Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

In the event that the Supreme Court does not repeal ObamaCare, or even the mandate, can it be repealed with 51 Senate votes in 2013? 2015 will, politically, be too late, since by then the populace will be on the government teat.
1 posted on 10/12/2011 7:51:24 AM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kennard

51 sounds good to me. Then let them cry foul. What goes around comes around.


2 posted on 10/12/2011 7:56:09 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (New Day In America November 03, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

No clear answer here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2671260/posts (from Karl Rove in February)


3 posted on 10/12/2011 7:58:39 AM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

The Dems will fight tooth and nail to debate it to death...Meanwhile the RINO Republicans who think it’s ok as long as they are running it will just want to Replace it(Take your Pick....GrahamCare?) As long as the Republicans have the Guts to get it through debate quickly it can be taken out...But if they let it go on then it will just be about continuing the argument. Dems will argue the meaning of each individual word


4 posted on 10/12/2011 7:58:54 AM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard
Why? Because in the Senate you need to have 60 votes to invoke cloture, or end debate.

Not anymore - I think Dingy Harry set the precedent last week by invoking the nuh-cleer option, no?

The spine of the Republican's to actually follow suit is a whole 'nother matter.

5 posted on 10/12/2011 7:59:50 AM PDT by capydick (''Life's tough.......it's even tougher if you're stupid.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

We need to make sure Romney hears this loud and clear, and is forced to commit to repeal, in the semi-likely eventuality he ends up being elected POTUS.


7 posted on 10/12/2011 8:03:19 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

since Harry Reid just sh*tcanned the Senate rules, is that even necessary?


8 posted on 10/12/2011 8:05:33 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

I don’t think it will be repealed. Did anyone notice the clip played in the debate last night of GW taking credit for expanding home ownership to the masses? Therein was the striking example of the real problem, too many Republicans like big government too. Not a peep from anyone on the platform noting that. Course correction in 2012 seems unlikely.


10 posted on 10/12/2011 8:13:23 AM PDT by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

I wholly support that idea. It was “reconciliation’s” 51 votes that got Obamacare through the old Senate... the same exact procedure can get it through the next.

Fairness, dems... it’s all about fairness, right?


11 posted on 10/12/2011 8:20:38 AM PDT by ScottinVA (With "successes" like the Libya adventure, who needs failure?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

I wholly support that idea. It was “reconciliation’s” 51 votes that got Obamacare through the old Senate... the same exact procedure can get it through the next.

Fairness, dems... it’s all about fairness, right?


12 posted on 10/12/2011 8:20:55 AM PDT by ScottinVA (With "successes" like the Libya adventure, who needs failure?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

The entire package was passed as a budget reconciliation measure, it can be repealed as a budget reconciliation measure.

Ultimately it’s a question of Senate rules. And as Harry Reid showed us this week, the Senate sets it’s own rules and interprets them as it sees fit.

Given the hoops they went through to pass this monstrosity, the Democrats are in no position to complain about Republicans repealing it.


13 posted on 10/12/2011 8:20:55 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

Simple solution: Elect a 60+ Republican majority in the Senate.

It can easily happen in 2012.


14 posted on 10/12/2011 8:22:16 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard
Governor Romney says that ObamaCare repeal can be effected through reconciliation. That is not true:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2673164/posts

Romney's "repeal and replace" mantra is merely rhetoric to attract Republican primary voters. He knows that he will not be called upon to deliver on his promise.

Here is an excerpt from last night's debate:

SANTORUM: We need to repeal Obamacare. That's the first thing we need to do.

SANTORUM: You want to create jobs? I went to OSIPI (ph) yesterday and I talked to a small businessman there, and he said, "I will not hire anybody, I will not make a move until I find out what is going to happen with this health care bill and how it's going to crush me."

And so, repealing Obamacare, and we can do it, not by waivers. That's the wrong idea, Mitt. The reason it's the wrong idea, because you get a waiver, California going to waive that? No. New York going to waive it? No. All of these states, many of them, liberal states are going to continue on, and then states like New Hampshire that will waive it will end up subsidizing California.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: We need to repeal it...

ROSE: All right. But the time...

SANTORUM: I know.

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: You see the red light, time.

SANTORUM: We need to repeal it by doing it through a reconciliation process. And since I have experience and know how to do that, we'll take care of it...

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: I've got to go to the break, and I'm -- but I'm going to give both Herman Cain and Governor Romney a chance to make their point, because they were both mentioned, first Cain, then Romney, then break.

CAIN: Therein lies the difference between me, the non- politician, and all of the politicians. They want to pass what they think they can get passed rather than what we need, which is a bold solution. 9-9-9 is bold, and the American people want a bold solution, not just what's going to kick the can down the table -- down the road.

ROSE: Governor Romney?

(APPLAUSE) ROMNEY: Rick, you're absolutely right. On day one, granting a waiver for all 50 states doesn't stop in its tracks entirely Obamacare. That's why I also say we have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on day two, with the reconciliation bill, because as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes.

ROSE: All right.

ROMNEY: We can get rid of it with 51 votes. We have to get rid of Obamacare and return to the states the responsibility...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: No, not if you get rid of it. And particularly -- by the way, the Supreme -- the Supreme Court may get rid of it.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Let me finish. Let me finish.

ROSE: OK, let's -- then we'll go to Huntsman, then we'll go to the break, and then when we come back, each of you can question each other.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: Hold on, guys.

HUNTSMAN: Thank you.

ROMNEY: Let me just -- let me just say this, which is we all agree about repeal and replace. And I'm proud of the fact that I've put together a plan that says what I'm going to replace it with. And I think it's incumbent on everybody around this table to put together a plan that says this is what I'll replace it with, because the American people are not satisfied with the status quo. They want us to solve the problem of health care, to get it to work like a market, and that's what has to happen.

ROSE: All right. Governor Huntsman, then we go.

HUNTSMAN: It's disingenuous to -- to just say that you can -- you can waive it all away. The mandate will be in place. The IRS is already planning on 19,500 new employees to administer that mandate. That will stay, and that's the ruinous part of -- of Obamacare. And that -- Mitt, your plan is not going to do anything.

ROMNEY: I said we had to repeal it. Did you miss that?

HUNTSMAN: No. It doesn't -- it doesn't repeal the mandate.

ROMNEY: No, no, I said I'm going to repeal it through reconciliation.

(CROSSTALK) SANTORUM: Through reconciliation, you can repeal the taxes, you can repeal the spending, and therefore, the mandate has no teeth, because there's no tax penalty if you don't enforce it.

16 posted on 10/12/2011 8:40:05 AM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard

Of course they should use Reconciliation to repeal it. Why is this even a question?

This assumes SCOTUS doesn’t strike it down, of course.


17 posted on 10/12/2011 9:02:26 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard
This is from Politico on October 9th (David Nather): http://hamptonroads.com/2011/10/four-scenarios-health-care-law-2012

The more likely scenario — based on how the Senate races look at the moment — is that if the Republicans win the Senate, it would be by a thin margin. So a Republican majority of, say, 52 seats wouldn’t be able to get 60 votes to repeal the whole law. But there’s another tool they could use to wipe out big parts of the law with just 51 votes: a budget reconciliation bill.

That strategy would be a lot more complicated, because it wouldn’t let Republicans repeal the whole law. Under budget rules, anything that passes through reconciliation — which can’t be filibustered — has to have a budget impact. In other words, it has to change spending levels or revenue in some way.

Given the scope of the health law and its economic impact, that gives the Republicans lots of room to maneuver — but it’s not limitless. Democrats used reconciliation in 2010 to rewrite parts of the health care reform legislation before they passed the final version, but there were tweaks they couldn’t make that way. (The abortion coverage language, which anti-abortion Democrats wanted to make tougher, was the most notable example.)

If a narrowly Republican Senate uses budget reconciliation, it could certainly repeal the expensive subsidies to help people buy insurance, and the scheduled expansion of Medicaid. It may well be able to get rid of the hated individual mandate — the requirement for nearly all Americans to get health insurance — unless the Supreme Court gets there first.

Beyond that, though, it’s not clear what could get through. For example, could a Republican Senate get rid of the new rule, starting in 2014, banning insurance companies from turning down people with pre-existing health problems? Since that’s a rule that affects private insurers, not the federal government, it might be harder for lawmakers to argue that it has a direct budget impact.

“You can clearly do away with the essence of health reform,” but “you never know exactly what the parliamentarian is going to do until he’s presented with a bill and says, ‘yes, you can do this’ and ‘no, you can’t do that,’” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former analyst for the Congressional Budget Office.

Holtz-Eakin said that uncertainty could limit the effectiveness of a budget reconciliation strategy. Even if a Republican House and Senate could repeal the central provisions of the health law and get a Republican president to sign the bill, “you can still be left with a vestige of insurance reform that wouldn’t make any sense,” he said.

Republicans would have to figure out how to pay for the repeal — since the health care law creates enough savings through Medicare payment cuts and other provisions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that it would actually cost money to repeal it.

One option for Republicans would be to keep those Medicare cuts in place — as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget did. But that would be a tough sell for Republicans, since they campaigned against the cuts in 2010 and could try it again next year.

Still, Republicans are likely to look at budget reconciliation as a big step on the road to repeal, if that’s what they have to use. “It gets you a long way,” said Eric Ueland, a vice president at the Duberstein Group and a longtime Republican Senate aide who served as chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

There's also a newer repeal scenario emerging now, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Thursday manuever to change the Senate rules. Since Reid was able to do that through a narrow, 51-48 vote to overrule the parliamentarian, there's talk on the Hill that Republicans could use the same kind of vote to force a last-minute amendment to repeal the entire health care law — and get it through with 51 votes. It's still speculative, but keep an eye on that scenario, too.

18 posted on 10/12/2011 9:17:36 AM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard
From an opposition thread, it is said that reconciliation can only be used if it is revenue neutral. Since the AHCA was scored as reducing expenditures, higher tax revenue would be necessary.

From the same board, wrong politics but equally true:

"Any one who signs into law the very sort of health care bill in his state but wants to repeal the same kind of law nationally is totally unprincipled and callous. He cannot be trusted to stand up for anything."

20 posted on 10/12/2011 10:29:28 AM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kennard
From Jeffrey Anderson in The Weekly Standard today:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-cares-about-repeal_595761.html

During tonight’s GOP presidential debate, Mitt Romney vowed — for the first time — to advance legislation to repeal Obamacare “on day-2,” pledging to use the reconciliation process (the same process by which Obamacare was ultimately passed) to do so. This is a welcome step forward for Romney, who had previously pledged only to issue an essentially meaningless 50-state Obamacare waiver on day-1 (which he vowed again tonight to do) and to push for repeal “subsequently.” The willingness to use the reconciliation process, which would require only 50 votes in the Senate, represents an apparent change in position on the part of the Romney campaign from just last week.

It appears that the Romney campaign has gone from a prudent position to an all-in "reconciliation, no problem, it'll work" position in a matter of a week.

Doesn't this sound like pandering to the Republican primary voter? The danger is that if someone is nominated and elected on this 'platform', we will all end up betrayed. I would rather be told the truth from the outset, just not by Huntsman.

21 posted on 10/12/2011 10:51:25 AM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson