether or not whatever the government is doing is covered by the enumerated powers and that’s it. A coherent argument CANNOT BE MADE for Obamacare on that basis. Which is why Verrilli looked and sounded like such an idiot.

Of course, judges who do that DO exist today. They are called conservative justices. We need more of them. The supreme court should have 9 of them, not 4.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

But if the mandate is struck down and the rest of the government restrictions go into effect, the picture becomes much darker for the insurance companies.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but with the severability clause having been purposely removed from the bill, if the mandate goes down, then the whole bill goes in the dumpster.

The ones really sweating this specter of Obamacare crashing and burning are big pharma. Under 0-care, all FDA-approved drugs are covered, and contraception is provided at no cost. That means the newer, expensive versions of contraception are just as free as the older, cheaper generic versions. And if free, which ones will people choose?

iurockhead on April 1, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Someone needs to articulate a better plan as a counterpoint to Obamacare and the Democrats’ ultimate goal, government/single payer, and be able to sell it to the American people. I envision something like high deductible plans with tax deductible health savings accounts. People should pay for their own preventative care, that’s personal responsibility, not being forced to purchase expensive, comprehensive policies that cover things you don’t want or need. And if people are paying for basic care out of pocket, I expect prices will come down. I’m no expert, and this is just an idea, but I think the right person could sell something like that to the majority of the American people. I know some bills have been proposed by Republicans, but they don’t seem to be talking about them very much.

mbs on April 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The BIGGEST driver of healthcare costs wasn’t even touched by Obamacare: TORT REFORM. Slip and fall lawyering is a multibillion dollar industry (just ask John Edwards). Of course the partisan Obamacare bill wasn’t going to touch the income stream of their sugar daddy trial lawyers.

John Edwards is a poster child for what is driving up healthcare costs.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

He said Abraham Lincoln couldn’t win the nomination in today’s Republican Party.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I wonder if thinks if JFK could get nominated in today’s Democratic primary?

WisRich on April 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

For anyone on the left arguing that a 5-4 decision striking down Obamacare is more evidence after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United that SCOTUS is an activist conservative court (as Terry Moran did on This Week this morning), I say how can you uphold legislation that no–NOT ONE–member of Congress read or can explain and that SCOTUS won’t read in it’s entirety. Mark Steyn posted an NRO article yesterday that essentially said that legislation like Obamacare is an abomination all the way around.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Leftists always have to outright Lie about SCOTUS being an “activist” Court in Bush V. Gore, because they always totally ignore 2 of the 3 rulings SCOTUS handed down in that case. Those two other rulings have to be ignored by them as they went against Gore 9-0 and 7-2.

Since those two rulings conflict with the Left’s false meme about Activist Justices, they simply pretend said rulings never took place.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Joe “I’m in the tank for Obama” Weisenthal… really?

Theworldisnotenough on April 1, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Someone needs to articulate a better plan as a counterpoint to Obamacare and the Democrats’ ultimate goal, government/single payer, and be able to sell it to the American people. (snip) I know some bills have been proposed by Republicans, but they don’t seem to be talking about them very much.

mbs on April 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

+100 This^

It would be ideal for the GOP to start talking about conservative reforms for healthcare and get in front of the Dems on this issue, rather than playing defense and talking only about how the Dem plans won’t work.

JimLennon on April 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

He said Abraham Lincoln couldn’t win the nomination in today’s Republican Party.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I wonder if thinks if JFK could get nominated in today’s Democratic primary?

WisRich on April 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Nope, JFK would not even be considered a Democrat today.

Neither would the Democrat Mitt Romney voted for in MA many years ago, the late Paul Tsongas.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You righties are just hoping people DIE in the STREEEETTTTSSSS!!!!!

-LIB4

/

Sorry just had to beat it to the punch.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Has anyone mentioned to him/her/it that large numbers of people dying in the streets has happened in each and every “worker’s paradise” ever tried? IE: tens of millions in Russia, probably 100 million in China…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM

….it’s the only way lobotomy4life can get out of moms basement.

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The BIGGEST driver of healthcare costs wasn’t even touched by Obamacare: TORT REFORM. Slip and fall lawyering is a multibillion dollar industry (just ask John Edwards). Of course the partisan Obamacare bill wasn’t going to touch the income stream of their sugar daddy trial lawyers.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

They were going to cut off the income stream just not yet, the process is baked in the cake. Obamacare was designed to achieve single payer once that happened lawyers would be essentially cut off from bigf lawsuits. When all doctors work for the government the government isn’t about to let them get sued. We thankfully haven’t made it that far and hopefully never will.

Theworldisnotenough on April 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

+100 This^

It would be ideal for the GOP to start talking about conservative reforms for healthcare and get in front of the Dems on this issue, rather than playing defense and talking only about how the Dem plans won’t work.

JimLennon on April 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Tort reform, expansion of tax free health savings accounts (Obamacare, btw, put even stricter limits on them), and allowing INTERSTATE COMMERCE with respect to health insurance (ie: you can buy ANY policy you want, from ANY insurer in ANY state, your state cannot prevent you from doing it).

That would be a proper government role in healthcare reform.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Obamacare was designed to achieve single payer once that happened lawyers would be essentially cut off from bigf lawsuits. When all doctors work for the government the government isn’t about to let them get sued. We thankfully haven’t made it that far and hopefully never will.

Theworldisnotenough on April 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You are correct. Obamacare was never INTENDED to work. It was a Cloward-Piven plan to CRASH the insurance and healthcare industries, leaving the government as the only solution.

That said, I don’t believe that the democrats will EVER allow any kind of tort reform, nor will they stop frivolous malpractice suits.

Sure it will cost the government LOTS of money but that doesn’t stop them from allowing much the same thing from unions does it?

Democrats like these lawsuits because the payouts are just like union dues: A LARGE amount of them will end up in the pockets of democrat politicians. They don’t care what it will cost the taxpayer. Since when have the democrats cared about the cost of anything except the military and the manned space program?

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Interesting that some people are speculating that Kagan may have leaked the current status to the White House. But the initial topic of the posting here is how Wall Street is viewing the current status.

People on Wall Street have a strong incentive to try to get the inside information, as much as people in the White House. And once it leaks to one, it could then quite quickly then leak to another. Any major Obama financial supporter could expect a quid pro quo in a case like this.

Dextrous on April 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

People on Wall Street have a strong incentive to try to get the inside information, as much as people in the White House. And once it leaks to one, it could then quite quickly then leak to another. Any major Obama financial supporter could expect a quid pro quo in a case like this.

Dextrous on April 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

My guess is that is exactly what has happened.

Information is it’s own currency. And insider information on the fate of 1/6th of the US economy is a BFD as our sitting vice president would say…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

He said Abraham Lincoln couldn’t win the nomination in today’s Republican Party.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I wonder if thinks if JFK could get nominated in today’s Democratic primary?

WisRich on April 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

….JFK could and would get nominated in today’s Republican primary!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

….JFK could and would get nominated in today’s Republican primary!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Ironically, his closest analogue in today’s GOP would be… Newt Gingrich!

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:59 AM

So Wall Street is covering all their bets, same chit different day :)

Dr Evil on April 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I had a medical mutual fund that sucked for the past ten years. As soon as it shot up last week to where I made a modest profit, I sold it. I think Obama and his ilk will screw up the medical industry for years to come. I also have serious doubts that the GOP even with all three branches of government will solve the problem.

PattyJ on April 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I think she wrote the Ricci reverse discrimination opinion that SCOTUS reversed. both she and the liberal district court judge selectively quoted facts from the record.

***

Wethal on April 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

As I understand it, Sotomayor and two colleagues went 3-0 to say that discrimination was okay and they issued a cursory per curiam decision to rationalize it. A motion to hear the case en banc went down 7-6, but one of the ethical liberal justices (Jose Cabranes) wrote a scathing dissent that, I suspect, caught the eyes of SCOTUS when it was appealed. Apparently, J. Cabranes was very put off by Sotomayor’s sweeping the case under the carpet in a “nothing to see here, move along” fashion

In the end, Sotomayor came out looking like a partisan hack.

http://www.eppc.org/news/newsid.3846/news_detail.asp

It’s a piece by Ed Whelan, and you have to scroll down a fair amount.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

If the former, then it’s business as usual.

Hardly.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

***

Since those two rulings conflict with the Left’s false meme about Activist Justices, they simply pretend said rulings never took place.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:42 AM

George Will circled back and made the point that he was unaware that the country was running around suffering under the belief that Bush v. Gore was a partisan decision. He wasn’t as specific and pointed as you, but I think he was trying to be nice to Terry Moran, who so far as I can see really out to call himself a commentator because he’s not reporting objectively.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

George Will circled back and made the point that he was unaware that the country was running around suffering under the belief that Bush v. Gore was a partisan decision. He wasn’t as specific and pointed as you, but I think he was trying to be nice to Terry Moran, who so far as I can see really out to call himself a commentator because he’s not reporting objectively.

BuckeyeSam on April 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

If Bush vs Gore were perceived by the majority the way the libtards do he would never have won re-election in 2004…

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

America! Land of the free and home of the brave.

Question:
Are Americans brave enough to live without government health insurance?

Our fore fathers traveled to America, conquered the frontier, settled the wilderness all without any government services. The current pansy generation cannot go to the grocery store without a cell phone just in case they have an emergency (flat tire) and have to walk two miles home, less than half the distance many people, now retired, had to walk one way to school.

America!
Land of free (contraception) and home of the depraved.

Yup, that is what many have become.

The Rock on April 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I believe the justices know how this thing was passed. Scalia mocking about reading the whole bill I believe is the feeling by a majority. They cannot vote for something being constitutional without reading that 2700 page rag of a bill and they should know that. I believe they will strike this whole thing down, but if they do not and rule it constitutional without reading it, then they themselves are responsible of destroying the freedoms that we enjoy

Conservative4ev on April 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I don’t want to read too much into it, but when I heard Scalia ridiculing the bill, and heard Breyer promising that he had not read it, I thought, “These guys have their fingers on the pulse of the court. They know how the others will vote. This piece of garbage is going down.”

HeatSeeker2011 on April 1, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Upholding mandate good news for Big Insurance? Possibly. In the short to middle term. Stock bets can be valid in this span, sure. Especially if it sounds like win-win. In the long run? If the government imposes that much power over their entire sector? This will bring a piper that must be paid. What’s left of the insurance companies — and doctors — will be doing business out of the Post Office.

curved space on April 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM

In an era when every damn military and diplomatic “secret” is printed in the LSM within days, from “sources who wished to remain anonymous”, do you really think that there aren’t lots of people that already know how the initial voting went?

bofh on April 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You don’t have to try to convince me that Kagan is keeping her master informed, verbatim, of what is going on inside the court.

She has no ethics or respect for the Consititution, only her ideology. And if she can continue the fight for socialism by discussing SCOTUS deliberations, then so be it.

BobMbx on April 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Obama has already been “altering the deal” with them, such as the contraception and abortion pills “for free” mandate which will cost the insurance companies. And that won’t be the LAST such mandate. Obamacare means the government not only has the people by the balls, they also have the insurance companies by the balls.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.
– PBHO to the useless idiots in the insurance industry AND the Catholic Church leadership.

LtGenRob on April 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You are correct. Obamacare was never INTENDED to work. It was a Cloward-Piven plan to CRASH the insurance and healthcare industries, leaving the government as the only solution.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

^^^This can never be said enough either and needs to be continually thrown in the Democrats’ faces as one of the real reasons for this bill.

Remember, too, that felon Robert Creamer, husband of Jan Schakowsky, wrote the blueprint for Obamacare. The information was contained in the New York Times best-selling book “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists:”

The book reveals Robert Creamer, husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who was one of Capitol Hill’s most visible cheerleaders for Obama’s health-care bill, later wrote his health-care platform and declared strategies are not about “policies” – “they are about the distribution of wealth and power.”

And there’s also this American Thinker article from 2010: Why Doesn’t Everyone Know Jan Schakowsky’s Husband Wrote ObamaCare in Jail?

Obamacare is indeed a Cloward-Piven attack which would achieve what the Dems want even more than money: power. And it has to go, totally and completely.

PatriotGal2257 on April 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Romney is against the Individual Mandate.

April Fools!

DannoJyd on April 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Obamacare is indeed a Cloward-Piven attack which would achieve what the Dems want even more than money: power. And it has to go, totally and completely.

PatriotGal2257 on April 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

God willing and more people keep praying!!

Roy Rogers on April 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Do healthcare companies and their investors have their heads up their _______ that far?

Do they not realize they are going to be DESTROYED in favor of GOVERNMENT RUN healthcare?

The insurance companies were in this because they thought a massive bonanza was incoming. Most of the Grand High Poohbas had their heads in the clouds, and all they could think about was the massive profits coming their way when the gov’t mandated people buy their products.

The middle-level and lower workers, the ones who deal with reality on a daily basis, saw the end result right off the bat. (barring the ones who are hopeless Obamabots) My own father had to field calls about “so how do I sign up for my free Obamacare?”

At the risk of sounding like a liberal, greedy corporate officials thought this was a dream come true and jumped on the bandwagon. I have even less sympathy for them than the Catholic Church, whose support of socialism is also coming back to bite them in the butt.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

He said Abraham Lincoln couldn’t win the nomination in today’s Republican Party.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Tell me about it. More than a few wanna-be-Confederates are popping up on the right, and the implications are disturbing.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Kagan is certainly leaking to the White House, and probably others. Don’t watch the whole market, just watch what the White House and those in Congress, -immune to insider trading laws, are doing.

slickwillie2001 on April 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Tort reform is important but 3rd party payer is the biggest driver of costs. When you aren’t paying you have no incentive to look at how much it costs. I helped my wife go over a hospital bill for her mother that was being paid by medicare & private insurance. The charges for everyday items were unreal. Aspirin, sterile gauze pads, hypoallergenic tape etc. I could have bought a lifetime supply of each for what they charged for a weeks stay (dressing the surgical wound 4 times a day).

chemman on April 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

how many of those stock buyers are Congressman or family of Congressman who are trading on inside information?

Can’t they go to jail on that now?

unseen on April 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Sorry just had to beat it to the punch.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Ha! Yea, when can we start rolling grannies off the cliff? /

scalleywag on April 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

MelonCollie on April 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Tell me about it (except I don’t necessarily assume they are on the right or conservative). I visited another site last night and was reading an article by a writer I like but the responses turned my stomach. I ended up supporting a responder that I usually take to task on another site, not this one, for his reflexive liberalism.

chemman on April 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Can’t they go to jail on that now?

unseen on April 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

There are probably more holes in that bill than a hunk of swiss cheese. So, no. And Rangel will probably win his reelection bid.

scalleywag on April 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

As I always say, Progs are only pro-choice when it comes to uteri, rectums, and pot. In the Washington Post today, Steven Pearlstein writes, “Eat your broccoli, Justice Scalia!” Of course, Mr Pearlstein would never dream of saying:

“Do not swallow that birth control pill, Ms Fluke!”

“Do not have that abortion, Ms Roe!”

“Do not have anal sex with another man, Mr Lawrence!”

In all of those cases, he would say, “Keep your laws off of my and their bodies!” But, when it comes to salt, transfats, broccoli, mandating people enter into private contracts, etc., well, THAT’S different. OF COURSE, the government can tell its subjects what to do!

Resist We Much on April 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Tell me about it. More than a few wanna-be-Confederates are popping up on the right, and the implications are disturbing.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Really? How so? Are the implications more disturbing than what Obamacare does to our republic?

Harbingeing on April 1, 2012 at 1:38 PM

There are probably more holes in that bill than a hunk of swiss cheese. So, no. And Rangel will probably win his reelection bid.

scalleywag on April 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

good points.

unseen on April 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I hope you’re right.

Ukiah on April 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

“bow down before the ones you serve/ you’re going to get what you deserve”

after the federal governments and demoncrats, the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies( uh ok and the press)have been the worst actors in the whole romney/obamacare deathstar apocalypse.

they’re partying now but it seems delusional hysteria. they’re trying to unring the bell tolling for them.

mittens on April 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM

But if the mandate is struck down and the rest of the government restrictions go into effect, the picture becomes much darker for the insurance companies. They won’t have any control over who they cover for what treatments, with nobody being turned away, but nobody will have to purchase their product.

I don’t think this statement is true.

An individual insurance company will not have to add someone at the point of sickness, they will go to a hospital and the hospital will have to treat them at the point of sickness. Without a mandate you are not forced onto any plan. (Except the poor who are often put in Medicaid.)

Now how that cost is recovered is always the question, but I would suggest that each state put in place the procedure for sending the customer the bill FIRST before they presume to pass it along to a government agency or include the cost in markup over the cost of the hospital, where it will make things more expensive for others.

Nobody will be turned away from a hospital, and the costs will eventually be passed on to consumers if they don’t pay, or if it is for a $30K surgery they can get a lean on your property, or set up a set payment plan over 5 years. The IRS does it. I think the hospital should get theirs BEFORE the IRS does! It doesn’t seem like anyone has tried to get a method for the hospital to get their money back, instead everyone wants insurance after the fact, EVEN the hospital!

And really if you have real estate assets, or other money in the bank, a 401K, a pension plan, but are not paying your hospital bill?

Obamacare is definitely not the same without the mandate, but without a fine, you can still put money in a bank to pay your own health expenses, as long as you don’t call it a Health Savings account. You probably could save a lot of money not buying insurance, just paying the bills when you have them. But if you wanted to protect your assets, you would probably, on your own, look for a health insurance company.

That personal responsibility would be good for insurance companies.

Fleuries on April 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM

If you want to know how ObamaCare was PASSED by the Supremes read the “Dred Scott” decision.

Their greatest fear is that their opinions will be ignored by the WH. They obviously don’t really care that much about liberty (after all that’s a vague philosophical issue to them); their interest is in power. Period!

They will offer a decision that keeps the on top – the SUPREMES.

rpupton on April 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

“Does Wall St. know how the Obamacare hearing ends?”

I don’t know.

Kevin M on April 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM

It is ASININE and incredibly ignorant to believe the approval of Obamacare is good for insurance companies. Matt O’Brian and Jazz Shaw have their heads up their rear ends to think so.
To think that the unlimited expansion in enrollments is even economically viable in an INSURANCE framework demonstrates a gross ignorance of economics and the very mechanism by which healthcare insurers – ANY insurers – turn any profit at all.
They do so via actuarial tables and limited indemnity / exposure. By barring pre-existing conditions, or limiting them to a degree that their extreme costs do not swamp the profits made on folks that don’t get sick. It’s the very core of capitalism, taking in more than you pay out. To force a private ensurer – or nationalize the entire nation in a singgle-payer government healthcare system – to accept unlimited and unconstrainted clients means to lose all control of costs. When EVERYBODY is in the plan and the average medical expense is $10k/yr and the average premium is $4k/yr, your ‘plan’ is immediately insolvent. Bankrupt. Which mean costs MUST rise, or services must be cut. Or the loss must be subsidized.

The entire goal of the Obamacare legislation is the ruination of private insurance firms, the driving up of their costs and overburden of enrollments and the cessation of employer-provided healthcare, all forces combined to drive the herd into the arms of Socialized Medicine / National Healthcare. Obama promised it as his goal in 2007. He acknowledged there’d be intermediate steps to achieve that goal. THIS legislation is the intermediate step. Just as the contraception mandate via regulatory fiat is meant to force the shutdown of religion-based hospital systems – which run some 70% of all hospitals in this nation.
The marxists mean to herd us ALL into national healthcare, then choose who will be denied the greatly reduced services. Both for political / ideological reasons and for the power of it. And for the sick eugenics of it. Obama as much as admitted it two years ago during his endless campaigning for the bill, when he infamously told the woman from teh audience that her 90?100yr-old spirited mother would have to forego a pacemaker procedure ‘and just take the pain pill’.

It is FOOLISH to just blithely consider Obamacare as being acceptable in ANY way shape or form, or in the narrow rectal-vision of imaginary short term stock gains.

rayra on April 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Obama has already been “altering the deal” with them, such as the contraception and abortion pills “for free” mandate which will cost the insurance companies. And that won’t be the LAST such mandate. Obamacare means the government not only has the people by the balls, they also have the insurance companies by the balls.

wildcat72 on April 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Yeah, if O-care stands, BHO will know no limits.

IrishEyes on April 1, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Check Intrade on this issue.

Owen Glendower on April 1, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yay, my sister works for WellPoint and she is terrified of losing her job because of Obamacare.

rockmom on April 1, 2012 at 7:58 PM