The campaign issue that I contend ought to make a difference to voters as well as investors is health care reform.
If you are a history buff, you might enjoy thinking of the differences, quite important ones, between the way the Soviets planned their economies in contrast to AFTER the Chinese allowed capitalism in some rather large and previously failed or failing sectors of their economy.
The POLICY implications for how hospitals, health insurers, medical providers and drug or device developers pursue their business interests is whether we stay on course with Obamacare that may be hiding problems for the next adminstration to attempt to solve, or, whether we change course, and, if changing from Obamacare, is it the Sanders path to make it bolder and simpler under government controls, or, is it the Trump distributed network of competing pathways?
The topic of concern for health care is a flag flying high, in different directions, for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders as well as for Donald Trump.
Hillary has put herself on the ballot as both the opportunity for voting for the legacy of her efforts to reform health care while she was previously sharing the White House with Bill Clinton, and, she has the flag of the Obama Biden Clinton administration's signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, to defend and even to extend. Those legacies involve a lot of stakeholders, lobbyists and organized groups that deliver campaign contributions and votes. This is her turf and she will bring all the advantages her supporters expect from her.
Bernie is focused on a single payer. Go for managed care. Be more direct than Hillary. Both Hillary and Bernie are heading towards the idea of mandatory managed care, mandatory government direct employees, but Hillary has a more Byzantine road map for special interests to travel to their benefit so long as also to her benefit.
Donald Trump is focused on shifting choices away from managed care back to patients, and, Donald Trump has promised to reinvigorate tax advantaged health care funding by patients rather than other stakeholders. A lot of this is Reaganesque.
I bring this up only as a way to test if others want to see it presented in articles from my opinionated experiences. If sufficiently encouraged, I will try to write more. Is the potential reader interested more in the election impact on pipelines or business investments about sub sectors like hospitals? What about impacts on segments, such as drug makers (JNJ, PFE) or drug marketers (CVS, RAD) or device makers (SYK, MDT)? Finally, should the focus be on either academic contributions to future products or perhaps the regulatory agencies (FDA)? Congress has largely decided that adding earmarked funding for NIH is good politics. Is it also good economic policy? Before I start dredging up and publishing my experiences and posting my biased assessments of what is going right or wrong in health care, this posting invites some interactin with potential readers.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.