Affiliate Marketing Secrets

Many of the sectors that dropped were attributed to problems in Europe. But there were two sectors with very big changes. One moved down big and the other moved up big.
Health Insurance Companies tanked and Hospital stocks rose. It should be no secret to anybody with a brain that solidifying an Obama presidency (thus solidifying the future of the Affordable Care Act) would have these implications.
So what do you think about wall street telling us that Obamacare is bad for Insurance companies and good for hospitals?

I have developed a distaste for the Supreme Court and the system that is established in the Constitution. I believe that it is the duty of each Justice to analyze constitutional facts and legislative fact and make a determination as to whether or not laws align with constitutional FACT. I believe that the Supreme Court acts independent of the constitution, without regard for what is morally and constitutionally right. My first problem is in reference to the “majority rules” idea. Let me set forth a scenario. Me and a man in Tokyo are observing a white wall. We are both healthy, understand the English language (Americanized) and have a basic understanding of the United States Constitution. If we ONLY analyze the factual characteristics of this wall we will ALWAYS come to the same conclusions. We will both agree that the wall is white. Any other healthy man that understands Americanized English and the Constitution will agree. Because what is true (fact) will not vary from person to person, or place to place (assuming there are no cultural or language barriers). Assume the Supreme Court of the United States had analyzed the facts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All nine Justices should come to the same conclusion, correct? If they are only analyzing facts and they all understand both legislative piece that they are analyzing and the constitution, shouldn’t they all come to one conclusion? They should! Why is it that 4 Justices came to one conclusion while 5 justices came to an opposite conclusion? Are they not to analyze facts? I believe it is flawed and shame on the founding fathers for allowing such a flaw.
Second problem. Why are Justices allowed to be affiliated with political parties? How can the American populous expect a fair and unbiased judgment of an individual has been affiliated with a political party, or advocated for a law as a member, or former member of a political party? I believe that Justice Kagan and perhaps Justice Sotomayor should not have been allowed to vote on this law, correct?