Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BusinessWeek)   Returns on Obamacare investment fund are more than double the S&P 500 and more than triple the Repeal Obamacare fund. Obviously some sort of socialist conspiracy is at work   (businessweek.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, obamacare, 3D printing, diagnostics, ETFs, Mendelssohn, WellPoint, financial risk, investment fund  
•       •       •

1655 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Feb 2014 at 6:57 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-22 04:20:08 PM  
Ha ha!
 
2014-02-22 04:33:53 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-22 04:49:58 PM  
Stupid Invisible Hand.
 
2014-02-22 04:56:54 PM  
Nice focus on short term gains. Of course the winners will win big with Obamacare. The government printing presses churn on, until we resemble the Weimar Republic.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com

/actually a warning against q.e. in general too
 
2014-02-22 05:12:46 PM  
Which fund are the insurance companies in? I didn't see them mentioned.
 
2014-02-22 05:15:35 PM  

RobertBruce: Nice focus on short term gains. Of course the winners will win big with Obamacare. The government printing presses churn on, until we resemble the Weimar Republic.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com

/actually a warning against q.e. in general too


Yeah, it's only fair to look at the short term when you're examining problems, like web site design.
 
2014-02-22 05:20:46 PM  
What's farked up is even the fund getting ass raped by obamacare sticking around is up 13%. Is there anyone in healthcare that doesn't sleep on piles of cash?
 
2014-02-22 06:11:11 PM  

NickelP: What's farked up is even the fund getting ass raped by obamacare sticking around is up 13%. Is there anyone in healthcare that doesn't sleep on piles of cash?



The people who process the claims. I speak from experience on that one.
 
2014-02-22 07:05:18 PM  

RobertBruce: Nice focus on short term gains. Of course the winners will win big with Obamacare. The government printing presses churn on, until we resemble the Weimar Republic.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 553x436]

/actually a warning against q.e. in general too


Sure, sweetie, this inflation you've been wetting yourself over is juuuuuuussst around the corner, for real this time, just like it has been since Obama took office
 
2014-02-22 07:07:03 PM  

fusillade762: Which fund are the insurance companies in? I didn't see them mentioned.


The insurance carriers bought and paid for a law that guarantees them a massive expansion in enrollment. WLP, AET, and HUM are up 50% over the past 12-13 months. We never got health care reform, only health insurance reform, and we got precisely the type of health insurance reform that the health insurance company lobbyists permitted us to have. (This should surprise nobody, regardless of partisan stance.)

The fact that they can't figure out how to timely process applications reflects an epic fail on the part of both the federal/state exchanges and the private insurers, but that's a customer service and IT issue, not a partisan one, so it gets little mainstream coverage. As time goes on, the applications get processed, and the new customers get added to the risk pool. The question is, who are these new customers?

Going forward, the stocks of insurance companies will reflect the degree to which the actual risk pool matches the projected risk pool. If young and healthy people are scared away from buying even the cheapest Bronze plan, the stocks will underperform.

A healthy 26-year-old "Young Invincible" making $100K gets no subsidy and pays $200/month for a Bronze plan. A 26-year-old making $20K gets a full subsidy and pays $50/month for the same plan, but as long as he bought the plan through an exchange, the insurance company gets the full amount of the premium.

The premiums for high-deductible (Bronze) insurance are higher than the pre-ACA premiums for high-deductible insurance, but that's because they have to account for the actuarial risk the insurers take because they can no longer deny for pre-existing conditions. Our hypothetical Young Invincible pays more for a Bronze plan, but that's because he or she could come down with cancer at any moment, and could simply upgrade to a $600/month ($7K/year) Platinum plan at the next open enrollment period. Or they could remain on a Bronze plan and pay the approximate $6K out-of-pocket maximum and $1-2K in premiums depending on their subsidy level. When you're talking about a $100K/year course of chemotherapy, it doesn't make much difference out-of-pocket or not.

The open question for the insurance industry's stocks is whether there are enough Young Invincibles (cash cows) to make up for the losses they take on the Otherwise Uninsurables (guaranteed actuarial losses who will be able to get insurance).

The insurance industry itself is in no long-term danger here; if the risk corridors are all borked up, the carriers can simply lobby for larger subsidies to cover the increased premiums in future years, and so long as they can do so without single payer becoming a viable political option, they'll get it. Many consumers of insurance and health care (myself included) would prefer single payer to the present hybrid system, but consumers don't have lobbyists and their opinions don't count.

Consider the political implications of extending the subsidies to the point of absurdity: everyone has guaranteed access to "free" insurance -- not actual single-payer, but a everyone gets a 100% subsidy towards their premiums, regardless of income level. In such a case, would there really be a clamor for single payer and the elimination of the insurers as unnecessary middlemen? Single payer is a perfectly reasonable economic policy, but a non-starter politically. Despite the absurdity of a 100% subsidy for all insurance premiums, I think we'd see a de facto guaranteed basic income for the insurance companies before we'd see single-payer. The only people who would argue for single payer on the basis of its efficiency are disinterested economists, of which there are none on Capitol Hill, and very few on Wall Street.
 
2014-02-22 07:10:54 PM  

ghare: RobertBruce: Nice focus on short term gains. Of course the winners will win big with Obamacare. The government printing presses churn on, until we resemble the Weimar Republic.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 553x436]

/actually a warning against q.e. in general too

Sure, sweetie, this inflation you've been wetting yourself over is juuuuuuussst around the corner, for real this time, just like it has been since Obama took office


Better keep stocking up on gold.
 
2014-02-22 07:13:31 PM  

Twilight Farkle: The fact that they can't figure out how to timely process applications reflects an epic fail on the part of both the federal/state exchanges and the private insurers, but that's a customer service and IT issue, not a partisan one, so it gets little mainstream coverage.


Yeah, we barely heard about troubles with signing up for insurance this fall. Why, you'd have had to read at least one piece of news from any place that had news at any time during the space between October and January to have caught it. Who has time to read one piece of news in the span of 4 months?
 
2014-02-22 07:50:28 PM  
And McDonald's is always a good investment. Doesn't make the food better.
 
2014-02-22 07:50:56 PM  
Returns on a fund that invests in the industry that the government basically bailed out through a mandate saying you had to buy one of their products is doing well? I am shocked
 
2014-02-22 07:52:58 PM  
So the fund that was designed to profit from the law did better than the fund that was based on speculating that the law would be struck down or repealed?  No kidding.

From what I hear, bets on the Seahawks did significantly better than bets on the Broncos.
 
2014-02-22 08:01:45 PM  
Motif Investing...

Give me a hundred shares of the "Global Financial/Spiritual/Moral Bankruptcy and Unprecedented Bloodshed in My Premium Lifetime Fund," please. Please pay returns in rice and young flesh.
 
2014-02-22 08:43:21 PM  

RobertBruce: The government printing presses churn on, until we resemble the Weimar Republic.


I have been hearing this crap since Jan 20th 2009. Mostly by Paultards. You are Paultard, or just a regular tard?
 
2014-02-22 08:43:57 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: RobertBruce: The government printing presses churn on, until we resemble the Weimar Republic.

I have been hearing this crap since Jan 20th 2009. Mostly by Paultards. You are Paultard, or just a regular tard?


and of course I fark up the words thanks to my cold and sound pretty tardy myself...
 
2014-02-22 08:48:06 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Twilight Farkle: The fact that they can't figure out how to timely process applications reflects an epic fail on the part of both the federal/state exchanges and the private insurers, but that's a customer service and IT issue, not a partisan one, so it gets little mainstream coverage.

Yeah, we barely heard about troubles with signing up for insurance this fall. Why, you'd have had to read at least one piece of news from any place that had news at any time during the space between October and January to have caught it. Who has time to read one piece of news in the span of 4 months?


I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been: the point was that the insurance carriers' own back offices have been at least as incompetent as even the worst-managed health exchange websites. Typical example: client fills out form on health exchange's website, gets no bill for six weeks, the exchange (not knowing about the insurer) sends out reminders to the client to pay the bill (what bill?), the client then wastes several hours on hold at the insurance company trying to pay before the deadline, because the insurance company's website requires an account number in order to accept payment -- and the client doesn't get an account number before they get an invoice, and the deadline for the first premium payment can come and go long before an invoice ever arrives.

There have been relatively few stories like this one or this one that emphasize that the actual bottleneck is in large part due to the insurance carriers, vs. 4-month drumbeat over the political implications of the status of healthcare.gov.

If I were more cynical, I might think it's also got something to do with the fact that health insurers are potential advertisers, and IT contractors aren't...
 
2014-02-22 08:52:07 PM  
I have no doubt that this information will be received in a calm and rational manner by certain elements here, and that a reasoned and convivial discussion will result.
 
2014-02-22 09:14:09 PM  

jso2897: I have no doubt that this information will be received in a calm and rational manner by certain elements here, and that a reasoned and convivial discussion will result.


I'll start it off. It would be wise to invest in sectors that have the backing of the notoriously violent and powerful U.S. government. Northrop Grumman stocks payed for my lobotomy.
 
2014-02-22 09:23:45 PM  
Twilight Farkle:
There have been relatively few stories like this one or this one that emphasize that the actual bottleneck is in large part due to the insurance carriers, vs. 4-month drumbeat over the political implications of the status of healthcare.gov.

There have been relatively few stories like that because, for the most part, most reporters haven't had the balls to gloss over the healthcare.gov flaws as much as those reporters.

You see, the cornerstone of this huge government healthcare expansion was supposed to be the ability to sign up online through the healthcare.gov site, which would then pass the application to the insurance carriers. Unfortunately, the site designers screwed things up so completely that the computerized applications got hosed. Which meant that the insurance companies had to drop back and punt, processing those hundreds of thousands of applications by hand. It's actually harder than doing the applications from scratch, because the data is so screwed up that they're getting problems with merged records (wrong addresses and names) or files that just flat never got passed through the system.

The Obamacare folks knew about these problems since early 2013 - it wasn't a surprise to anyone directly involved. The insurance carriers were telling the government folks about those problems for months and months. They told them, specifically, that it was going to fail if healthcare.gov didn't work.
 
2014-02-22 09:32:08 PM  

BMFPitt: So the fund that was designed to profit from the law did better than the fund that was based on speculating that the law would be struck down or repealed?  No kidding.

From what I hear, bets on the Seahawks did significantly better than bets on the Broncos.

[ [ are.you.a.wizard.jpg ] ]


Now, what am I gonna do with all this popcorn?
 
2014-02-22 10:32:49 PM  
Insurance, the biggest scam ever, has now been force-ably shoved up every American's a$$...I am shocked, SHOCKED that money is being made hand over fist (that is up American's a$$es) by the people that bought/paid for our congress/president.

Every person elected during my lifetime (Congress/Senate/President) sold out America to the corporations (Bush=Haliburton...Obama=GM/Goldman Sachs/BoA). They should all be tried and convicted of treason and should at LEAST spend the rest of their lives in prison. The people that bought them should also be tried and convicted of treason and sentenced to death while the companies that they work for should be bared from doing business inside US borders for no less than a decade.

Until that is done, nothing will 'get better' (bye bye middle class) for America and its people and if you think that ANYTHING else is gonna 'work' you just don't 'get it', you likely never will 'get it', and are a major reason that things got this bad to begin with.
 
2014-02-23 12:53:34 AM  

Divinegrace: Insurance, the biggest scam ever, has now been force-ably shoved up every American's a$$...I am shocked, SHOCKED that money is being made hand over fist (that is up American's a$$es) by the people that bought/paid for our congress/president.

Every person elected during my lifetime (Congress/Senate/President) sold out America to the corporations (Bush=Haliburton...Obama=GM/Goldman Sachs/BoA). They should all be tried and convicted of treason and should at LEAST spend the rest of their lives in prison. The people that bought them should also be tried and convicted of treason and sentenced to death while the companies that they work for should be bared from doing business inside US borders for no less than a decade.

Until that is done, nothing will 'get better' (bye bye middle class) for America and its people and if you think that ANYTHING else is gonna 'work' you just don't 'get it', you likely never will 'get it', and are a major reason that things got this bad to begin with.


Obama is so much worse for getting in bed with insurance companies. He's helping care for Americans, when the American thing to do is invade countries and kill a shiat load of brown people.
 
2014-02-23 02:16:04 AM  

foo monkey: Obama is so much worse for getting in bed with insurance companies. He's helping care for Americans, when the American thing to do is invade countries and kill a shiat load of brown people.


Care for Americans???

Obama hasn't done a single thing to "care for Americans". What Obama has done is say that people that people who don't need insurance now will be FORCED to overpay to be under-insured.

If you don't overpay to be under-insured then you will be fined. If you don't pay that fine the government will TAKE the money from you (garnish your wadges).

If Obama REALLY cared about Americans he would make sure that heath care is affordable to begin with. Why do Americans have to pay $100 per pill when everyone else in the world gets that SAME medication for pennies???

Because BIG PHARM makes money, and BIG PHARM has their hand so far up the politicians butt they can pick their boogers. If you think Obama will do ANYTHING to negatively effect the bottom line of BIG PHARM or the insurance companies, I have beach front property in MO I would like to sell you...sure it's 100x more expensive than real beach front property, but you are obviously delusional and wouldn't know the difference.
 
2014-02-23 02:36:14 AM  

Divinegrace: garnish your wadges


Oh shiat!
 
2014-02-23 04:50:34 AM  

Divinegrace: foo monkey: Obama is so much worse for getting in bed with insurance companies. He's helping care for Americans, when the American thing to do is invade countries and kill a shiat load of brown people.

Care for Americans???

Obama hasn't done a single thing to "care for Americans".
What Obama has done is say that people that people who don't need insurance now will be FORCED to overpay to be under-insured.

If you don't overpay to be under-insured then you will be fined. If you don't pay that fine the government will TAKE the money from you (garnish your wadges).

If Obama REALLY cared about Americans he would make sure that heath care is affordable to begin with. Why do Americans have to pay $100 per pill when everyone else in the world gets that SAME medication for pennies???

Because BIG PHARM makes money, and BIG PHARM has their hand so far up the politicians butt they can pick their boogers. If you think Obama will do ANYTHING to negatively effect the bottom line of BIG PHARM or the insurance companies, I have beach front property in MO I would like to sell you...sure it's 100x more expensive than real beach front property, but you are obviously delusional and wouldn't know the difference.


what did he do for those who couldn't obtain insurance due to pre-existing conditions ?
 
2014-02-23 04:52:39 AM  

BMFPitt: So the fund that was designed to profit from the law did better than the fund that was based on speculating that the law would be struck down or repealed?  No kidding.

From what I hear, bets on the Seahawks did significantly better than bets on the Broncos.


Don't be a retard.

The point of this is to demonstrate that the market doesn't believe that the AHCA will be repealed. The degree that it's outperforming the S&P500 demonstrates the degree of confidence that the market has that this will be the outcome.

All it's demonstrating is that the GOP is pissing in the wind about repealing the AHCA. But we knew that already, didn't we?
 
2014-02-23 07:24:48 AM  

Twilight Farkle: fusillade762: Which fund are the insurance companies in? I didn't see them mentioned.

The insurance carriers bought and paid for a law that guarantees them a massive expansion in enrollment. WLP, AET, and HUM are up 50% over the past 12-13 months. We never got health care reform, only health insurance reform, and we got precisely the type of health insurance reform that the health insurance company lobbyists permitted us to have. (This should surprise nobody, regardless of partisan stance.)

The fact that they can't figure out how to timely process applications reflects an epic fail on the part of both the federal/state exchanges and the private insurers, but that's a customer service and IT issue, not a partisan one, so it gets little mainstream coverage. As time goes on, the applications get processed, and the new customers get added to the risk pool. The question is, who are these new customers?

Going forward, the stocks of insurance companies will reflect the degree to which the actual risk pool matches the projected risk pool. If young and healthy people are scared away from buying even the cheapest Bronze plan, the stocks will underperform.

A healthy 26-year-old "Young Invincible" making $100K gets no subsidy and pays $200/month for a Bronze plan. A 26-year-old making $20K gets a full subsidy and pays $50/month for the same plan, but as long as he bought the plan through an exchange, the insurance company gets the full amount of the premium.

The premiums for high-deductible (Bronze) insurance are higher than the pre-ACA premiums for high-deductible insurance, but that's because they have to account for the actuarial risk the insurers take because they can no longer deny for pre-existing conditions. Our hypothetical Young Invincible pays more for a Bronze plan, but that's because he or she could come down with cancer at any moment, and could simply upgrade to a $600/month ($7K/year) Platinum plan at the next open enrollment period. Or they could remain on a Bronze plan and pay the approximate $6K out-of-pocket maximum and $1-2K in premiums depending on their subsidy level. When you're talking about a $100K/year course of chemotherapy, it doesn't make much difference out-of-pocket or not.

The open question for the insurance industry's stocks is whether there are enough Young Invincibles (cash cows) to make up for the losses they take on the Otherwise Uninsurables (guaranteed actuarial losses who will be able to get insurance).

The insurance industry itself is in no long-term danger here; if the risk corridors are all borked up, the carriers can simply lobby for larger subsidies to cover the increased premiums in future years, and so long as they can do so without single payer becoming a viable political option, they'll get it. Many consumers of insurance and health care (myself included) would prefer single payer to the present hybrid system, but consumers don't have lobbyists and their opinions don't count.

Consider the political implications of extending the subsidies to the point of absurdity: everyone has guaranteed access to "free" insurance -- not actual single-payer, but a everyone gets a 100% subsidy towards their premiums, regardless of income level. In such a case, would there really be a clamor for single payer and the elimination of the insurers as unnecessary middlemen? Single payer is a perfectly reasonable economic policy, but a non-starter politically. Despite the absurdity of a 100% subsidy for all insurance premiums, I think we'd see a de facto guaranteed basic income for the insurance companies before we'd see single-payer. The only people who would argue for single payer on the basis of its efficiency are disinterested economists, of which there are none on Capitol Hill, and very few on Wall Street.


Thank you for summing up succinctly what I've been saying for ten years. It applies to Medicare D as well. Insurance companies have too much influence in Washington to become losers now.
 
2014-02-23 08:18:44 AM  
We're all going to die now.
 
2014-02-23 08:24:46 AM  
The investments don't exactly reflect the concept. Generic firms and electronic records will increase regardless of whether Obamacare were implemented or not.
 
2014-02-23 08:26:30 AM  

TwistedFark: BMFPitt: So the fund that was designed to profit from the law did better than the fund that was based on speculating that the law would be struck down or repealed?  No kidding.

From what I hear, bets on the Seahawks did significantly better than bets on the Broncos.

Don't be a retard.

The point of this is to demonstrate that the market doesn't believe that the AHCA will be repealed. The degree that it's outperforming the S&P500 demonstrates the degree of confidence that the market has that this will be the outcome.

All it's demonstrating is that the GOP is pissing in the wind about repealing the AHCA. But we knew that already, didn't we?


Any law that promises an entitlement is almost impossible to repeal, that does not mean it is the epitome of good governance.
 
2014-02-23 08:41:45 AM  

foo monkey: Divinegrace: Insurance, the biggest scam ever, has now been force-ably shoved up every American's a$$...I am shocked, SHOCKED that money is being made hand over fist (that is up American's a$$es) by the people that bought/paid for our congress/president.

Every person elected during my lifetime (Congress/Senate/President) sold out America to the corporations (Bush=Haliburton...Obama=GM/Goldman Sachs/BoA). They should all be tried and convicted of treason and should at LEAST spend the rest of their lives in prison. The people that bought them should also be tried and convicted of treason and sentenced to death while the companies that they work for should be bared from doing business inside US borders for no less than a decade.

Until that is done, nothing will 'get better' (bye bye middle class) for America and its people and if you think that ANYTHING else is gonna 'work' you just don't 'get it', you likely never will 'get it', and are a major reason that things got this bad to begin with.

Obama is so much worse for getting in bed with insurance companies. He's helping care for Americans, when the American thing to do is invade countries and kill a shiat load of brown people.


He also has the NSA watching us to know when we are sick!
 
2014-02-23 08:56:39 AM  

Divinegrace: foo monkey: Obama is so much worse for getting in bed with insurance companies. He's helping care for Americans, when the American thing to do is invade countries and kill a shiat load of brown people.

Care for Americans???

Obama hasn't done a single thing to "care for Americans". What Obama has done is say that people that people who don't need insurance now will be FORCED to overpay to be under-insured.

If you don't overpay to be under-insured then you will be fined. If you don't pay that fine the government will TAKE the money from you (garnish your wadges).

If Obama REALLY cared about Americans he would make sure that heath care is affordable to begin with. Why do Americans have to pay $100 per pill when everyone else in the world gets that SAME medication for pennies???

Because BIG PHARM makes money, and BIG PHARM has their hand so far up the politicians butt they can pick their boogers. If you think Obama will do ANYTHING to negatively effect the bottom line of BIG PHARM or the insurance companies, I have beach front property in MO I would like to sell you...sure it's 100x more expensive than real beach front property, but you are obviously delusional and wouldn't know the difference.


Gien that a)they supposedly don't need insurance, and b) insurance companies have to have minimum standards, how are they being underinsured?
 
2014-02-23 09:35:26 AM  

TwistedFark: The point of this is to demonstrate that the market doesn't believe that the AHCA will be repealed. The degree that it's outperforming the S&P500 demonstrates the degree of confidence that the market has that this will be the outcome.

All it's demonstrating is that the GOP is pissing in the wind about repealing the AHCA. But we knew that already, didn't we?


Yes, we did all know that, Ric.  Which is why I made fun of the headline in the manner that I did.
 
2014-02-23 10:04:13 AM  
Hmm, not often you hear someone championing a liberal cause on the fact that it makes the rich richer.
 
2014-02-23 12:49:52 PM  

06Wahoo: Hmm, not often you hear someone championing a liberal cause on the fact that it makes the rich richer.


The ACA isn't exactly liberal. Ask the Heritage Foundation. A liberal cause would be akin to single payer. Keep floating that "libruhl" boogeyman though.
 
2014-02-23 02:34:29 PM  
I like how ppl who scream they hate the aca/obamacare and say single payer now, always forget to mention the huge expansion of single payer Medicaid under this law.

Now let's just get the 23 states that haven't expanded to do so, much like the original Medicaid. (It took Arizona 17 years to finally implement it.)

So don't worry, we will get there, America tries every dumb idea before settling on the right one.

A insurance pool that includes every American so when ppl get really sick the increase in coat barely affects all ppl in that pool of insurance.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report