Seeking Alpha

If you're looking to trade on today's Supreme Court decision in healthcare - don't - warns CNBC...

If you're looking to trade on today's Supreme Court decision in healthcare - don't - warns CNBC Fast Money trader Stephen Weiss. “I wouldn’t do anything,” he says. The story isn't over so it's impossible to make an informed decision on anything. For example: “What if the public doesn’t like this – and Romney shoots higher in the polls?” Weiss asks. That changes the trade entirely.
Comments (18)
  • Unless you day traded the inverse healthcare ETFs today. Today was set up for huge volatility and in this news cycle where negativity sells, that is exactly what you got. The odds were 75%-25% on the negative side. Those ETFs were created for days like today.
    28 Jun 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • well, someone received leaked info early this morning. who was selling before the decision was announced? I watched UNH drop 2-3 bucks a good 30 secs to a minute before it hit the airways
    28 Jun 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • There was literally no outcome other than 100% repeal that would have satisfied the market today and 100% repeal was 100% not happening. Add to that, the news media who spins even a middle of the road story, negative....so you were either looking at small to mid drop or a large drop.
    28 Jun 2012, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • I don't know about opinion polls, but I'd guess one way to trade this news is to bet that next month's hiring reports will sour and the layoff reports will spike, as employers look to shed costs and employees, particularly any employers who think they can get under the 49-person limit to which Obamcare applies. If these results ensue, my guess is that the market won't take kindly to the news.
    28 Jun 2012, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • Tack –

     

    Every country has its own set of hang-ups respecting the proper role of the government when it comes to optimizing the availability of quality health care for the various sectors of its population and to ensuring that the escalation in cost of these services will be reasonably contained and that useful innovation and efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery are fostered. In each country the political process of navigating through these complex, highly charged and competing needs in light of traditions and past experience can lead to many dubious compromises and unintended consequences which obscure whether changes enacted will, in the final analysis, be found to have been productive (productive, in some cases, largely because they lead to later and more clearly beneficial enactments). To a foreign observer, the forgoing is especially illustrated at this time by the ongoing saga of US Federal health insurance legislation controversy.

     

    The following commentary by a conservative Canadian commentator well illustrates the dilemma the US faces:

     

    http://natpo.st/Mt9aA3

     

    That said, it should be reiterated that the US dilemma, while unique in detail and especially acute at present, is mirrored in often quite different form and details in all advanced modern countries.
    28 Jun 2012, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • Bob I read the piece you linked and the difference is both Canada and Europe, England etc have all had universal health care beyond 70 yrs. so current recipients have no way to judge good or bad because what they have is all they have known. Consider it wasnt to long ago that the Russians though our country was lawless ad poor because its all they knew from the propaganda they were fed. However they learned different when they could travel here and many wanted to stay.

     

    Our problem is we have excellent health care that is restricted by the government through bizarre rules about what can be offered and where it can be offered. Instead of allowing the system to be more accessible through competition the Dem decided they knew better and make no mistake the end game is total government control over health care, 100%. My understanding is Canada started their UHC the same as we are now, allowing insurance companies to provide coverage but slowly they could not comply with gov reg and make money so they went out of business until only the gov could provide health care. Right now the only insurance you can buy in Canada is supplemental thats it. That is our gov. end game plan as well, Medicade/ Medicare for everybody
    28 Jun 2012, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • "...the Dem decided they knew better and make no mistake the end game is total government control over health care, 100%."

     

    Yes and 100% population control as the HHS mandates provide. Immigrants may be welcome but not children.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman -

     

    I regret to say that you present the Canadian healthcare system here and in a later comment on this thread in unwarranted stereotypical terms – as a ‘straw man’ which is easy to attack in a way that is not informed or imformative. Also, your suggestion that Canadians are ignorant of the advantages and disadvantages of the US health care system – ignorant in a way and implicitly for analogous reasons as the citizens of a closed society such as that of the USSR – does little substantive to advance your case. The purpose of my earlier comment was not to argue the merits of the plans in force in each of Canada’s 10 Provinces (I could do so but this is ground that we have all traversed many times over the past 4 years) but rather to observe how intrinsically difficult it is in any advanced democratic country currently to make fundamental changes to its system of health care delivery.

     

    When it comes to health care delivery in each advanced, modern democratic society, that society in its own unique way (i.e. a way flowing out of its traditions and experience) arguably struggles to maintain a productive balance amongst 4 somewhat competing goals:
    1. Establish and maintain optimum quality of services and service delivery.
    2. Ensure inclusive delivery of services equitably throughout the society.
    3. Promote innovation that fosters goals 1 and 2.
    4. Achieve efficient and effective cost control consistent with goals 1 to 3.
    Arguably the US system is good at addressing goals 1 and 3 and, while the so called Obama-care package would go some way over time to address goal 3, the addressing of goal 4 remains, at best, an elusive work in progress. By contrast, I would argue that the Canadian system clearly addresses goals 2 and 4 better than does the US system currently but that its progress respecting goals 1 and 3, while for the most part as successful as the US system in general terms, is surpassed by the US system to some extent in some areas. My point here, however, is not to argue that the US should adopt some version of the Canadian system – the two countries have different histories and accumulated experiences and it is significant that the US has about 10 times Canada’s population. Rather, my point is that achieving significant improvement in the health care system in any advanced society (i.e. improvement measured with reference to all 4 goals listed above) is very difficult and depends upon a willingness of the society to maturely consider what might be the best expression of its traditions and history in the current context as needed to productively foster significant improvement in its health care system across all 4 goals. Do you really think this is now being achieved in the US in light of the course of the political trench warfare experienced over the past 5 or so years?
    29 Jun 2012, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • Bob- this ACA was forced on us, somebody told us we didnt know what was good for us so they had to. Do you really believe thats the way it should work. Obama used a fallacious argument to make his point to the general masses, that we are required by law to buy auto insurance. Well yes but only if we own a car which is something the admin cant force us to buy, owning a car is a privilege not a right. Yet anyway

     

    As it relates to Canada health care, tell me Im wrong and show me where concerning how there current system of health care came to be and the aftermath to its insurance industry.

     

    Relating to Canada, I dont recall implying " Canadians are ignorant of the advantages and disadvantages of the US health care system" Just that they only know how theres works, as do the French and Brits and from what Ive read and from those who I've spoken to who do know all say our system definitely has its benefits over theres. they is no comparison except to mimic there system of HC would be a downgrade of ours.

     

    Health care as it is currently designed doesnt work as well as it could, I believe many things could have been done to make it more affordable, more accessible without compromising quality. What you saying is NO, only Gov can, could and would be able to get it right.

     

    You must love how well Medicare works, how efficient it is, the high quality of service it provides and how well it controls its costs so that it is revenue neutral. Check out http://1.usa.gov/JB1O77 in which they tell us both SS and Medicaire are insolvent and without reform will implode. I guess thats why ACA cuts $500 billion out of Medicare, to the determent of those in need.

     

    Yes BOB I dont have a clue, your right ACA is the medicine we all need to take because its fair and the righy thing to do no matter the end affect to all.
    29 Jun 2012, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Canada achieved #2 & 4 by delivering equal lower quality to all, its really that simple, the same will be done in the US.

     

    Here are some headlines from Canadian newspapers on its helath care:
    vow broken on cancer wait times:
    most hospitals across Canada fail to meet Ottawa four-week guideline for radiation
    Patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
    Back patients waiting years for treatment:
    Study the doctor is . . . out

     

    Also read this for some up close facts about the Canadian health care system from someone who has a front seat view of it http://bit.ly/Nbyk0T
    29 Jun 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman –

     

    The commentary I included in my July 28th comment above was by a Canadian conservative journalist. I think you’ll find the following commentary by a centrist Canadian journalist equally interesting.

     

    http://bit.ly/N0LCkv

     

    The thrust of both journalist is that public policy in any advanced democracy relating to national health care delivery is an issue that is too important for us all to fall back on old bromides and assumptions – the challenges that the future will present and the rapid evolution of demographics, technology and economics of scale will overwhelm the status quo and it will be much better for all concerned this transition is guided by intelligent and open-minded public debate.

     

    The array of comments that follow that commentary give an interesting cross section of public concerns Canadians express about the current state of the health care plans across Canada. My own view is that the basic structure of the Plans in each of the Provinces is sound but that the quality of service could be increased and costs reduced significantly if the roles of Registered Nurses were expanded, joint practice by Family Practitioners and qualified RNs was encouraged, the Plans moved significantly away from fee-for-service to more flexible remuneration of health care providers and the local authorities administering the Plans at the community level attained greater flexibility (within the scope established by their Provincial Plan) to oversee the availability of services in light of the circumstances of their communities. I also agree with those who observe that since 1995 there has been too great a focus of cost containment at the expense of the other 3 goals I set out in an earlier comment.

     

    The preceding paragraph should not obscure, however, the important point which is that there are many viable national health care delivery models throughout the world and that a Manichean fixation on the current status quo vs. ‘socialist’ (as so much of US political debate appears to do) or on the current status quo vs. ‘US health care’ (as so much of Canadian debate appears to do) only serves to close down an intelligent public debate from which (if such debate was fostered) intelligent public policy could evolve through the democratic process.
    30 Jun 2012, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • OK Bob so lets agree to disagree but let me just give you these telling statements.

     

    In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds."

     

    He went on the say this:
    All Canadians have access to similar care (as US.) at a considerably lower cost." There is "no question" that the lower cost has come at the cost of "restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services," said Bell. A new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public websites.

     

    So as I said previously which these statement confirm. In Canada they pay less, they get rationing of care , they get less quality care and they wait longer for it.

     

    There is a saying "the bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten" Most people in countries with some form of UHC want better access, better quality, less rationing but dont want to pay for it and that is the dilemma these countries now face.

     

    So if you want to argue about the facts dont waste your time with me talk to the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto

     

    Also Ive said that we need to reform our health care system which almost everybody agrees with but that was never an option for us to consider because Obama had his own vision to force on America a single payer health care system and has said so before and after the election "Thank god for You Tube" and that means only one thing Government controlled health care AKA Medicare. This ACA is his foot in the door, within ten years it will be replaced with Medicare.
    1 Jul 2012, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman –

     

    Actually, on the matters addressed in your most recent comment we partially agree (although we differ on the best way forward). When the current funding arrangements for the Canadian health care systems were first negotiated, the Canadian Federal Government agreed to reimburse each of the Provinces (including the Territories) for half their annual costs for the operation of that Province’s health care delivery Plan. In return, each Province agreed that its Plan would conform to several overarching criteria: the services they provided would be publically administered, comprehensive respecting medically necessary services, available and accessible to all residents of the Province and accorded to residents of other Provinces while visiting. In other words, there is a single payer system established under the auspices of the Government in each Province that provides universal coverage of publically funded (but largely privately delivered) medical services to the residents of that Province (and visitors from other Provinces) and the original concept was that Canada’s Federal Government would defray 50% of the annual cost of each Plan.

     

    In 1995 the Canadian Federal Government embarked upon a significant fiscal austerity program which had a major impact on the transfer payments it made to the Provinces, including the funding just outlined for Provincial Plan expenditures. This Federal austerity (and corresponding austerity in several of the Provinces) had the important benefit of significantly reducing Canadian public sector debt during the 12 years preceding the 2007/8 global economic meltdown (thereby allowing Canada to weather the subsequent global recession quite well) but it did put a serious constraint upon the capacity of each Province to fund the further development of its health care services since 1995. This has highlighted the issue of the adequacy of available services to which you refer.

     

    My observation in light of the forgoing is that
    (a) By their nature the demands (independent of cost) for health care services naturally grow well in excess of funding available under any system (public or private) of health care service delivery funding. In other words, we all have an insatiable demand for these services, especially near the end of life.
    (b) It follows (as resources, public or private, available are inherently limited) that constraint on the delivery of these services will of necessity exist. For example, in the US significant portions of the population have minimal or inadequate health care coverage because they can not afford insurance and public subsidization of coverage for them is low or absent while in several Canadian Provinces patients with chronic but assumed to be non life threatening conditions must endure longer waiting periods in some cases than is optimal.
    (c) Where the shortfalls described in paragraph (b) are deemed acute, there are ways in which the US and Canada can each respond in light of its political culture.
    (d) For a number of reasons based in history, the path forward for Canada is better delineated (i.e. the framework is in place for the negotiation of service levels and funding – difficult though the negotiation along that path may be). I leave it to you and your fellow citizens to consider what the best US pathway might be and how it should be negotiated.
    1 Jul 2012, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • so will a fast money trader sit on his hands until the election?
    snooze and you lose. dont watch profits or gains evaporate
    did he see the massive losses in retail and discretionary income plays? will he watch the financials get clobbered?
    watch businesses pull in their horns on spending and hiring. these same fast money traders agreed that "uncertainity" is holding things back. anyone think business will feel more certain after today?
    28 Jun 2012, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • there are lots of sectors and stocks to trade/invest away from financials and health care. best way to lose money is to go into a position without conviction or with incomplete information.
    28 Jun 2012, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • You are assuming the Romnebeest is fleet footed enough to even be able to incorporate SCOTUS into his campaign. HE hasn't even addressed lower oil prices (whatever happend to 'blame the speculators,' ?) or joined the chorus to get rid of Eric Holder...two gift wrapped issues. Nah! Lets see his wife tell us how wonderful wimmin' are......
    28 Jun 2012, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • Obamacare is a subsidy for insurance companies in that it forces people to buy their product, but it is also a tax in that it forces options into contracts that are not paid for. Obamacare is also a subsidy for the consumption of healthcare, but like all subsidies it can do nothing to increase the supply.

     

    The likely outcome could be that initially insurance companies do very well, but then their payouts start to outpace their new income streams as healthcare is bid up by the consumption subsidies. It will be like banks in a real estate bubble. Profits skyrocket, and the stimulus is declared a victory. Then the bubble bursts, and greedy politicians declare that free markets don't work.

     

    So the insurance companies could run up in value for a few years, then implode, but instead of bailouts, they are nationalized into a single insurer (like the FDIC for banks). Then presto, you have a single payer, which is what this was all about in the first place. So if you could ride the insurance bubble to the top and get out there, you may be able to turn some of this to your advantage. Although, when you are in line at the DMV trying to figure out why the database that collects your premiums has you in its records, but the database that pays out claims does not, you may wonder if the advantage was enough.
    28 Jun 2012, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Obamacare is the first step to single payer government health care like in Canada. The key is to regulate the public insurance companies out of business just like Canada did. I agree that the ACA will seem to work fine but over time quality will erode and costs will rise and rationing will follow. Dem love to talk about the success of medicare and how everybody using it loves it, the only problem is its bankrupt and that is with then paying less and less to Drs. At some point soon the entire program will be based on providing the least amount of care possible.
    28 Jun 2012, 05:27 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)