Repealing Obamacare, and the Senate

Townhall.com ^ | January 17, 2011 | Mike Needham

[Kaslin]

Prognosticators are rarely held accountable in Washington, but Senate Democrats may want to consider holding Chuck Schumer accountable for his analysis of the benefits of Obamacare. Last March, Sen. Schumer smugly predicted, “by November those who voted for healthcare will find it an asset and those who voted against it will find it a liability.”

Well, November has come and gone and it is safe to say the 65 House Democrats who lost their seats in 2010 might quibble with Schumer’s prediction. Indeed, the weight of Obamacare hung like an albatross around the necks of these defeated Representatives. And the wreckage is likely not over.

This week, the House will again vote on Obamacare – this time, to repeal it. After this vote, House members will have no where left to hide on the question of repealing Obamacare. The upside – if there is one – for the far-left is only 13 of the 34 House Democrats who courageously voted against the federal government’s hostile takeover of our health care system remain. And yet, many of them are now waffling on their position.

Take Pennsylvania Democrat Tim Holden. Holden voted against the bill, he said, because he felt strongly “it was not in the interest of my constituency.” Yet, last year, he refused to join 173 of his colleagues in signing a bipartisan discharge petition, which would have forced then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow a vote on repealing this legislation which Holden claimed to be against. Why the disconnect?

Until now, the political heat for obfuscation on Obamacare has largely been directed to members of the House. On Wednesday, the true position of every member of the House will be bright as day. Then, the House will roll up its sleeves to do the critical work of defunding and delaying the implementation of this costly legislation while the battle over repeal moves to the U.S. Senate.

Senator Claire McCaskill, for example, will face the voters of Missouri in less than two years. This is a state in which 71 percent of voters voted to block the Obamacare individual mandate from being implemented. Moreover, Missouri’s House voted last week overwhelmingly to urge their Attorney General to join the multistate lawsuit against Obamacare.

It is clear where Missouri’s voters stand on Obamacare. Unfortunately, it is not clear where McCaskill stands.

Granted, she has already voted against repeal once. Last March, Sen. David Vitter offered an amendment to repeal Obamacare and McCaskill sided with the far-left in voting against repeal. But since then, she has sought to whitewash her vote by coming out against the individual mandate. Well, which is it Senator?

According to election guru Larry Sabato, McCaskill is “very vulnerable” in 2012. Obfuscation and hedging on one of the most important issues facing our country can’t help.

And what about Sen. Jim Webb? Webb, also up for reelection in 2012, said President Obama did “a really terrible job” on health care. He also hails from Virginia, which is leading the charge on one of the two major lawsuits against Obamacare. Over the next two years, he will have multiple opportunities to repeal a bill that the President did a “terrible job” on. Will he have the courage to back up his words?

And the Senator from Montana, Jon Tester is also changing his tune. Last year, when Obamacare passed, he thought it was “a good bill,” which would “stop this broken health care system.” Today, he calls it a “work in progress. “

21 Senate Democrats are up for reelection in 2012, along with the two Independents. Each of those 23 Senators will have to explain to their constituents whether they favor the new taxes, higher premiums, lack of options and special-interest favors that are part of Obamacare.

Obamacare was front-and-center in the tsunami election that brought Republicans to power in the House. Repeated votes in the Senate over the next two years will leave Senators with no place to hide. Those up for reelection will face a choice: Vote for Repeal or Vote to be Replaced.

[yldstrk]

It is not aa reform, it is a takeover by government pf part of the economy pure and simple.

[blackdog]

For Schumer or any libtard to make any comment on what we would think about a bill they never even read is just insulting on so many levels.

Here's a suggestion.....

How about making it law that a bill must be out in the public, not subject to amendment for 30 days prior to floor votes. In order to bring it to a floor vote, each legislator must take a test regarding the content of the bill. If the legislators don't get a grade past 70%, they can't vote on the bill due to ignorance of what they are doing.

[LALALAW]

But will the Senate vote on the repeal? Why would Reid allow it?

[screaminsunshine]

The Democrats lied as usual. They are all socialists. Pelousey ‘allowed’ them to vote against it to get re-elected. Now they will deftly vote against repeal with the usual Democrat spin.

[blackdog]

The strategery of deconstructing the bill to keep portions, like it’s a chinese menu is brilliant. Just what portions of the 2,000 page bill do we want to keep? It would take two years just to break the bill up into legistative chinese menu columns.

[Sybeck1]

Boehner should hand deliver the repeal bill to Dingy with cameras in tow.

[ContraryMary]

But will the Senate vote on the repeal? Why would Reid allow it?

The Senate won't vote in it. Reid won't allow it.

[freespirited]

It’s not unheard of for the GOP to find ways to force a vote on something despite its minority status. For ex, an amendment can be proposed to a bill that is coming up for a vote. Sometimes this works.

DeMint is good at forcing votes. I suspect he will find a way.

[The_Reader_David]

Reid won't allow it as a stand-alone bill, but the second go around it will be attached to a continuing resolution, or the debt-ceiling increase, or a bill funding a whole lot of agencies and programs near-and-dear to the left as part of the Federal budget.

The post entitled Making Boehner's Bones has a nice analysis of tactics that could force the repeal through the Senate and get it signed, or, alternatively, lay a government shut-down at the feet of Obama and Reid.

In fact, short of that tactic working, the real hope for getting rid of it before January 2013 is the court challenges. The repeal moves are mostly a matter of keeping faith with the voters and keeping the issue alive so it hurts the left in 2012.

[GailA]

After the beating they took in NOV, some of them might change their minds.

[supercat]

An argument I would like to see used more often, when targeting proponents of Obamacare, is that many of them, by their own admission, did not fully read the thing before approving it. If a legislature doesn't have time to fully read legislation before approving it, what exactly is his job? How can someone who votes on legislation without reading it not be regarded as abandoning their duty?

Incidentally, one needn't fully read legislation to vote against it, if one reads enough to know that--regardless of what else the legislation may contain--it contains portions that are simply not acceptable.