"Socialist" Obamacare a boon to insurance companies

[Unknown Beatle]

But wait a minute, I thought we were told Obamacare was going to destroy free-market insurance companies? I mean isn't "rampant socialism" supposed to be bad for capitalism?

Of course the ACA is nothing close to the socialist program Republicans would have us believe -- just ask Mitt. But all you really need to do is check out the performance of the health care insurance stocks. If Obamacare was going to wreak havoc on the private insurance industry, one would surely see the proof in the pudding when it came to stock price returns.

The chart below shows stock price performance for the S&P 500 (red), the iShares US Health Care Provider ETF (IHF, blue) and then eight of the largest publicly-traded health care insurers. The start date is March 23, 2010, when President Obama signed the ACA into law.



In the time period, the health care provider ETF returned 74%, far surpassing the 52% gain for the S&P 500. Meanwhile seven of the eight insurance stocks easily trounced the S&P 500 with only Wellpoint underperforming the S&P 500, albeit ever so slightly.

Oh yeah, it's quite clear Obamacare has just devastated our capitalist system.... Gads, just more lies.

Entire Article Courtesy of The Grey Matter

[NoOneMan]

1. ACA has nothing to do with socialism

There is no state-owned enterprise running the insurance system. ACA is about funding private enterprise with public funds, and thereby, expanding their services to more customers.

So anyway, yay. The absolute ridiculousness of this post is that its meant to prove Right-Wingers wrong, but in doing so, thereby illustrates how much the left has lost its soul.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Well you're right: "socialism" for the Corporate Oligopolist Elite isn't Socialism

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 05:49 PM - Edit history (2)

because the Corporate Oligopoly IS NOT society, whether the case in question is ADM and Cargill with their corn subsidy and mandated ethanol content in our gasoline, or we're talking about UNH, Wellpoint, Aetna, Cigna with their mandated health insurance coverage.

When the few own the government and compel the many to suffer and pay for their further enrichment, that's the opposite of Socialism. Under Socialism, the right of the many to material freedom - freedom from want and privation and disease - comes before the individual privilege to endlessly accumulate additional surplus wealth at the expense of the many. The Social and its needs come before the Individual and his thirst for piled up money (his imaginary "right" to amass riches) ALWAYS and without question.

Just because some policy is redistributionist doesn't make it Socialist. ACA mandates payments from the many to the few who already hold the surplus of capital, and it is therefore redistributionist Capitalism, not Socialism. Subsidies for the working poor don't ding the profits of the insurance cartel, but rather guarantee those profits, and are extracted from the middle classes who also must live on their labor, not on their accumulated wealth. Monopoly Capitalism lurvs redistribution! When you HAVE to buy our product or face legal consequences, that is the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth for Capitalism and capitalists. That is Capital sitting at last in Zeus' throne, with his thunderbolts at the ready to compel obedience (and prompt payment), as it always was meant to.