Mitch’s first big headache: How to convince conservatives he can’t “repeal Obamacare”

[KingOrfeo]

From Salon:

Tuesday, Nov 11, 2014 06:59 AM EST

Mitch’s first big headache: How to convince conservatives he can’t “repeal Obamacare”

Conservative groups are pressuring the new Senate leader to adopt a strategy -- and it has zero chance of working

Jim Newell

The first major head of conflict for the incoming Senate majority has revealed itself.

On one side you have an incoming Senate majority leader, and other adherents of basic mathematics (sellouts!), who argue that there simply isn’t a path to achieve the prime ideological goal of “the base.” On the other side you have “the base,” by which we mean Sen. Ted Cruz and friendly conservative outside groups looking to exploit unresolvable tensions for fun and profit. The question is: Should Mitch McConnell use the budget reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare? It’s this procedural question that serves as story line to the long-awaited, quixotic sequel to that math-punching blockbuster hit of 2013, Shut Down the Government Until Obamacare Is Repealed.

The Hill this morning reports on the interest groups that are pressuring McConnell to adopt the tactic. And the fundamental problem with this reconciliation strategy shows itself in the language they’re using to discuss it: the idea that Republicans can “repeal Obamacare” with 51 votes. “Republicans should use reconciliation to fully repeal ObamaCare,” says Ken Cuccinelli, head of the Senate Conservatives Fund — no friend to Mitch McConnell. A communications director of the mighty Heritage Action echoes Cuccinelli, arguing, “‘the most important’ thing that Republicans could do in the majority would be to ‘use the reconciliation instructions to repeal ObamaCare.’”

Do you see the problem with this language? Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans cannot, as it happens, repeal Obamacare with 51 votes. What they can do is pass a bill to repeal Obamacare with 51 votes. The House, as it does every 45 minutes or so, can also pass a bill to repeal Obamacare. Once each chamber has passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, that bill can go to President Obama. And then he will veto it. The numbers do not exist in either the House or the Senate to override that veto.

This is a tedious semantic distinction, but it’s the precise tedious semantic distinction that’s keeping this mathless, waste-of-time strategy alive and gaining momentum well past its sell date. It’s much more fun and fruitful for the Senate Conservatives Fund or Heritage to write one of those “Dear Conservatives” emails calling on Senate Republicans to “repeal Obamacare” than it is to write one calling on Senate Republicans to “pass a repeal of Obamacare.” As though it’s up to Mitch McConnell’s predilection for aggressive procedural maneuvering to determine whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. But the only thing that’s within Mitch McConnell’s control, essentially, is whether to register a protest vote that will get vetoed.

There is at least one Tea Party outside group, surprisingly, that’s opted for Team Reality in this coming fight. Mark it down now: The Tea Party Express, unlike the Senate Conservatives Fund and Heritage Action, understands that the Constitution gives the president of the United States this power called the “veto.”

Some conservatives question whether the strategy is worth pursuing while there’s a Democrat in the White House.

“Reconciliation works when you have a Republican president who will go with a Republican Congress. I don’t see a lot of opportunities,” said Sal Russo, founder and chief strategist of the Tea Party Express. “There are probably some ObamaCare fixes that perhaps would have Democratic support — the medical device tax [repeal] — but if it gets too aggressive, it’s not going to stand a chance of getting past the president.”

“I think it’s going to be a limited tool,” he added.

The Tea Party Express gets it! What a world.

There are other problems with using the reconciliation process, for either a full Obamacare repeal or a repeal of the medical device or individual mandate, beyond the existence of the presidential veto. The so-called Byrd Rule does not allow the reconciliation process to be used for anything that adds to the deficit. The Affordable Care Act, by the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring, reduces the budget deficit by billions of dollars over the 10-year horizon. Repealing it would add to the deficit. Repealing the medical device tax would also add to the deficit. Same thing for the individual mandate since it is, as Chief Justice John Roberts so famously put it, a tax.

There would be a couple of ways for the Senate Republican leadership to get around the Byrd Rule. It could logroll the repeal of these budget-increasing items with some other deficit-reducing measure into a reconciliation vehicle that reduces the deficit on net. Another, more “fun” option would be to take Paul Ryan’s advice by leading a coup at the CBO and changing the way in which it scores legislation. Yes, we’re talking about instituting “dynamic scoring,” that special conservative pixie dust that fills the cavernous gaps of supply-side economics. Under this logic, a repeal of Obamacare or one of its taxes wouldn’t add to the deficit, because repeal would obviously create ~77 percent quarterly GDP growth, easily making up the revenue shortfall.

The sooner conservatives get over this “McConnell can repeal Obamacare with 51 votes!” mirage, the sooner they’ll realize that there are meaningful ways they can chip away at Obamacare without even needing gimmicks. As the Tea Party Express strategist said, a repeal of the medical device tax is possible. It would get plenty of Democratic votes. President Obama, revealingly, dodged a question during last week’s press conference about whether he’d sign a repeal of it. He could probably be pressured into doing so.

The insistence on pursuing the Big Repeal, even though it’s impossible, instead of chipping away meaningfully but still at the margins of the law may represent a bigger unease among conservatives: that once Republican legislators begin working to reform the law, they’ve implicitly abandoned the larger goal of repealing it. Manicuring the coarser edges of the law signals that the property only needs a bit of maintenance, can be salvaged, doesn’t need to be imploded. And that would be a realism too radical for the times.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

King v Burwell has a big chance of stopping Obamacare altogether, without congressional action.

Vetty's a big fan of judicial activists legislatin' from the bench.

It sure beats havin' to get those pesky majority votes!

Sure, it's anathema to the concept of majority rule, but Vetty's always believed that the Constitution is "just a God damned piece of paper"...just like Dubya.

 

[Busybody]

Vetty's a big fan of judicial activists legislatin' from the bench.

It sure beats havin' to get those pesky majority votes!

Sure, it's anathema to the concept of majority rule, but Vetty's always believed that the Constitution is "just a God damned piece of paper"...just like Dubya.

elections have consequences

#Deal With It-MOVE ON

 

[Busybody]

For VETERANS DAY...Salon said VETS aren't heros RAPPERS are HEROS


Degenerate

QUEER ORAFACRCE always links to anti AMERCIAN links

FUCK HIM

 

[Boxlicker101]

Vetty's a big fan of judicial activists legislatin' from the bench.

It sure beats havin' to get those pesky majority votes!

Beginning in Jan., the majority of Congress would certainly vote to repeal Obamacare. However, The Big O, going against the wishes of the majority, would veto the repeal.

Sure, it's anathema to the concept of majority rule, but Vetty's always believed that the Constitution is "just a God damned piece of paper"...just like Dubya.

I challenge you to show us when and in what context W ever said any such thing. And I mean a reliable source, not MediaMatters or other pack of liars.

 

[toubab]

It will have to be repealed a piece at a time, if the Supreme Court doesn't kill it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Beginning in Jan., the majority of Congress would certainly vote to repeal Obamacare. However, The Big O, going against the wishes of the majority, would veto the repeal.

President Obama was elected by a majority of voters in 2012. He's doing what voters elected HIM to do. If Congress doesn't approve, they need to muster 2/3 vote to override him. As you well know, they do not have the votes.

I challenge you to show us when and in what context W ever said any such thing. And I mean a reliable source, not MediaMatters or other pack of liars.

Go fuck yourself. Google is your friend.

It will have to be repealed a piece at a time, if the Supreme Court doesn't kill it.

See above.

 

[KingOrfeo]

King v Burwell has a big chance of stopping Obamacare altogether, without congressional action.

Sure you want that?

Monday, Nov 10, 2014 11:22 AM EST

SCOTUS could roil the GOP: How new threat to Obamacare may backfire on the right

Republicans could finally realize their dream of seeing Obamacare eviscerated -- and they may not like the outcome

Simon Maloy

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, a case that threatens to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance tax credits in most states and render health insurance unaffordable for millions of current beneficiaries. That the court agreed to take up the case is upsetting, but not entirely surprising. The legal reasoning of the plaintiff’s argument against the ACA is highly dubious at best, and the case’s supporters were gambling hugely on the willingness of the court’s conservative bloc to prioritize ideology and partisanship over sound legal reasoning and common sense. Given that there are at least four Obamacare opponents on the court, and it only takes four justices to grant a case a hearing, it would seem that their wager was well placed.

So now that the court’s conservatives are getting their second bite at the Obamacare apple, will the law actually be undone? Obviously it’s impossible to say for sure. It’s difficult to envision any scenario in which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Anthony Kennedy’s famous for being the court’s “swing vote,” though he voted to vacate the law the last time around. Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, opted merely to wound the law instead of kill it outright. One could argue that since Roberts already passed up the less preposterous legal route to killing the law that he’s unlikely to go for it this time, but at this point it’s all conjecture.

Regardless, the odds of the law’s survival were higher heading into Friday than they were coming out. This is obviously not the scenario the White House wanted to be in, and they put out a statement on Friday denouncing the lawsuit as “just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act.”

But, for the moment, let’s assume that the SCOTUS conservatives carry the day and successfully eviscerate the Affordable Care Act by invalidating the tax credits offered through the 36 state exchanges run by the federal government. In many ways this would seem to offer an ideal political scenario for the Republicans. A legislative repeal of the Affordable Care Act isn’t going to happen, even with a Republican-controlled Congress, owing to the president’s veto pen. But if the Supreme Court steps in and guts the law for them, then they get their preferred policy outcome without having to do any of the actual dirty work. No fuss, no muss.

But it’s not at all that simple. The biggest political challenge facing the GOP is the fact that “repealing” or otherwise damaging the Affordable Care Act, while ideologically satisfying, carries with it some very real consequences. The states that opted not to create their own health exchanges – the states that would lose their health insurance subsidies if SCOTUS rules against the government – are mostly Republican-governed states. The sudden unavailability of those tax credits would mean that a lot of newly insured people in those states would no longer be able to afford their health coverage. They will expect their elected officials to do something to mitigate the damage, which would be catastrophic. Close to 5 million people across the country would see their health insurance costs spike.

That would pose an awkward situation for Republicans in the statehouses and Congress: Do they stick to their ideologically acceptable rigid opposition to Obamacare, or do they work to fix the law? Congress has the ability (if not the willingness) to pass a quick legislative fix to solve the problems. Governors could agree to set up exchanges within the state to keep the subsidies flowing. These are the simplest paths to resolving the issue, and there would be intense pressure to get either or both done.

Consider for a moment just how many governors and senators from Healthcare.gov states are considered to be contenders for the GOP presidential nomination: Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Hard-line Obamacare opponents like Cruz and Jindal probably wouldn’t be swayed (Cruz actually roots for the subsidies to be ripped away, calling them “insidious”), but others have at least shown some willingness to work within the law. Christie and Kasich both accepted the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, and Pence pitched an alternative plan for expanding Medicaid, though it was shot down by the feds.

Republicans could end up seriously divided on the issue as they face down howling complaints from constituents, congressional Democrats and the White House to do the right thing and help restore health coverage to those who lost it.

The Republicans and conservatives who clamor for the elimination of the Affordable Care Act tend to carefully avoid discussing the inevitable results of the law’s demise: exploding health insurance costs, spikes in uninsurance, general chaos in the health insurance market, and the very real chance that people will die. The GOP doesn’t have a plan for what comes after the ACA, they just want it gone, no matter the consequences. If the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, they’d be forced to face down those consequences, and there’s a good chance they won’t like what they see.

 

[toubab]

President Obama was elected by a majority of voters in 2012. He's doing what voters elected HIM to do. If Congress doesn't approve, they need to muster 2/3 vote to override him. As you well know, they do not have the votes.

Go fuck yourself. Google is your friend.



See above.

You are going to be spitting nails come next year.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You are going to be spitting nails come next year.

Only if the Republicans choose to abrogate the Constitution.

If they can somehow get 2/3 votes to override, more power to them.

You and I both know they cannot possibly get that many votes, so they'll have to resort to subverting the process if they want to achieve their goals.

 

[toubab]

Only if the Republicans choose to abrogate the Constitution.

If they can somehow get 2/3 votes to override, more power to them.

You and I both know they cannot possibly get that many votes, so they'll have to resort to subverting the process if they want to achieve their goals.

Like I said, you are going to be spitting nails. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Like I said, you are going to be spitting nails. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Like, shut down the government until the ACA is repealed? Again?

 

[toubab]

Like, shut down the government until the ACA is repealed? Again?

No, like take it apart a piece at a time, if the Supreme Court doesn't do it.

 

[Busybody]

when Obola was allegedly elected in 12

no one knew how illegal, ineffective, harmful and devestating was

now most know

12 is not 14

 

[Que]

Sure you want that?

Monday, Nov 10, 2014 11:22 AM EST

SCOTUS could roil the GOP: How new threat to Obamacare may backfire on the right

Republicans could finally realize their dream of seeing Obamacare eviscerated -- and they may not like the outcome

Simon Maloy

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, a case that threatens to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance tax credits in most states and render health insurance unaffordable for millions of current beneficiaries. That the court agreed to take up the case is upsetting, but not entirely surprising. The legal reasoning of the plaintiff’s argument against the ACA is highly dubious at best, and the case’s supporters were gambling hugely on the willingness of the court’s conservative bloc to prioritize ideology and partisanship over sound legal reasoning and common sense. Given that there are at least four Obamacare opponents on the court, and it only takes four justices to grant a case a hearing, it would seem that their wager was well placed.

So now that the court’s conservatives are getting their second bite at the Obamacare apple, will the law actually be undone? Obviously it’s impossible to say for sure. It’s difficult to envision any scenario in which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Anthony Kennedy’s famous for being the court’s “swing vote,” though he voted to vacate the law the last time around. Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, opted merely to wound the law instead of kill it outright. One could argue that since Roberts already passed up the less preposterous legal route to killing the law that he’s unlikely to go for it this time, but at this point it’s all conjecture.

Regardless, the odds of the law’s survival were higher heading into Friday than they were coming out. This is obviously not the scenario the White House wanted to be in, and they put out a statement on Friday denouncing the lawsuit as “just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act.”

But, for the moment, let’s assume that the SCOTUS conservatives carry the day and successfully eviscerate the Affordable Care Act by invalidating the tax credits offered through the 36 state exchanges run by the federal government. In many ways this would seem to offer an ideal political scenario for the Republicans. A legislative repeal of the Affordable Care Act isn’t going to happen, even with a Republican-controlled Congress, owing to the president’s veto pen. But if the Supreme Court steps in and guts the law for them, then they get their preferred policy outcome without having to do any of the actual dirty work. No fuss, no muss.

But it’s not at all that simple. The biggest political challenge facing the GOP is the fact that “repealing” or otherwise damaging the Affordable Care Act, while ideologically satisfying, carries with it some very real consequences. The states that opted not to create their own health exchanges – the states that would lose their health insurance subsidies if SCOTUS rules against the government – are mostly Republican-governed states. The sudden unavailability of those tax credits would mean that a lot of newly insured people in those states would no longer be able to afford their health coverage. They will expect their elected officials to do something to mitigate the damage, which would be catastrophic. Close to 5 million people across the country would see their health insurance costs spike.

That would pose an awkward situation for Republicans in the statehouses and Congress: Do they stick to their ideologically acceptable rigid opposition to Obamacare, or do they work to fix the law? Congress has the ability (if not the willingness) to pass a quick legislative fix to solve the problems. Governors could agree to set up exchanges within the state to keep the subsidies flowing. These are the simplest paths to resolving the issue, and there would be intense pressure to get either or both done.

Consider for a moment just how many governors and senators from Healthcare.gov states are considered to be contenders for the GOP presidential nomination: Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Hard-line Obamacare opponents like Cruz and Jindal probably wouldn’t be swayed (Cruz actually roots for the subsidies to be ripped away, calling them “insidious”), but others have at least shown some willingness to work within the law. Christie and Kasich both accepted the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, and Pence pitched an alternative plan for expanding Medicaid, though it was shot down by the feds.

Republicans could end up seriously divided on the issue as they face down howling complaints from constituents, congressional Democrats and the White House to do the right thing and help restore health coverage to those who lost it.

The Republicans and conservatives who clamor for the elimination of the Affordable Care Act tend to carefully avoid discussing the inevitable results of the law’s demise: exploding health insurance costs, spikes in uninsurance, general chaos in the health insurance market, and the very real chance that people will die. The GOP doesn’t have a plan for what comes after the ACA, they just want it gone, no matter the consequences. If the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, they’d be forced to face down those consequences, and there’s a good chance they won’t like what they see.

Hyperbole much?

1) in what way was Roberts ruling "wounding" the law?

2) Of course when you stop giving away money, recipients of free money have less free money. You could have given away all that free money a lot cheaper with a lot less overhead while not endangering all the plans and doctors that people liked and wanted to keep.

3) "Exploding costs?" As if there is ANYTHING in the unaffordable care act that has done anything but raise the cost of insurance and healthcare. Removing the thing that has raised costs overall does not cause costs to "explode." What mechanism in the act has the effect of curtailing costs? The much spouted nonsense about emergency rooms being used as primary care is disproves since those visits went up under ACA. This resulted in slightly less of the visits being unreimbursed from the folly of Reagans meddling. Does the mighty anti-corporation Oreo assume that the slowing of the rate of emergency room losses will be passed on to consumers in the form of cost savings by the evil, greedy hospital corporations?

 

[KingOrfeo]

No, like take it apart a piece at a time, if the Supreme Court doesn't do it.

But that requires bills. Obama still can veto every such bill.

 

[toubab]

But that requires bills. Obama still can veto every such bill.

Yes, he can, if he dares. Do you think he will veto a bill to eliminate the tax on medical devices?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes, he can, if he dares. Do you think he will veto a bill to eliminate the tax on medical devices?

He might or might not; the ACA survives either way.

 

[toubab]

He might or might not; the ACA survives either way.

We shall see.

 

[Killswitch]

Actually it's going to be how they'd better get a feasible immigration plan together before President Obama trumps them and puts that ball in their court for all to watch.

He's been warning them and waiting for them for 6 years.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Killswitch]

He will divide the nation when he does this. The reason Congress has not passed a bill is because the Senate version does not seriously control the border, and the American people are against amnesty, which is what this really is. No bill has been passed because Obama has demonstrated over and over again that he will not enforce our law as passed by Congress. He has poisoned the well. Democrats will pay heavily for his unlawful actions.

Call his bluff then because he's laying his cards on the table before Christmas from what I gleen.

If he throws a bone like that to the Immigrants legal or illegal and you guys don't get on board some way some how....

You're fucked.

It's that plain and simple.

You're getting poor advice or listening to renegades pal.

70% want a plan and 30% of the population is Mexican or "foreign"

Yeah....it's gonna hurt like hell.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He will divide the nation when he does this.

The nation is already divided, into two almost-halves with incompatible world-views political and cultural, each seeing the other as not merely wrong but The Bad Guys, and it has been so for decades and has been growing steadily more so for the past decade -- have you not noticed?!

 

[unregistered]