Here's to that!
Posted on 06/29/2012 8:28:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Hasn’t Romney already asserted that, if elected, he would grant
a BOcare waver to all states?
If one vote was enough to get ObamaCare then why wouldn’t one be enough to repeal it? here’s a recap of how we got where we are today...
March 21, 2010: “Should Republican Scott Brown win Tuesday’s Senate race in Massachusetts and break the Democrats’ supermajority in the Senate, Congressional Dems could pass a final health care reform bill before Brown is seated, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters at his weekly press briefing Tuesday.
And if that means the House h...as to rubber-stamp the weaker reform bill that came out of the Senate, he said, “the Senate bill clearly is better than nothing.”
Under procedural statutes, Massachusetts officials could buy some time for Congress to pass health care by delaying the certification of a Brown victory. If everything drags out as long as possible, Democrats would have about two weeks to get the final bill to President Obama’s desk.
Holder Refuses to Provide Testimony on Kagan’s Involvement in Obamacare
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=22121&pst=1594668
Klayman To Seek Indictment Of Justices Roberts and Kagan Before Citizens Grand Jury
http://news.yahoo.com/klayman-seek-indictment-justices-roberts-kagan-citizens-grand-174411247.html
Here's to that!
The guy is an idiot. Obamacare was passed in the Senate using reconciliation, a simple majority is required. Do not need a filibuster proof Senate.
It can be repealed using the same procedure...
That would mean that in addition to holding the House and Mitt Romney defeating Obama in the race for the White House, Republicans would have to take the senate and by a filibuster-proof majority.
Thank you, Whenifhow.
I think I heard Michelle Bachman on FOX saying that the repeal doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. She repeated by saying to tell the people that, the 60 Senate votes are NOT needed and that 51 votes to pass the House repeal bill will repeal 0b0z0CommieCare.
Well, this would be a great incentive for us to capture the Senate.
I think the lower threshold for repeal will come back to haunt proponents of the legislation. In theory, a repeal of the ACA could be on the president’s desk before November’s election — there are quite a few Senate Democrats up for re-election this year. The 51-vote threshold for repeal is not an impossibility.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/still_a_bfd_obama_loses.html#ixzz1zILFO01x
Roberts just upheld a law that creates 159 agencies, hires 16,000 IRS agents and has in it this little blurb: “...whatever the Secretary deems appropriate.”
We are serfs to liege lords now.
Live by reconcilliation, die by reconcilliation.
Remember, regardless of what Obama’s thugs say, Obamacareless is now a tax. That means 60 votes are not needed.
“We are serfs to liege lords now.”
Never. I’m not giving in. I am seriously considering canceling my insurance, despite the fact that it’s really good and relatively cheap.
Catch me if you can, Barry......
What a great article, send it on to everyone in email lists and face book it, tweet it, print it out, hand it out, get it out there.
Ping and bump to post #28
The author also argues that reconciliation would not be applicable.
I have no idea how accurate this argument is, but it's apparent that it's being tossed around.
Many Republicans, especially in the blog and talk-radio swamps, would cry, “Use reconciliation!” Readers familiar with the congressional debates of 2009-2010 will remember that this procedure allows certain budgetary measures to pass through the Senate with a simple majority. (After Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by the Republican Scott Brown, Obama and congressional Democrats used the reconciliation process to make some final, crucial changes to the health-care law.) But reconciliation wouldn’t work here—the process can only be used for policies that have budgetary effects and a C.B.O. score. Much of the A.C.A., such as the insurance exchanges and subsidies, would fall under these categories. But a lot of it, including the hated individual mandate, does not. Repealing the exchanges and subsides without repealing the mandate and the other regulations and cost controls in the law would create a health-care Frankenstein that a President Romney would be rather nuts to support.
If the Supreme Court had gutted the law today by throwing out the mandate and the regulations and several of the other “non-scoreable” items, a President Romney with a G.O.P. Congress might have had a relatively easy time finishing the job of killing Obama’s law, even without sixty votes in the Senate. But today the Court did two things that make repeal of the A.C.A. nearly impossible now: it has given its not-inconsequential stamp of legitimacy to the law, and it has made the parliamentary path of repeal through Congress highly unlikely and probably impossible, at least in the near future.
Far-sighted conservatives always thought that their great hope for toppling Obama’s most important legislative achievement was through the courts. They were correct.
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.