Posted on 03/09/2017 12:44:19 PM PST by Bratch
Good news, they’re listening to you. No other approach to repealing ObamaCare is possible. It’s not ideological, it is simply reality. The backstory on our prior explanations are HERE and expanded HERE.
After listening to conservative groups at a White House meeting yesterday, it became obvious to POTUS those group leaders/members did not understand WHY no other approach to repeal is possible. POTUS asked Speaker Ryan to put this together and deliver it today:
WOW: Paul Ryan's American Health Care Act (Obamacare Replacement) FULL PowerPoint Presentation
Most of you already know this outline because you’ve understood the bigger picture. Hopefully this message will reach the 99% who don’t understand that “reconciliation” doesn’t allow for substantive structural add-ons to ObamaCare, until step #3. Again, HERE and HERE.
FACT: ObamaCare was passed, using the original legislative vehicle, at 1:38am on 12/24/09 with 60 votes in the Senate (see below). The House then approved that Senate Bill without changes; and in February 2010 created a secondary bill which created the opportunity for the Senate to modify ObamaCare using “reconciliation” for a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.
Literally under the cloak of darkness Democrats rammed their holy grail of a socialist construct down the throat of every American. We no longer needed to imagine having usurping representation that did not represent the will of the people – we saw it.
[Understand the full construct by reading HERE] If you do not understand how legislation is created; if you do not understand the difference between the Senate and House; if you do not understand the way ObamaCare was created, you really need to read this first.
A clean repeal bill, meaning a law to repeal the entire ObamaCare construct only, would require another 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.
Republicans, while in the majority, only control 52 seats. Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a “repeal bill”, any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.
This is why Mark Levin is a con-man; selling snake oil as outrage to keep a listening audience angry, yet clueless and hopeless. That’s what I don’t like.
A complete repeal of ObamaCare is currently impossible. The House Freedom Caucus can push all the repeal bills they want, but they cannot get a clean repeal bill through the Senate because they cannot get the 60 votes needed. Period.
Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever. What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules. The current Ryan bill is almost identical to the 2016 defunding bill everyone is mistakenly calling a prior “repeal bill”.
A complete independent repeal bill of ObamaCare is currently impossible.
The only bill that can pass the Senate is a bill that can utilize the process of reconciliation, which has a lower vote threshold of 51 votes. A reconciliation bill is a budgetary bill designed around the financial drivers of ObamaCare. This is what HHS Secretary Tom Price, Speaker Ryan and President Trump are attempting to do.
A reconciliation bill cannot add substantively to the existing law. It can only modify the financial structures and retain the same 10-year budgetary impact. If you want substantive adds or removals of the law, beyond the financial structure, it is no longer a reconciliation bill.
If it is no longer a reconciliation bill, it requires 60 votes. 52 Republicans + 8 democrats. Democrats have already stated they will not support any substantive changes that undermine the key ObamaCare provisions.
Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law… The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority, for all legislation.
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 3/5th’s vote threshold in the Senate would also mean there’s 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.
You would think that constitutional conservatives would be necessarily predisposed against the dropping of a constitutional republic in favor of a pure democracy (mob rule).
However, within this current argument over the Price/Ryan approach to replacing ObamaCare you find exactly that. Emotional conservatives, and crony-constitutional conservatives like Mark Levin, arguing against the current House bill leaving only the option to drop the Senate filibuster on legislation and pass laws with a simple majority.
So you tell me, is this really a constitutional-conservative approach?
Really and honestly?
Two more points on this issue:
♦ Point One – OK, lets say your Senator would agree to change the Senate Rules and eliminate the filibuster, allowing legislation to pass with 51 votes (there are about 28 +/- of them who would). To change the rules you need a majority of Senators to agree to do it. THERE ARE NOT 51 Senators willing to change the Senate rules to pass legislation.
♦ Point Two – There are not even 51 Senators who would agree to repeal ObamaCare. Forget the 60 vote threshold, for a moment. Even if you didn’t have the filibuster rule, there are not currently 51 Republican Senators willing to repeal ObamaCare without an existing replacement available.
Of course there are problems with the current Ryan bill. It can only approach ObamaCare from the reconciliation aspect. It cannot go into the substantive changes, adds or modifications because that would require the 60 vote Senate. Again, See Here.
Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever. What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.
Yes, the GOP could defund it 100% again, but then what?… It still exists as a program, and Trump would have to fund the existing (non repealed law) from somewhere. So you’re back to the 60 votes for a replacement again or eliminate the filibuster and go with the 51-vote threshold for all future legislation.
Back to current ObamaCare’s replacement – there are three options if we are going to retain a constitutional republic, and pass laws with the 60 vote senate filibuster threshold:
♦ Option #1 – We can do nothing – and allow ObamaCare to collapse on it’s own. In the interim many Americans will be negatively impacted and the more vulnerable and needy will be worst hurt. Premiums and co-pays continue to skyrocket while the insurance system tries to preserve itself.
♦ Option #2 – We can Repeal and Replace using the three-phase approach being proposed by Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:
Yes, this has it’s risks. No guarantee you’ll get the cookie you want in phase three because any structural amendment, any add-on, will take 60 Senate votes to pass.
♦ Option #3 – Pass futile structural repeal bills in the House, and watch them pile up in the Senate without the ability to pass and earn 60 votes. Shout and holler some more, gnash some teeth, and wait for 2018 when Republicans will attempt to win the other 8 seats needed. Again, even less of a guarantee on the outcome.
Those are our options.
Choose wisely.
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 111–148) 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 3/5th’s vote threshold in the Senate would also mean there’s 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.
