Seeking Alpha

The issue of legality may have been settled on Obamacare, but the debate about the law is just...

The issue of legality may have been settled on Obamacare, but the debate about the law is just starting to heat up. Republican Rand Paul calls the decision "bone-headed," insisting that "The whole thing remains unconstitutional." Meanwhile, Democrat Nancy Pelosi went out on Twitter to declare "Victory for the American people!" One thing remains for sure: The uncertainty that has plagued the markets over this bill for the past two years shows no signs of abating any time soon.
Comments (17)
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1435) | Send Message
     
    Both liberals and conservatives should be outraged. Roberts today created a new law from the bench - the Roberts Rule which allows the federal government to order citizens to buy stuff. No where in the constitution is such a power enumerated to the federal government. The trick of labeling it a tax is a sham.
    This will not stop with health insurance - maybe there will be a new order for all citizens to buy a chevy volt.
    We are no longer a republic, a nation of laws. President Obama says if you don't like a law - disobey it. Half our supreme court says the Constitution means - whatever they say it means. All leading to lawlessness.
    28 Jun 2012, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (435) | Send Message
     
    You don't have to buy anything. But if you don't, you will pay a penalty on your tax return, which will help buy you insurance so when you go into the emergency room I am not paying your bill. It is a tax in that sense, yes. So are Social Security and Medicare taxes. If you work, whether for an employer or for yourself, you are MANDATED to pay those taxes. There is a reason that in Mass Romney called it the "insurance responsibility mandate".
    29 Jun 2012, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    Just ask yourself one question. What is the amount of the penalty for no policy. If it is crushingly large (And strongly enforced), people will buy the insurance and millions of poor will suffer. If it is small, nobody will buy insurance until needed. and the insurers will leave the marketplace.

     

    What is the workable alternative. Many of us do not like this policy, that said. I think we are all ready to play it for as long as it survives.

     

    That pot of new tax money will also be very tempting to use for other things )i.e. SS.....
    29 Jun 2012, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    I am politically neutral. As an investor, this is a tremendous win for the pharmacuetical related stock, the medical field both doctors and nurses, the healthcare insurance industry, and healthcare stocks. Their is a guaranteed income stream in both the form of mandatory health insurance and now tax obligations by the American taxpayers to pay for the costs of healthcare in advance, which essentially what health insurance is.

     

    This is also a win for wealthier investors because tax burdens for Medicare and Medicaid programs are shifted away from the wealthier taxpayer and placed on the lower-income consumer. This leaves opportunities for the wealthier to contribute to other social based welfare programs, reduce their tax burden through charitable donations, and in the same token, have additional income streams for re-investment of their own fund.

     

    The funds for taxes can be diverted to other programs.
    28 Jun 2012, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
     
    If you look up http://www.Vigilant Citizen.com and read about Madonna's recent Israeli concert, she moralizes about world peace to her Israeli audience while violence is promoted on stage and women with guns prance around in front of a Satanic cross. She is an example of the elitists who say one thing but mean another using " dual-speak." Nancy Pelosi's twitter, "Victory for the American people!" has a subtext; she is speaking directly to the lowest common denominator, the masses of misled and ignorant who actually will believe that the egregious healthcare law's enactment can be likened to a valiant and worthy battle. It's all an enticement.The cry of "victory" is indeed a pretension; and caring for the American people a deception; and the spoil like Esau giving up his birthtright for a meal.
    28 Jun 2012, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • torahislife
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Worse then Esau. She's giving up OUR birthright from some of that red red so she can drag our children to slave under Pharobama. What an obama-nation!
    28 Jun 2012, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
     
    I just don't get why our country embraced him and elected him. The first, very first, time I saw Mr. Obama, he impressed me as a fraud, and I thought we should run, run, run the other way. His demeanor, his tone, his thinking are unsettling to me; if one pays really close attention, his words are often saying one thing but the force of his actions say another.He often says his policy decisions are "the right thing to do." Really? That is a general statement that carries with it or intends to carry with it a certain moral authority, but to me it has the effect of reducing complex political, ethical, economic decisions to a dubious catchphrase in lieu of providing political truths and intellectual firepower to convince and substantiate. I really do not have a political agenda in terms of party: I would support a good candidate from either party. The SCOTUS by its ruling said ACA cannot be implemented under and interpreted broadly as part of the Commerce Clause but can be considered Constitutionally viable as a tax. Yet Mr. Obama can be heard on audiotape to George Stephanopoulos insisting his baby is NOT a TAX. Is there any wonder the markets are still plagued with uncertainty, as stated a above, when there is such confusion? Perhaps there was unanimity of opinion as to what ACA is from the beginning, just striking differences of opinion as to how to package and sell Obamacare to the public. I consider it obfuscation.
    29 Jun 2012, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4041) | Send Message
     
    Hi jean, I feel precisely the same way about Romney, with his trite and repetitious, phony sounding magnanimity and overblown self image.

     

    He constantly tries to be 'presidential' and it comes across as creepy, fake, and unsettling.

     

    As to why Mr. Obama was elected, perhaps you should consider who his competition was and what national sentiment was at the time.
    29 Jun 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
     
    @kmi: Thanks for responding to my comment and for not attacking me personally. It's good to get other peoples' views.. Frankly, and I think unfortunately, I feel pretty much the same as you do about Romney. The thing that concerns me the most is whether there is any substance or real conviction behind the rhetoric. As to your last comment about why Mr. Obama was elected, your 2 points are well taken. That's all I m going to say! and make a promise to myself not to bring up politics here again but put the main focus on the stock market!
    1 Jul 2012, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    Economically, their is a better business in the selling of health insurance. Revenues for health insurance companies will sky rocket. In other words, the newly created marketplace for health insurance, will lead to competitive pricing for health insurance. Health Insurance is now going to be viewed at the consumer level as a necessary expense such as food and shelter related expenses. The employed will need a market for health insurance outside of their employers. Their are also potential positive cost reductions for business in the form of employees looking outside the firm for health insurance and bearing the costs on their own. Their is a natural investment in the healthcare sector as a whole. So ETF's or funds designated for the healthcare sector will definitely be a good buy in the short-term. Then the demand for the funds in the healthcare sector in the intermediate term will drive up the value of the healthcare related stocks. Long run the necessity of healthcare insurance will keep the sector stabilized.
    28 Jun 2012, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    AIG American International Group was a huge topic of the financial crisis. The company was one of the companies receiving a massive Federal Bailout. Does today's ruling have to deal with a return on investments into AIG? Definitely their is stability long term with the mandatory health insurance reform. So politically neutral can you blame a President addressing it to appease constitutients, particularly in 2009/2012? I think the answer to solve his presidency to put an emphasis on the healthcare reform law. It appeases multiple parties, including less government spending, Meidcare and Medicaid politics, less government involvement in the healthcare sector. The burden through a regulation/statue/law is shifted to consumers.
    28 Jun 2012, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1435) | Send Message
     
    political partisans are cheering today but in the weeks and months to come the fallout will manifest itself. businesses will hire less and or lay off. healthcare costs will continue to soar. the federal government will now help you make decisions about healthcare. many will lose their private health plan. the irs will enforce the penalty for people who do not comply. the federal government can add on thousands of regulations - think outlawing soda or foods it deems not appropriate. someone has to pay for all of this and it will be the tax payer.
    your taxes will be used more than ever to fund abortion - the murder of the innocent
    28 Jun 2012, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    Net effect many buisinesses will look even more at offshoring to avoid the additional mandates and regulations. No business approaching 50 staff will cross that barrier. If they lower the barrier, then more jobs will leave our shores
    29 Jun 2012, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    RomneyCare was made constitutional today...
    28 Jun 2012, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (607) | Send Message
     
    It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans bought and paid for this decision, it is easier to force a new bill through Congress than it ever would have been to declare this act unconstitutional--even though the court could have done it.

     

    That issue aside, what you folks don't want to realize is that you are already paying these costs. There is a chance, however slight, that by providing health care to everyone, those that are currently uninsured and using the highest cost parts of our medical system (emergency rooms, for every little ailment), will be put into the main stream portion of our health care system where costs are dramatically lower.

     

    While i would prefer that we had a system where if you weren't insured, and couldn't post a bond to pay for your care, you got NO care, our world doesn't work than way....for now.

     

    This act isn't perfect, but no-one--Repub or Democrat, came forward with any other plan. So this is what we have. Who says there isn't a very high cost associated with these assholes in Washington squabling with one another over politics?

     

    That we need some relief, and some plan, is obvious.
    28 Jun 2012, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • sburger
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
     
    Dr. Stein made her position crystal clear, saying that, “We must implement a publicly administered non-profit system with no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays and no co-insurance. This kind of system is proven. It is providing affordable health care all across the developed world, and providing better health outcomes. It's the only fiscally sound approach to health care costs because it eliminates the inefficiencies of private insurance corporations, and provides effective cost controls. And it can’t reasonably be challenged on constitutional grounds."

     

    http://bit.ly/N07cnL
    28 Jun 2012, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • SmashFinance
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    This will only be great for insurance companies in the short run... what happens when premiums continue to rise, but the federal gov't puts a cap on what companies can charge?

     

    We already see the insurance commissioner of Massachusetts already rejecting calls for rate increases from companies in that state.

     

    Play the run-up, then .. ahem.. bail.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:57 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector