Posted on 03/09/2017 12:44:19 PM PST by Bratch
Another option is to completely defund it starting in 2018 using the reconciliation bill and then have Trump start using his bully pulpit to force the Dems to the negotiating table to replace it with something less draconian.
Is that perfect? No, absolutely not... but it is far far better than tucking tail and giving up.
It will all come out of the Senate...
It took 50 years to get here...were not going to get rid of it in one year..
Tax cuts are different we should get them by August or the the GOP is done..they must say they are retro-active til January 1
by August..details could wait til September
It’s also not “health care reform”, it’s government program reform.
Here’s the bill:
“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111148) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”
Have a roll call vote on it.
Well I guess they thought they could repeal it when they sent all those repeal bills to Obama to veto........or it was just for show.
Choose wisely. Lol
The problem with the phased plan is that if the Dems stretch it out over more than two years they get another chance in 2018 to kill the entire process. Do the Republicans have the determination necessary to carry this plan through to completion? Anyone who wants to tell me "yes" had better have more evidence than I can see at the moment. Because what I see in application is not repeal, it's re-label. We didn't bust our humps to give these guys a majority only to see them not even try.
I'll wait and see, but I am not happy.
OPTION 1: Just let it die.
There is no way to put in place the system we need, one that is fair for all people and responsive to their needs unless we eliminate Obamacare first.
If the republicans can’t muster enough democrats who want to do the right thing, then just let it die.
Sure, there is going to be chaos for all and severe pain for some. A lot of people will really be hurt. But it looks like that’s the price we’re going to have to pay for a healthy future.
Step 2 can be done concurrently with Step 1. Heck Step 2 already started when the IRS announced a few weeks ago that they would not enforce the individual mandate for people filing their 2016 tax returns.
Yes and they are already starting bills for Phase three but they can’t get 60 votes. They either have to nuke the filibuster or plan Phase Three around the 2018 elections.
The alternative is an Article V Convention of States to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Here is Sundance's argument:
However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.
There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions. What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.
The constitutional republic being now replaced with a pure majority rule democracy. The founding fathers regarded majority rule democracy less desirable than a monarchy because a simple majority means mob rule. At least in a monarchy you might get a wise king once-in-a-while. In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything. You go from being a nation of laws, to a nation of laws of the moment based on emotion.
Eliminating the 3/5ths vote threshold in the Senate would also mean theres no real reason to keep the Senate around when in the hands of the same party as the House. The House can pass 50% +1 bills all by themselves. The Senate, the place where grand deliberations required the protection and consideration of the minority position, would be unnecessary.
All structural protections for the minority views would be dispatched. Forever.
Without the filibuster rule, and with the Senate having only a simple majority rule for passage, there would no longer exist an internal legislative check for any minority party to protect themselves from the laws created by a greater mob.
The ruling party would be in power as if they held a Senate super majority at all times. As a consequence, with minority protection eliminated, legislation impacting Texas (or any state) is then ruled by the legislative federal dictates from those representing New York and California (or any other aggregate). There is no legislative pressure to listen to, or consider, the position of the minority party.
And a solution is illustrated in the following amendment to repeal the 17th while simultaneously imposing term limits and allowing state legislatures and voters to vote out the chosen US Senator:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII ('State Suffrage')
To restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1. A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2. Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3: The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
And for those that are skeptical that Congress and the Courts would take up or enforce such an amendment, note that this process is done completely outside of Congress and the Courts, without any role of Governors or the President.
There is nowhere in the language of such amendments that provide any wiggle room for federal government to involve itself. The language leaves it entirely in the hands of states.
Since The donald favors RyanCare - will it be GREAT, TRUST ME?
Takes two years, if it even possible.
BFLR
No, guy, you reached a conclusion with a bad premise.
The Democrats passed Obamacare under Reconciliation for the express, clear, specific reason that they COULD NOT change the filibuster rules — because their OWN Senators would not approve of it.
That is absolutely no difference from what the GOP faces. Many of their own won’t vote to gut the filibuster, because they rightly understand it’s a good process. It protects the minority. Frankly, it protects the majority, too, from overreach.
You have this wrong. The reason the Democrats would not change in a future majority is same as it was with past majorities. It has nothing to do with polite, or collegiality. It has to do with understanding it protects the minority, which they will be again someday.
It requires major things to have major support. That’s a very good thing. GOP Senators who would oppose gutting the Filibuster for healthcare are being wise. They are likely going to have to do it for the USSC, and that’s far more important. They’ll even have help on the Dem side on that issue, who will be trying to find ways for the GOP not to need to use nuclear option. The rationale is already out there:
“Not this justice. This is a Scalia replacement. It’s just replacing a conservative with another, so don’t push them into destroying something valuable like the filibuster. If a liberal justice dies, then we fight with everything we have, but not for this one.”
You greatly underestimate the understanding on the Dem side of the Senate aisle. They would not gut the filibuster in 2010 and they won’t in the future either.
Pass the Paul bill, and let us see who votes against it. There's an election in 2 years, and a lot of Dem Senators will up for re-election. Voting against the Paul bill would be a big no-no for re-election for Senate in WI and PA and the other previously blue states that went for Trump.
Keep pushing for what we want. The Ryan bill is 90% of what the left wants, health care is still Federalized, still a "right". The mandate is still there.
Letting the left have most of what they want is the same old conservative tactic: accept a slower path to socialism and declare victory.
I received this email from Senate Conservatives Fund this morning:
“The American Action Network (AAN) announced yesterday that it will spend $500,000 on TV ads in the districts of 30 members of the House Freedom Caucus.
This group is backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and is attacking House conservatives for refusing to back RyanCare, which keeps some of the worst parts of Obamacare.
Some of the members being attacked include principled leaders like Jim Jordan (R-OH), Mark Meadows (R-NC), and Dave Brat (R-VA).
The ads claim that RyanCare eliminates Obamacare’s mandates and will lower costs. Neither are true.
As you may know, we defended House conservatives when they were attacked by this same group two years ago for opposing taxpayer funding for President Obama’s executive amnesty.”
This is not negotiation, this is a shut-down of vigorous debate.
The Turtle is all over the place stating that tax cuts will not occur this year.
Ping
Ping
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.