Skip to comments.Wouldn't Obamacare automatically expire after 10 years due to reconcilliation? (Vanity)
Posted on 03/23/2010 10:19:27 AM PDT by LdSentinal
From my understanding and research (mainly Google), the Senate Health Care bill doesn't have a "sunset provision" which would put an expiration data on the bill. The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 had a "sunset provision" which would be in 2011.
Any bill that raised the deficit in the first four years would have a "sunset provision" of 5 years. However, the Democrats made sure the CBO would not score the bill as raising deficits in the first four years or even from 2020-2029 (which is pure BS).
HOWEVER, from my understanding of the Byrd Rule, any part of a bill that does not contain a sunset provision outside the 10-year budget window could easily increase the deficit in future years (eg. 2100, which the CBO can't score), so any Senator can raise a point of order which would require 60 votes to overturn effectively killing the process. The Democrats no longer have that due to Scott Brown. Thus, a 10-year sunset provision" would be put on the HCR-reconcilliation bill.
So, if worse comes to worst (no repeal, courts fail us), Obamcare would expire in 2020 if Republicans control the Presidency or one chamber of Congress.
Does anybody know if this is correct?
It was not reconciliation. It was passed in both houses. The “reconciliation” portion now goes to the Senate after the House has approved it. If it fails, we still have the Senate obamanation.
Just the parts that are added in by process of reconciliation, by my understanding.
I received this in an email. I don’t know if this is true.
Look what that scondrel Harry Reid
hid deep in the Senate HealthCare...
The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light.
Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid’s anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation!
Beginning on page 1 , 000 of the measure , Section 3403 reads in part: “. it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill , resolution , amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”
In other words , if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law , no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403 , regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!
Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.”
That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost , quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.
No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate , even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m. , while America slept.
True to form , Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible , just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana , Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors.
The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules , but rather of Senate “procedures.” Why is that significant?
Because for 200 years , changes in the Senate’s standing rules have required approval by two-thirds of those voting , or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid’s amendment received.
Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read , and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny , then what is?
DON’T SIT BY AND LET THIS APPEN IN THE DARK!!! FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!
Actually, the bill calls for a 3/5 vote of whichever house tries to change that section.
Reconciliation isn’t going to pass Congress.
What is it with Dems and that 3/5 number? 3/5 vote here, 3/5 count for a vote in the 2008 Primaries. Keeps reminding me about the slave count for the census in the original Constitution.
In other words this bill can be repealed just like it was passed. By a majority vote.
Sounds like IMAB is a death panel.
Probably one of many hidden in the bill.
Kill the death panels should of been the chant.
Just another one of the many reasons why this bill is unconstitutional.
Do you have any links to that, please?
It easier for you to post a vanity than to spend 5 minutes researching it on google.
I've spent hours trying to find an answer, but no-go. Do you know?
The answer has two letters.
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.- Patrick Henry
If that language is in there it must be meaningless. I know they are making up the rules and all. However, why should any future congress respect that fact that Harry Ried declared this particular law as holy writ? We have allot to worry about but I don't think this is high on the list/
goggle it . the references are everywhere.
I’ve tried. Could you please help me find a link? Thank you in advance.
It has always been in order to repeal a tyranny.
Pooh. No Congress is bound by its predecessors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.