Lunes 13/1210 Semana del Fed, ventas retail, prod. industria

[admin]

+18.73

[admin]

+21.87

[admin]

BVN +1.18%

FAS +0.59%

LULU +6.37%

[admin]

VIX down 17.05

Oil up 89.22

+13.13

[admin]

Yields up 3.34%

Au up 1,395

+14.19

[admin]

VIX down 16.89

[admin]

V +1.16%

+30.27

[admin]

MBI +2.40%

[admin]

HAL, APC, SLB +2%, RIG , BP masdel 1% al alza.

+26.15

[admin]

Goldman recomienda comprar AAPL.

NFLX y AKAM serene incluidos en el NASDAQ 100

La banca con ingresos record.

[admin]

MBI +3.40%

+25.85

Au 1,397.90, Futures cu up 4.20

VIX down 16.80

Oil up 89.13

[admin]

Yields up 3.36%

Ag up 29.67

+31.22

Bernanke se debe estar rascando la cabeza los yields en lugar de bajar, suben. El mercado lo desafia.

[admin]

Alcoa lidera el alza del DJ.

+39.58

Las acereras muy bien hoy dia.

[admin]

Un juez federal dira si el seguro de salud de Obama viola la constitucion.

Hasta el momento hay mas de 20 juicios federales contra el plan de salud en diferentes estados en el pais.

El juicio se basa en que el Congreso no tiene el poder constitucional de imponer la compra del seguro a los Americanos y tampoco puede multarnos por no hacerlo.

Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality
By JANET ADAMY And EVAN PEREZ
A Virginia federal judge is expected to rule Monday on whether the Obama administration's health law violates the Constitution, opening a new stage in the administration's defense of its biggest legislative achievement.

The ruling by District Judge Henry E. Hudson is perhaps the most significant so far among a slew of state-based legal challenges to the law, which also faces attack by newly resurgent Republicans in Congress. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the health overhaul since President Barack Obama signed it in March.

While the cases differ somewhat, they largely rest on the argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to require most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a fee. The Obama administration counters that three clauses of the Constitution gave Congress the power to put the requirement, known as the individual mandate, in the law as part of regulating how people pay for health care.

The Virginia challenge is led by that state's attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli. Separately, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla., on Thursday will hear arguments in a challenge brought by officials in 20 states. He could offer the clearest indication yet of how he will rule.


Supporters of the law are bracing for defeats in Virginia and in Florida. Judges Hudson and Vinson have both shown sympathy to the plaintiffs' arguments and are GOP appointees.

Two other federal judges, in separate lawsuits in Michigan and Virginia, have already ruled in the administration's favor on the individual-mandate question. Those cases, along with the other federal cases challenging the law, have a narrower base of plaintiffs than the suits brought in Florida and before Judge Hudson in Virginia.

Even if judges rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, it isn't likely to stop the law from being carried out for now. Plaintiffs in the Virginia and Florida cases have asked the judges for an injunction to halt the law's implementation nationwide. But people close to the plaintiffs concede the federal courts are likely to leave the law in place while the challenges go on. Both sides expect the matter to end up at the Supreme Court.

The individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2014, so courts are less likely to see the need for a quick injunction.

Health-care consultants say employers and health-care companies are pressing ahead with their response to the law without regard for the court's decisions. States have started planning to create new health-insurance exchanges for consumers to shop for insurance, and they are calculating the costs of expanding the Medicaid insurance program for the poor.

In addition to arguing that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Florida's lawsuit, led by a mostly Republican group of governors and attorneys general, also contends that the law's expansion of Medicaid to 16 million additional Americans places an unfair burden on already cash-strapped states.

In court papers, the Obama administration argues that states are free to drop out of Medicaid, a joint federal-state program. Lawyers for the states counter that the program is too big to make dropping out a realistic option.

In fact, however, some of the states involved in the lawsuit, including Texas, have begun discussions about pulling out of Medicaid in coming years. If they carried out the threat, it would undercut the states' legal argument, but also undermine the aim of the law's supporters to expand Medicaid.

Judge Vinson in Florida has suggested he views the states' argument on Medicaid as a stretch, while showing more sympathy toward the argument against the individual mandate.

"I certainly expect us to prevail," said David Rivkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit, given what he called the "weakness" of the administration's case.

Backers of the law concede they may lose some of the lower-court decisions, but they say they will ultimately prevail.

For both sides, the legal arguments are also a political tool.

The Obama administration has stressed some popular provisions that would be thrown out with the rest of the law should higher courts ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs. One prevents insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and the other requires insurers to charge all customers similar rates regardless of their health status.

Republicans for their part are focusing on the individual insurance mandate as perhaps the least popular piece of the law. The GOP is treating the lawsuits as one prong in a strategy to sow public discontent with the law and, ultimately, help the party retake the White House in 2012.

In the short term, the biggest effect of the early decisions, should they find fault with the law, is likely to be a publicity headache for the Obama administration and confusion among consumers.

"This has a chance to be a fairly polarizing and corrosive event," said Brad Joondeph, professor of law at Santa Clara University in California.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com and Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj

[admin]

Si el gobierno va a tener el poder de exigirnos que es lo que vamos a comprar y si no lo hacemos nos va a multar, que seguira, el gobierno nos va a decir que comer y que carro comprar. Mama mia.

Vamos a ver a los Americanos salir a las calles a protestar. No por dinero, pero si por defender su libertad.