no big market move with health care legislature fail

[Rob Base 2.0]

i expected some movement in market with the big repub health care fail---fail to even repeal Obamacare....

do u think there will be a delay reaction?

or is this no big deal market wise?

[countrygirl2]

At this point, I haven't a clue what is moving anything. In my book its all crazy.

[Rob Base 2.0]

Yeah, I didn't expect a huge crash or anything......but I expected something........especially since this seems to foreshadow a failure on tax reform / cuts........and I was thinking "pending" tax reform was part of what is moving markets.......but now I dunno no more......

[swamp]

Chaos seems to be the new normal.

[thyme4change]

I don't think anyone thought it would really go through, so the market had already adjusted.

[Rob Base 2.0]

Not even the "repeal only" part?

[tyfighter3]

Earnings move markets, and they have been coming in pretty good across the board.

[billisonboard]

The health care insurance coverage issue predominantly involves the "have nots". Tax policy predominately involves the "haves". No reason to think that failure to act on the first foreshadows what will happen on the second.

[Value Buy]

the markets were pretty sure the Pubs would cave on healthcare because they know 25% of so-called Republicans are actually democrats

[bean29]

Jul 29, 2017 11:57:12 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

the markets were pretty sure the Pubs would cave on healthcare because they know 25% of so-called Republicans are actually democrats

Value buy, sometimes I feel as dumb as a box of rocks.  Could you please elaborate, I am so not sure what you mean.  Are you saying about 25% of people who voted R in this last election cycle were actually democrats, or are you saying that 25% of Republicans are RINO's or something else entirely?

[bean29]

Jul 29, 2017 11:30:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The health care insurance coverage issue predominantly involves the "have nots". Tax policy predominately involves the "haves". No reason to think that failure to act on the first foreshadows what will happen on the second.

I wonder if this is true, personally we are mighty concerned about Pre-existing condition coverage and access to affordable health insurance coverage from our early 50's until we can access Medicare Coverage.  Personally I don't consider the amount we pay for health insurance, out of pocket costs, and drug costs affordable.  I think something should be done to address the costs Americans are paying.  I especially think they should address the cost of drugs for Americans vs. what the rest of the world pays for the same drugs.

[bean29]

My read on why they wanted to repeal and replace later was b/c if they repeal, and then want to "replace" later they can't pass the bill via budget reconciliation and changes will need more votes than a simple majority. If they had managed to repeal, they would have gotten rid of the extra taxes that support the ACA. I do think it is going to impact where they go with tax policy. They can't slash taxes too drastically without slashing what? Defense? Talk of Slashing Medicare or Social Security never goes down well, so I do expect that there will be no major changes in tax policy.

[billisonboard]

Jul 29, 2017 13:54:14 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jul 29, 2017 11:30:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The health care insurance coverage issue predominantly involves the "have nots". Tax policy predominately involves the "haves". No reason to think that failure to act on the first foreshadows what will happen on the second.

I wonder if this is true, personally we are mighty concerned about Pre-existing condition coverage and access to affordable health insurance coverage from our early 50's until we can access Medicare Coverage.  Personally I don't consider the amount we pay for health insurance, out of pocket costs, and drug costs affordable.  I think something should be done to address the costs Americans are paying.  I especially think they should address the cost of drugs for Americans vs. what the rest of the world pays for the same drugs.

So you consider yourself as one of the "haves" that federal legislators are concerned with pleasing re: the upcoming changes in tax policy?

[bean29]

Jul 29, 2017 14:07:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 29, 2017 13:54:14 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I wonder if this is true, personally we are mighty concerned about Pre-existing condition coverage and access to affordable health insurance coverage from our early 50's until we can access Medicare Coverage.  Personally I don't consider the amount we pay for health insurance, out of pocket costs, and drug costs affordable.  I think something should be done to address the costs Americans are paying.  I especially think they should address the cost of drugs for Americans vs. what the rest of the world pays for the same drugs.

So you consider yourself as one of the "haves" that federal legislators are concerned with pleasing re: the upcoming changes in tax policy?

Well they sure as hell have to please more than 1%-5% of the population to continue getting re-elected.  DH and I are in top 10% territory.  I would think they should be looking to please at least the top 25% to maintain the goodwill of the voting population. 

How would you describe the group they would be trying to please?

[billisonboard]

Jul 29, 2017 14:17:20 GMT -5 bean29 said:

...
How would you describe the group they would be trying to please?

Those who provide financial assistance to their reelection.

[bean29]

Jul 29, 2017 14:21:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 29, 2017 14:17:20 GMT -5 bean29 said:

...
How would you describe the group they would be trying to please?

Those who provide financial assistance to their reelection.

 , LOL...I agree to an extent...but at some point they have to make sure they have people willing to vote them back into office.  We so need to get rid of Citizens United and put some serious limits on how much an individual or a Corporation can donate In any given election cycle. 

Look at these numbers:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

But how we might ever get them to rule against their own self interest is beyond me.  I think the only defense we have is to not continually vote incumbents into office.

[Value Buy]

Jul 29, 2017 13:49:15 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jul 29, 2017 11:57:12 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

the markets were pretty sure the Pubs would cave on healthcare because they know 25% of so-called Republicans are actually democrats

Value buy, sometimes I feel as dumb as a box of rocks.  Could you please elaborate, I am so not sure what you mean.  Are you saying about 25% of people who voted R in this last election cycle were actually democrats, or are you saying that 25% of Republicans are RINO's or something else entirely?

Sorry I was not clear.
25% of the House and Senate are RINOS imo.
Seven years where 97% said they would repeal Obamacare and now nothing? Looks like I was incorrect on the 25% more like 45% are rinos.
Time to drain the Republican party and get real Republicans in office.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2017 14:07:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 29, 2017 13:54:14 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I wonder if this is true, personally we are mighty concerned about Pre-existing condition coverage and access to affordable health insurance coverage from our early 50's until we can access Medicare Coverage.  Personally I don't consider the amount we pay for health insurance, out of pocket costs, and drug costs affordable.  I think something should be done to address the costs Americans are paying.  I especially think they should address the cost of drugs for Americans vs. what the rest of the world pays for the same drugs.

So you consider yourself as one of the "haves" that federal legislators are concerned with pleasing re: the upcoming changes in tax policy?

Yes.  I contribute regularly to improve my position and tax outlay.  Win, Win for those who want to be elected, and my bottom line. 

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2017 15:33:04 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jul 29, 2017 14:21:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Those who provide financial assistance to their reelection.

 , LOL...I agree to an extent...but at some point they have to make sure they have people willing to vote them back into office.  We so need to get rid of Citizens United and put some serious limits on how much an individual or a Corporation can donate In any given election cycle. 

Look at these numbers:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

But how we might ever get them to rule against their own self interest is beyond me.  I think the only defense we have is to not continually vote incumbents into office.

Doesn't work for me.  I hate starting over.  I would go with that if applied to Democrats however.