Health insurance stocks rally 1.9% on prospect of Brown victory

Scott Brown, helping maintain the status quo and enriching the health insurance industry.

An index of health-care companies in the S&P 500 led the advance with a 1.9 percent rally. U.S. Democrats face the possibility of losing a Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy as voters in Massachusetts go to the polls. A loss could cost them a 60-vote supermajority needed to help pass a health- care overhaul.

Tags: Scott Brown, hcr, health insurance industry (all tags)



This is excellent news!!!

For Health Insurance Companies!!!

by the mollusk 2010-01-19 04:32PM | 0 recs
RE: This is excellent news!!!

Meh. Pass the senate bill unamended.

by Trey Rentz 2010-01-20 05:29AM | 1 recs
RE: This is excellent news!!!

Stocks dropped more than 122 points today wiping out more than all of yesterday's gains. The prospect of Brown's victory boosted health care stocks, but today, investor's realized that the lack of insurance in the United States gives American business a competitive disadvantage against foreign business.

by Zzyzzy 2010-01-20 07:17PM | 0 recs

CNBC has been pounding this all day, but it makes no sense.  Hasn't anybody noticed that health insurance stocks have been going up for weeks?  It has nothing to do with the situation in Massachusetts, which is unclear at best (both as to the recent polling, and as to what will happen if the GOP wins the seat).  The idea that investors are responding en masse to the Massachusetts election is a pleasing tale for CNBC, but it is very unlikely to be true.

by Steve M 2010-01-19 06:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

This is about more than health insurance reform, or the impact on insurance companies.

It's about something larger, something transformative: restoring free market capitalism, and ending the leftist assault on prosperity.

The only thing more ridiculous than Coakley's campaign was Obama's belief that a tax on banks would somehow galvanize voters. Voters care about bread and butter issues, (did someone say "jobs"?) and creating an economic climate where small businesses can begin hiring again. They don't believe in penalizing success.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-19 07:46PM | 1 recs
RE: Nah

Right, of course that must be it.

by Steve M 2010-01-19 10:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

I'm glad you care about prosperity so much.

Hows it treating you?

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-19 10:51PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

Since about March 9th of last year, it's been treating me very nicely, thank you.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-20 12:03AM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

So you are admitting you have experienced prosperity under Obama?

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-20 01:18AM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

For all the "leftist assults on prosperity" the largest economic collapses by far (GD and GR) have both been fostered under the guidance of right-wing free-marketers. Not to even mention the "penalizing success" tax which is an odd way to describe a fee which will merely recover monies provided to save banks from their own "success".

by vecky 2010-01-20 02:07AM | 1 recs
RE: Nah

Sure I am. Markets often experience a "dead cat bounce". After the S&P cratered to 666, it was fairly clear that we were going to have a recovery in equity markets.

That said, the Prez promised creation of 3.5 million new jobs in his first two years in office. I'd say he'd better get to my calculation, we need to come up with about 6.5 million jobs this year. Good the words of White House advisors, it's time to "pivot to jobs", and stop crapping around with things like "Cash for Caulkers" and Cap and Trade.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-20 09:56AM | 1 recs
RE: Nah

What we need is a massive federal government jobs program. The RWingers will scream that it's government "taking over the private sector", but no one believes them right...

by vecky 2010-01-20 11:58AM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

Yeah, let's pay people to rake leaves. Or better yet, to dig holes on even-numbered days, and then fill them up again on the odd-number ones.

Very few serious economists---on either side of the debate---believe in Federal Jobs programs as a means of fighting unemployment. I mean, look how well the $787 billion stimulus program is working.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-20 01:15PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

It's working pretty well, the portion that was devoted to jobs creation that it. The tax cut portion i'm not sure has had any effect on jobs, but I guess it did increase the deficit, so that's cool too.

by vecky 2010-01-20 04:16PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

"It's working pretty well"

Huh??? Do you even follow the monthly unemployment numbers?

FYI, unemployment surged from 7.9% to 10.2% during Obama's first year, with the real rate (that includes people who have stopped looking for work) at a lofty 17.2%.

Nothing like change you can believe in; if only such change was going in the right direction.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-20 08:00PM | 1 recs
RE: Nah

" Huh??? Do you even follow the monthly unemployment numbers? "

Oh yes, do you? Monthly job losses slowed from 700K a month when Obama was sworn it to less than 100K now. The economy is begining to emerge from the worst peacetime recession since the 1930's. The damage done by the failed policies of the last 10 years are hardly going to be overturned in a few months. The stimulus was designed to staunch the bleeding, and that it has done.

by vecky 2010-01-20 08:13PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

Morning after the election, and the market is down 150 points in the first hour.

Did people change their mind about that thing you label "freedom"?

The annoying thing about these theories ("the market is up because my preferred policies are being implemented!" "the market is down because my preferred policies are not being implemented!") is that you hear them over and over when the market moves in the right direction, and then the next day when the market moves in the other direction there's like a deathly silence.  But the debunked theory comes right back the next time there's a market move!

This sort of argumentation is barely worthy of the Fox Business Channel.

by Steve M 2010-01-20 10:33AM | 1 recs
RE: Nah

Follow the thread, and read the comments. The diarist tried to connect Brown's impending victory and market movements; my comments simply pointed out that Brown's election should be welcomed by the private sector, given this administration's hostility to business, and lack of understanding as to how the private sector works. Neither Obama nor Biden have ever even worked in the private sector, and show an appalling ignorance of basic economic theory. And worse yet, they show a Bush-ian lack of basic curiosity, or eagerness to learn anything about the private sector. There wasn't one business leader chosen for the Cabinet or team Obama; everyone came from academia, Wall Street, or somewhere else in government. Not a great way to reach out, or to get a team which truly "resembles America".

The dollar is rallying today, and markets often (though not always) move inversely with the value of the dollar. Traders also seem to be wary at what they see as China's efforts to tamp down growth.

That said, I agree with you that CNBC and other media outlets overdo it by claiming "the one answer" to predict and/or explain stock market movements. Kudlow and Cramer were tripping over each other yesterday trying to predict the new bull market which would begin today.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-20 01:36PM | 0 recs
RE: Nah

There are plenty of good reasons why the market is down today, very few of which have to do with politics.  My point is that there are plenty of equally good reasons why the market was up yesterday, but people arbitrarily chose to argue that the primary factor was the impending Massachusetts election.  Yeah, I'm sure the money managers at CalPERS were closely studying the latest ARG poll to decide whether to reinvest their portfolio.

All during last year's campaign, we heard from the wingnuts that the market was dropping because investors feared the consequences of Obama's likely election.  But over the last nine months as the market sustained an unprecedented rally, we mysteriously heard nothing about how Obama's job-killing leftist policies are the primary driver of market moves.  After a while even the WSJ crowd is going to stop buying their own bullshit.

by Steve M 2010-01-20 02:23PM | 0 recs
embarrassingly naive

Pay off your high interest debt, and while you're at it, do some reading... Then, and only then, put some of your money to work in the stock market.

by QTG 2010-01-21 12:26PM | 0 recs
RE: embarrassingly naive

I agree that it is "embarrassingly naive," but this is exactly how the hacks at CNBC were interpreting Monday's rally all day long.

by Steve M 2010-01-21 01:59PM | 0 recs
RE: embarrassingly naive

I know there isn't any real clear correlation.  I just like throwing this meat out there to satisfy my own view on the situation.

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-21 05:27PM | 0 recs
test comment

just a test

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-21 10:21PM | 0 recs
RE: test comment

a reply to the test

by Kyle Shank 2010-01-21 10:28PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads