Skip to comments.A Strategy to Undo ObamaCare
Posted on 07/03/2012 8:13:07 AM PDT by kingattax
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled ObamaCare's individual mandate constitutional, the direction of American health policy is in the hands of voters. So how do we get from here to "repeal and replace"?
Step one is electing Mitt Romney as president, along with Republican House and Senate majorities. Without a Republican sweep, the law will remain in place.
But a President Romney does not need 60 Republican senators to repeal core elements of ObamaCare. Democrats lost their 60th senate vote in early 2010 after Scott Brown took Edward Kennedy's seat. To bypass a Senate GOP filibuster and enact portions of ObamaCare, they used a special legislative procedure called reconciliation.
Reconciliation allows a bill to pass the Senate in a limited time period, with limited amendments, and with only 51 votes; filibusters are not permitted. In 2010, Democrats split their health-policy changes into two bills, one of which they enacted through this fast-track process. In 2013, a Republican majority could use the same reconciliation process to repeal those changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Politics is a bloodsport.
The Dems jammed this crap down our throats by using every advantage of a majority.
The Pubbies have to do the same thing...or else.
First thing to do is remove “ ALL EXEMPTIONS “
Yes but, what about those two Rino senators from Maine, for example?
You never know which way they will go, given the pressures.
After Scott Brown was elected they no longer had the majority to pass this crap. It wasn't until they changed the rules via reconciliation that it passed.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
This time it will only be ONE RINO Senator from Maine — Susan Collins. Olympia Snowe is not running for re-election. One would have to assume the the RINO from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, if he is re-elected, will vote to overturn Obamacare, since that was why he is elected and what he is campaigning on.
You know the old saying: “What goes around, comes around.”
This ballgame ain’t over. Not by a long shot.
Holy smokes, there are a lot of cliches in this post.
This timeline relies on the Republican party winning the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress in November, then waiting till April 2013 to pass a budget resolution. This outcome is hardly guaranteed, and I ask, “Why wait till 2013 to repeal “Obamacare””?
A principled stand by Congressional Republicans needs to force the following:
- Repeal of the ACA by the House, currently scheduled for July 11th, 2012.
- Pass no spending bills for FY13 until the Senate passes a budget. During the budget debate in the Senate, Senate Republicans need to introduce an amendment to repeal the ACA. The Senate passed the ACA via reconciliation and the Senate should be able to repeal via reconciliation. I’m betting there are a handful of Democratic Senators who are regretting their previous votes for the ACA and are willing to flip-flop.
We are being manipulated by our own party right now with this "repeal and replace" nonsense. What they are doing is trying to force a situation where the republicans can write their own version of government intrusion and force us to support it as the ONLY way to get rid of Obamacare. The plan is to make us chose to support whatever crap they come up with or be stuck with Obamacare because the repeal will include the replacement in the same bill. This is a heads we win tails you lose set up. If we simply repeal every word of Obamacare first then whatever the republicans want to do can be considered and supported or rejected without being tied to getting rid of Obamacare.
I get pissed off every time I hear "repeal and replace" because I know exactly what they are doing.
If all else fails, pay as little as legally possible into the system then use and abuse it until rationing of doctor time makes the system collapse.
And while repealing ObombneyCare won't undo the severe damage Roberts has done to the Constitution, the fact that he ruled the mandate a tax means that Reconciliation can be used to repeal it, rather than requiring a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which seems out of reach.
I'm still not certain Mittens will win, or that there will be a Repug majority in the Senate, but there does seem to be at least a realistic shot at repealing this monstrosity.
Step two is retiring Mitch McConnell.
Step three is retiring John Boehner.
Too bad we don't have a republican in this race unless you are talking about this guy.
Answer: Presidential Veto
Regardless of how you cut it, there is zero chance of repeal as long as Zero is president.
Secondly, there can be another shot before the Supreme Court. Roberts ruled the mandate is a tax, but I don't think he declared the tax constitutional or unconstitutional.
The Court lacks authority to rule on the tax until its been imposed. This means that once its imposed, the case can be appealed to the Court once again on the constitutionality of the tax. This gives Roberts a second chance to redeem himself.