Health-Care Stocks Up After House OK's Overhaul

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
THE NEWS: Health-care stocks led the stock market higher Monday after the U.S. House Sunday approved a historic health-care overhaul designed to bring health insurance to 32 million more Americas while subjecting U.S. industries to a dramatically redrawn and newly regulated marketplace.

MARKET ACTION: U.S. stocks gained broadly, led by a surge in health-care stocks.

The Dow's pharmaceutical components strengthened, as drug makers are expected to profit from the expansion of health-care coverage. Merck rose 2.3%, while Pfizer climbed 1.5%.

Hospital operator Tenet Healthcare rose 6.1%, while insurer Cigna gained 1.9% and Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit manager, rose 2.1%. Pharmaceutical companies also climbed, with Eli Lilly up 1.3% and Bristol-Myers Squibb up 0.6%.

WINNERS & LOSERS: Health-care providers, drug companies and device makers are expected to see a neutral or even a positive impact from the legislation. Hospitals, clinical laboratories and pharmaceutical companies will see a deluge of new customers and could potentially benefit if millions of more Americans are insured.

The outlook may not be so rosy for insurers. Though they will gain enrollees, they also face a raft of new regulations that would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions -- and limit their ability to differentiate insurance premiums based on a customer's age and other factors.

Also, Medicare providers will face both cuts and new regulatory restrictions.

Business groups have lambasted the legislation, saying the requirement to provide health coverage would be an impediment for future hiring.

NEW TAXES, COSTS: The health-care overhaul bill will be paid for by nearly $ 438 billion in new taxes and fees on high-income Americans, drug and medical device makers and health insurers.

High-income earners will face a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income, a 0.9% surtax on earned income, higher Medicare taxes and a 40% excise tax on generous health-care plans, dubbed "Cadillac plans."

A tax on medical devices manufacturers was reduced to 2.3%, but will apply to a broader range of devices.

Pharmaceutical companies would face $28 billion in fees over the next ten years and would have to provide deep discounts on prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D program.

STUDENT LOAN CHANGES: The health-care bill included a major shake-up of the student loan industry Sunday, ending most private banks' ability to originate lending in the market. Ending such origination fees will save the taxpayers an estimated $68 billion over 10 years. However, private banks still can earn money servicing student loans.

WHAT THEY SAID:

"There're a lot of people who were uninsured, who will start behaving differently in an environment where they will go to the doctor, get lab tests and take prescription drugs," says Derek Taner, a lead manager of the AIM Global Health Care Fund.

"We will have an effort to repeal the bill" House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R, Ohio) told NBC's "Meet The Press," on what the Republicans will do if they retake the House in the fall elections. "I'd have a bill on the floor the first thing out, to eliminate the Medicare cuts, eliminate the tax increases, eliminate the mandate that every American has to buy health insurance, and the employer mandate that's going to kill jobs," he said

"I look forward to the campaign in November . . . and I very much look forward to the Republican Party running on a platform of repealing this bill,"" Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio)

"It even puts new taxes on medical devices like wheelchairs, oxygen and pacemakers and incredibly, on drugs used to treat cancer and heart disease," Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) said.

"I was unable to find anything in there that would cause me to have anxiety if I were a shareholder in a pharmaceutical company," said Ira Loss, a senior health-care analyst at the research firm Washington Analysis.

Sanofi-Aventis SA (SNY) Chief Executive Christopher Viehbacher said in an interview that the impact of the legislation will be neutral to slightly negative "but better for the industry than if healthcare reform didn't pass."

"I don't think the market was surprised by the passage, and we should remember that when the Senate passed their bill on Christmas Eve, the market held up fine," said Mike O'Rourke, chief market strategist at BTIG, an institutional broker.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...ealth-care-stocks-up-after-house-oks-overhaul
 
Not surprising but if they loved it so much, why spend over $200 million to resist it?

Wow, naive.

You do know corporations bet on both sides. How much do you think they spent to support it?

Do you think it would have passed WITHOUT insurance company support?
 
Health Insurance Companys wrote the heath care bill:smh:.

if they did they did a piss poor job of protecting their interests.

  1. deny children insurance due to preexisting conditions on all new plans.

  2. gives immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool (a PUBLIC option!!!!)

  3. they can no longer drop people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans

  4. Lower seniors' prescription drug prices by beginning to close the fucking donut hole

  5. Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage (this is ME motherfuckers!!!)

  6. Eliminates lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans

  7. covers dependent children until age 26

  8. Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing

  9. lets consumers get an appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions (like them going up on my policy cause i weigh 220 lbs. i'm at 14% body fat. i AINT fat.)

  10. Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs. (in other words, CEOs will make LESS money and their businesses will be taxed more.)
 
Nice try. LOL. But I'm not sure everyone here understands the fallacy of cause and effect.

QueEx

I know but it makes them feel smart to think they know something no one else knows.

It was never, to my understanding, a bill that was going to hurt or shut down health insurers. The plan was always more towards greater federal regulation of a system that had run amok. Health insurance companies were going to be winners in this no matter who won, the difference would be by how much and they wanted to win as big as they could. Stocks were going to rise no matter how this shook out.
 
It was never, to my understanding, a bill that was going to hurt or shut down health insurers. The plan was always more towards greater federal regulation of a system that had run amok. Health insurance companies were going to be winners in this no matter who won, the difference would be by how much and they wanted to win as big as they could. Stocks were going to rise no matter how this shook out.

In following your logic, Couldn't we demand regulation without a mandate being placed on ME, you or any other American?

As you may know, I prefer market-based solutions & they azz shoulda been out of business a couple yrs ago. Once we allow these behemoths to fall, new business models emerge, low & behold, prices will come down as well. All the govt is doing is allowing these people to keep prices high & in doing so, eroding your civil liberties
 
In following your logic, Couldn't we demand regulation without a mandate being placed on ME, you or any other American?

As you may know, I prefer market-based solutions & they azz shoulda been out of business a couple yrs ago. Once we allow these behemoths to fall, new business models emerge, low & behold, prices will come down as well. All the govt is doing is allowing these people to keep prices high & in doing so, eroding your civil liberties

In theory, we could but I don't believe it would work as well without a mandate. I fully supported the mandate as long as there was a low cost public option to compete with private insurance companies. As it stands now, the penalties with noncompliance are nearly nothing. Not sure how that's going to work or stand after the bill is complete but that was one of the caveats that got certain liberal members of the House on board.

I prefer market based solutions but I believe that there should be strong oversight because in every single instance when the oversight in lax, the abuses are huge.
 
WINNERS & LOSERS: Health-care providers, drug companies and device makers are expected to see a neutral or even a positive impact from the legislation. Hospitals, clinical laboratories and pharmaceutical companies will see a deluge of new customers and could potentially benefit if millions of more Americans are insured.




Drugs, Labor and Colonial Expansion
William Jankowiak; Daniel Bradburd


The emergence of European powers on the world scene after the fifteenth century brought with it more than the subjugation of colonized peoples; it also brought an increase in the market for drugs, which until then had seen little distribution beyond their lands of origin. Growth in trade required goods for which there was demand, and drugs filled that role neatly.
This book explores how Europeans introduced and used drugs in colonial contexts for the exploitation and placation of indigenous labor. Combining history and anthropology, it examines the role of drugs in trade and labor during the age of western colonial expansion. From considering the introduction of alcohol in the West African slave trade to the use of coca as a labor enhancer in the Andes, these original contributions examine both the encouragement of drug use by colonial powers and the extent to which local peoples' previous experience with psychoactive substances shaped their use of drugs introduced by Europeans.

The authors show that drugs possessed characteristics that made them a particularly effective means for propagating trade or increasing the extent and intensity of labor. In the early stages of European expansion, drugs were introduced to draw people, quite literally, into relations of dependency with European trade partners. Over time, the drugs used to intensify the amount and duration of labor shifted from alcohol, opium, and marijuana—which were used to overcome the drudgery and discomfort of physical labor—to caffeine-based stimulants, which provided a more alert workforce.


If you don't remember history you are going to repeat it. We are about to see more people using legal drugs and become addicts in the process. National health care is great in theory but when it is ran by the government it cannot be good.
 
Back
Top