Here's to that!
[ 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. This is because for many major pieces of legislation, a simple majority vote no longer suffices for passage in the senate]
the Senate will repeal it through reconciliation. The SAME DAMN WAY IT WAS PASSED! Afterall, it is a TAX BILL! 51 Senate votes gets it done!
Mandate this, he said (scene redacted for small children that might be scared).
I don't remember the founders giving that power to any part of federal gooberment.
We just gotta get rid of it. It's like the teenage son you have to send to a recruiter.
We don't need a federal government. At all.
/johnny
What could anyone do about it? Also, Romney through HIS HHS Secretary could WAIVE all United States Citizens, but then maybe require illegal aliens to pay the "penalty tax"
Romney should be primaried if not repealed in full.
From what I read of the opinion, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the only two who felt that the commerce clause empowered the individual mandate.
I think the question we all need to be asking is:
“Where is my free health care, Mr. Obama?”
I went to the doctor and paid $2,000 this afternoon.
The question is:
“Where is my free health care?”
The army of drones that thinks this will work should ask:
“Where is my free health care?”
I am confident pubbies will take the prez, keep the house, and take the senate. That will easily be enough to repeal boneheadcare via recon, but will they have the cojones to do it against the heavy artillery fire from the msm?
In order for this to work, (obviously) Obama must lose. A veto-proof majority is impossible, and by 2017 the people will be too hooked on the goodies that no politician will dare repeal it. I hate Willard, but this is our only shot.
I agree with the content of this article. The difficulty to repeal is overwhelming. However, it will energize the conservative base and maybe, just maybe in a period of time, conservatives will learn how to reach out and inform the great masses of another alternative. If not . . . Welcome to Socialist Republic of Divided States!
The ball is now in the Republicans' court. They've already scheduled a repeal vote on July 11. Once before the Democrat-controlled Senate was able to scotch the effort by threat of filibuster. Had the mandate stood as mandate they could do so again. But now that it's a tax, it can be passed by a simple majority.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900927/posts
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.
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...
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.