Skip to main content

View Diary: Wall Street loves news of fading public option (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is this a macro or micro reaction? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bushondrugs

    Powerful as insurance companies are, they are only a fraction of the companies and a fraction of the money both in the economy and on the exchanges.

    Serious health reform would be good for nearly all of the companies that are not in the business of selling health insurance.  It might not be good for pharmaceuticals, but I suspect they'd be all right -- more patients to help make up for declines in per-patient profits.

    So...

    What exactly are the financiers looking at?

    Are they strongly opposed to a public option per se or because they don't see any benefit to them in this one?

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 07:29:13 AM PDT

    •  As long as the system is profit-driven, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JC from IA

      this is what we can expect.  The incentives are not to keep people healthy.  

      The goal is to get a fresh bunch of hostage-customers who have money to pay... and to forget those who don't have money.

      A Wall Street "bonus" should not be more than what my house is currently worth.

      by bushondrugs on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 07:36:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That begs micro and macro, though. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bushondrugs

        The incentives absolutely ARE to keep people healthy if you look at business (including humongoloid corporate America) as a whole.

        Rising health care costs cut into profits.
        Excessive sick time cuts into profits.
        People who are unable to remain at peak awareness cuts into profits.

        Employees who die while employees cut into profits.

        Some segments benefit from people who aren't healthy, but most don't.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:02:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  class solidarity (0+ / 0-)

      even if it would help their own companies, they have a higher value on supporting their class over the commons.

      "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game." Sen. Ben Nelson

      by ferg on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 08:38:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Class solidarity for business is about making (0+ / 0-)

        profits.

        Health insurance costs are eating many businesses alive. Class solidarity would call for something to ease that burden.

        And this whole class solidarity thing is a pretty strange analysis, anyway.

        Last I looked, Nancy Pelosi, a multi-millionaire patrician, Ted Kennedy, a multi-millionare patrician, and lots of other silk-stocking types were aboard the health reform bandwagaon.  Ted, before his recent health challenges, even took a major role in steering.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:00:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not for the CEOs (0+ / 0-)

          Making profits isn't a class solidarity issues; it's rational business behavior, not solidarity.

          Standing up for other business CEOs like the insurance company CEOs when it's not in your best business interest is class solidarity.  Yes, it's strange, but why else didn't companies like GM support health reform years ago?  It was in their business interest.

          Just because class solidarity exists for many CEOs doesn't mean it exists for all rich people.  Pelosi and Kennedy are class traitors, just like FDR.  

          "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game." Sen. Ben Nelson

          by ferg on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:14:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That analysis doesn't mesh with behavior. (0+ / 0-)

            Companies constantly cut each other off at the knees, and CEOs cut other CEOs off at their knees.

            As to GM and years ago, you must remember that they have

            a: a union contract WRT health benefits, and
            b: years ago and today are different animals.  Health benefit costs have been climbing at twice the cost of everything else.  They used to be much more manageable, especially for a big comapny like (the old) GM.

            There's a good question of whether anybody considers it important to do health care reform in a way that will benefit business, but I understand that some employers are already behind it -- including, if I recall correctly, Wal-Mart.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:26:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site