• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How will republicans repeal ObamaCare?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ElFenix said:
considering the thing wasn't implemented until 2014, your graphic which stops at the end of 2013 didn't show a damn thing (other than the status quo ex ante, which is what KFF was using it for). so, no, you weren't cherry picking, you drove right past the orchard and crashed into the fence at the end of the lane.
Click to expand...

😀
 
On the topic of the OP:

I read a conservative wonk put it this way. He espoused using a similar trick to what got it enacted in the first place. The House would send a budget bill to the Senate. During the reconciliation process the Senate would take on a one line amendment: "The Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act of 2010 is hereby repealed." The Senate Dems would invoke the Byrd Rule (I don't know what that is exactly, but I surmise it's a parliamentary objection to a policy amendment being attached to a budget bill or something). The Senate Parliamentarian would rule against the amendment, which would trigger some other parliamentary rule permitting the Senate Repubs to declare that all amendments pertaining specifically to the ACA require a simple majority to pass. They would then be filibuster-proof.

The Senate would repeal the ACA in a filibuster-proof amendment and force the President to veto it. Then the Majority Leader and Speaker would call him out on the veto. They would then start proposing repeals of specific sections of the ACA, forcing Senate Dems to make public (and damaging) votes to either repeal or be labeled obstructionist. The ultimate goal is either get parts repealed, like the individual mandate, or make enough Dems vote against repeal that you pick up seats in '16 for a veto-proof majority.

Not saying I espouse this strategy, or that I even understand it, but that's what I read.
 
sactoking said:
On the topic of the OP:

I read a conservative wonk put it this way. He espoused using a similar trick to what got it enacted in the first place. The House would send a budget bill to the Senate. During the reconciliation process the Senate would take on a one line amendment: "The Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act of 2010 is hereby repealed." The Senate Dems would invoke the Byrd Rule (I don't know what that is exactly, but I surmise it's a parliamentary objection to a policy amendment being attached to a budget bill or something). The Senate Parliamentarian would rule against the amendment, which would trigger some other parliamentary rule permitting the Senate Repubs to declare that all amendments pertaining specifically to the ACA require a simple majority to pass. They would then be filibuster-proof.

The Senate would repeal the ACA in a filibuster-proof amendment and force the President to veto it. Then the Majority Leader and Speaker would call him out on the veto. They would then start proposing repeals of specific sections of the ACA, forcing Senate Dems to make public (and damaging) votes to either repeal or be labeled obstructionist. The ultimate goal is either get parts repealed, like the individual mandate, or make enough Dems vote against repeal that you pick up seats in '16 for a veto-proof majority.

Not saying I espouse this strategy, or that I even understand it, but that's what I read.
Click to expand...

There's no parliamentary rule that allows the republicans to declare all amendments related to something to be filibuster proof. The Byrd rule allows them to vote on budget related items without a filibuster, but not the regulatory items, etc, that comprise a huge portion of the ACA.

It's also for all intents and purposes mathematically impossible for republicans to pick up enough seats to have a veto proof majority in 2016. Hell, they would consider it a huge victory not to lose the senate in 2016.

Do you have a link to this? It sounds like there might be some important details left out or that guy didn't know what he was talking about.
 
brycejones said:
They are not but you are and intellectually dishonest to boot.

"Conclusion
Over 41 million nonelderly individuals were uninsured in 2013. This figure represents the baseline against which most changes in the ACA will be measured. While we do not yet know the full effect of the major coverage provisions of the ACA, early evidence indicates that it is working to expand insurance to those who need it."

That is from the very report you pulled your graph from that ended before coverage mandate went into effect. You would care to revise your statement?
Click to expand...
My bad. I saw that the article was very recent and I trusted the source and the posted graphic without looking into the details.
 
michal1980 said:
but what the say, and what they can do are two different things.

say they get another 2 republican senators. 54 voters. they would need 13 dems to vote against. I doubt that will happen.
Click to expand...
29 dem. senators that voted for it are gone.
Not that it matters much, cuz I don't believe obamacare will be repealed, though some changes should be made.
 
sactoking said:
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-repeal-obamacare-through-same-process-gave-us-obamacare

Authored by Michael Cannon of CATO.
Click to expand...

Oh, he's just saying if they change the Senate rules to effectively eliminate the filibuster than you can't filibuster it. That's always been true.

What he's saying is that if they just change the rules to make it so that you can't filibuster any legislation that's about the ACA that such a thing would somehow be a 'targeted and proportional' response. In reality however, all that would mean is that both political parties would simply do that for every piece of legislation they wanted to pass, which would mean that the filibuster is gone.

I for one think the filibuster should be eliminated and so I'm all for this plan, but I sincerely doubt the Republicans would do something so tactically foolish. If you're going to repeal inconvenient Senate rules you do it to accomplish something that you really want, not to push a bill forward one more step to be vetoed and accomplish nothing more than trying to force some unpopular votes.

This is red meat for the Republican base, not smart legislative strategy. Never going to happen.
 
LOL, it's just hilarious how now it's back to being "Obamacare" and not "The Republican's plan all along!" talking point.

Gee, when will it switch back?
 
Zaap said:
LOL, it's just hilarious how now it's back to being "Obamacare" and not "The Republican's plan all along!" talking point.

Gee, when will it switch back?
Click to expand...

Obamacare is fundamentally a Republican plan from the 90's.

Where on earth did you get the idea it was ever anything but both Obamacare AND a Republican plan?

I think you might be projecting here, haha.
 
Well it is headed back to the Supreme court.
But while most believe this is a trick to kill it or cripple ACA once and for all, I doubt that.
The high court will not start the hearings until next year. And the ruling will come sometime in June.

But.... in the meantime, the open enrollment for 2015 will start in just weeks.
And some 77 new private healthcare companies will take part in the coming year.
That's 77 more choices, and 77 added choices into the competition.
Which is what lowering cost is all about.
I guess the millions that signed up last open enrollment was just too much for those providers that sat it out waiting to see how this ACA thing would go down.
So naturally, more insurers want to get involved on a good thing.

So I highly doubt the Supreme court dare pull the healthcare rug out from under the millions that will be using ACA by next June.
Then again, we never imagined the court shutting down the right to vote and the right for that vote to be counted, back in 2000. But they did.
So obviously doing the right thing and the lawful thing is beyond the Supremes morality.

But I suspect the right wing and the media will assume the court taking ACA up, again, would mean the death panel for Obamacare.
I'd wager that the right wing Obamacare haters are setting themselves up for great disappointment come next june, once again.
 
I already enrolled this week, no changes from last year and I still have coverage that far exceeds ACA insurance and cost less than a bronze plan. Deductible $300 individual/$700 family, Max Out of Pocket $2,000 individual/$4,000 family. Copay 20% after deductible has been met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top