It's similar to a defeat Obamacare vote, but differently as they're attaching it to something that is actual leverage now.
The Government isn't funded after October 1st at this moment. The Republicans are suggesting passing a bill in the House which would fund the government, except for Obamacare, through December. (This short term funding is called a "Continuing Resolution" and has historically been used often to give additional time to get an actual Fiscal year "budget" passed for the whole year).
So basically putting an option before the Senate...take a bill that keeps the government running, but defunds Obamacare or shut the government down entirely.
Whether it would bite the Republicans in the ass or not is hard to say as it'll rely completley on how each side spins their argument after the fact (were it to happen).
Republicans would suggest that they took initiative to pass a bill that would fund the government, and were seeking to stop a highly unpopular law.
Democrats would suggest the Republicans held the government hostage to kill Obamacare, and that their attempts to keep the Government open wasn't in good faith.
People on either side will think their sides view is generally correct and the other sides view is full of crap. People in the middle will likely be swayed by who puts forth their argument better.
Because, historically, once you actually have people participating in a social welfare program it is ridiculously difficult to take it away. Despite ACA passing a while back, it's not really been implimented in such a way that people are largely and widely being covered under it's provisions. That starts on October 1st currently. So that's kind of the "deadline" to be able to reasonably stop it prior to the point where it becomes an actual social welfare program that you'd then be "taking away" from people.
Aaaaaaaand to my earlier point. Thanks for highlighting how liberals will try to paint it, and stating your view and opinion of it as if it's fact. It's amazing how that just flows off partisans tongues when speaking of things.
So your question isn't an honest one in the least, and this entire post just devolved into stereotypical hyper partisan drivel. Gotcha.
No, the general mindset of Republicans is that the cost of it will be overwhelming and ultimately a negative on our economy and our budget but that it will follow the standard path of most social welfare programs that, regardless of their level of success, tend to be very difficult to remove. In terms of political campaigning as well, once it actually goes into affect and people get insurance under the program it makes it FAR more difficult to campaign against as well because it becomes a point that the other side can claim you're trying to take peoples insurance away.
Now, whether or not it actually DOES cause the cost of government to rise as much as Republicans fear...that's to be seen. And surely, if the cost DOESN'T go up, they would have an even HARDER time to remove it after the fact. But the baseline of their fear is a historically understood fact amongst the Political Science community in terms of social welfare programs and their status as some of the hardest programs to remove once people are actually involved in it. Based largely on the fact that basic human nature is more reticent to give up something they HAVE or believe they have, as opposed to something they don't.
