The ObamaCare "Go Around" Repeal...#51 and counting

Objective Voice · Jul 28, 2015

Just read this article from theHill.com where Sen. Mark Lee has made a deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "repeal" ObamaCare through the reconciliation process. They intend to use budget bills to defund ObamaCare since such bills would only require a simple majority, 51 votes.

The Majority Leader and I are committed to using reconciliation to repeal Obamacare in the 114th Congress,” Lee wrote in a statement.

That is a turnaround from Lee's previous push to attach an ObamaCare repeal amendment to this week's highway funding bill. He planned to force a vote using an arcane Senate procedure known as "the nuclear option."

Lee offered a deal to McConnell on Monday night before the vote. In return for dropping his effort, Lee sought a promise from McConnell that he would pursue reconciliation. The procedure would require just 51 votes to send certain budget-related legislation to the president’s desk.

There are two problems with this process:

1) Defunding doesn't equate to an actual repeal.

2) Such a tactic would require the House (GOP) to be derelict in its Constitutional obligation to appropriate funds accordingly for any standing law.

I understand how this may seem appealing to some, but as I've pointed out they wouldn't be repealing anything; just not funding the various aspects of the law. And didn't the House already try this "starve the beast" tactic before?

OrphanSlug · Jul 28, 2015

Looks like this 114th Congress is full of political grandstanding, this #51st attempt to repeal Obamacare is damn near meaningless. But it sounds good at the mic... not really, but Republicans think so.

azgreg · Jul 28, 2015

And Obama won't veto this why?

sangha · Jul 28, 2015

Objective Voice said:
Just read this article from theHill.com where Sen. Mark Lee has made a deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "repeal" ObamaCare through the reconciliation process. They intend to use budget bills to defund ObamaCare since such bills would only require a simple majority, 51 votes.

There are two problems with this process:

1) Defunding doesn't equate to an actual repeal.

2) Such a tactic would require the House (GOP) to be derelict in its Constitutional obligation to appropriate funds accordingly for any standing law.

I understand how this may seem appealing to some, but as I've pointed out they wouldn't be repealing anything; just not funding the various aspects of the law. And didn't the House already try this "starve the beast" tactic before?

They will vote it down.

At this point, too many previously uninsured people in republican states have gotten coverage through ACA. If the repubs deny the funding, they will not be able to blame anyone but themselves for throwing those people off of their insurance plans. In fact, they will have to brag about it. IOW, they'll be creating millions of democratic voters

They're never going to do that.

Objective Voice · Jul 28, 2015

azgreg said:
And Obama won't veto this why?

Because the perception is the budget bills have teeth! If an appropriation is an important enough social issue, i.e., Planned Parenthood, Medicare Part-D, extending unemployment benefits, etc., then the idea is if you reduce the amount of money going to such programs the people will rally against it. However, what Senator's Lee and McConnell would likely do is fund other spending measures, ie., defense or a highway bill, and throw in a defunding measure that reduces funds for the PPACA or include a provision not to fund it hoping that the appropriations affixed to the bill are important enough issues that...well, basically they think they'd be handing the President "an offer he can't refuse".

It's an old trick that would only work if you can get an appropriations bill out of the House with a House GOP majority and then get it to the Senate which has a 54 seat majority. Still, it's only a defunding tactic, not a repeal of the law. Senator's Lee and McConnell just think the people are dumb enough to fall for it.

azgreg · Jul 28, 2015

Objective Voice said:
Because the perception is the budget bills have teeth! If an appropriation is an important enough social issue, i.e., Planned Parenthood, Medicare Part-D, extending unemployment benefits, etc., then the idea is if you reduce the amount of money going to such programs the people will rally against it. However, what Senator's Lee and McConnell would likely do is fund other spending measures, ie., defense or a highway bill, and throw in a defunding measure that reduces funds for the PPACA or include a provision not to fund it hoping that the appropriations affixed to the bill are important enough issues that...well, basically they think they'd be handing the President "an offer he can't refuse".

It's an old trick that would only work if you can get an appropriations bill out of the House with a House GOP majority and then get it to the Senate which has a 54 seat majority. Still, it's only a defunding tactic, not a repeal of the law. Senator's Lee and McConnell just think the people are dumb enough to fall for it.

This would get the quickest veto in presidential history.

Chomsky · Jul 28, 2015

What?

Are these guys dreaming, or just pretending to earn their salaries?

+++

"Lee offered a deal to McConnell on Monday night before the vote. In return for dropping his effort, Lee sought a promise from McConnell that he would pursue reconciliation. The procedure would require just 51 votes to send certain budget-related legislation to the president’s desk."

+++

*bolding mine

So even if they present the bill to the President, what's next?

Do they have 66 votes to over-turn a veto? (apparently not, if they can't get 60 for cloture)

These guys are playing their supporters & scamming their salaries from the rest of us.

I'd fire them, if I could!

Objective Voice · Jul 28, 2015

sangha said:
They will vote it down.

At this point, too many previously uninsured people in republican states have gotten coverage through ACA. If the repubs deny the funding, they will not be able to blame anyone but themselves for throwing those people off of their insurance plans. In fact, they will have to brag about it. IOW, they'll be creating millions of democratic voters

They're never going to do that.

I wouldn't put it past them. Remember: Senator Cruz just tried to embarrass McConnell going as far as calling him out for not making good on his campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare. The "Turtle" is desperate enough and despicable enough to try it and then try to blame it on the President for killing his own signature legislation.

azgreg · Jul 28, 2015

Here's an idea dip****s, pass a better law if you can.

Objective Voice · Jul 28, 2015

azgreg said:
Here's an idea dip****s, pass a better law if you can.

Totally agree!

It should be obvious by now especially since the law has been upheld by the SCOTUS twice that you're not going to get rid of ObamaCare unless you have a veto-prove government - Republican-held House, Senate, White House and a majority SCOTUS. Understand, I'm arguing the tactic rather than the merits of the law at this point. And while I don't think it's the best health care reform law ever designed, I think it was the best we were going to get because too many forces refused to go the more practical/common-sense route (i.e., the CLASS Act or its equivalent). So, we got what we got instead. But I digree because I really don't want to turn this into another debate on the merits or the mechanics of the PPACA. I just think that the only way Republicans can honestly repeal this law is if they replace it with something better. And since the only reason they're doing it is to keep a campaign promise and, thus, save their egos I think this tactic is doomed to failure before it even lifts up off the ground.

As you said, even if the President veto's the initial appropriations bill that has this poison pill in it, the GOP doesn't have enough votes to override his veto.

What's that line from Star Trek the Borg say..."Resistance is futile." STOP RESISTING THE LAW, STUPID! If it's so broken, then fix it!

sangha · Jul 29, 2015

Objective Voice said:
I wouldn't put it past them. Remember: Senator Cruz just tried to embarrass McConnell going as far as calling him out for not making good on his campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare. The "Turtle" is desperate enough and despicable enough to try it and then try to blame it on the President for killing his own signature legislation.

Don't worry. I don't put anything past them.

I think it will be put to a vote, but I think just enough of them will vote against the budget to pass it in the Senate to spare them the embarrassment. Of course, they will blame some other provision in the budget for the "No" votes but it will be because, in spite of the whining, they don't want to repeal ACA

fmw · Aug 1, 2015

Sounds good to me since I want the congress to do as little as possible.

ludin · Aug 1, 2015

Objective Voice said:
Just read this article from theHill.com where Sen. Mark Lee has made a deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "repeal" ObamaCare through the reconciliation process. They intend to use budget bills to defund ObamaCare since such bills would only require a simple majority, 51 votes.

There are two problems with this process:

1) Defunding doesn't equate to an actual repeal.

2) Such a tactic would require the House (GOP) to be derelict in its Constitutional obligation to appropriate funds accordingly for any standing law.

I understand how this may seem appealing to some, but as I've pointed out they wouldn't be repealing anything; just not funding the various aspects of the law. And didn't the House already try this "starve the beast" tactic before?

not at all since reconciliation was unconstitutionally used to put it in then it only makes sense to use it to get rid of it.

ludin · Aug 1, 2015

azgreg said:
Here's an idea dip****s, pass a better law if you can.

they can't Obama and democrats will veto or filibuster any attempt to replace obamacare with anything that actually works.
obamacare is bleeding red ink all over the place and the budget.

just out half of the co-ops that were created are already underwater and not making money.
insurance premiums are skyrocketing again this year.

so much for affordable healthcare. it was a lie on a lie on a lie and stupid people fell for it.

Greenbeard · Aug 1, 2015

ludin said:
they can't Obama and democrats will veto or filibuster any attempt to replace obamacare with anything that actually works.

If only someone would come up with something that actually works! I can almost imagine what that would look like.

Affordable Care Act Improves Insurance, Physician Access, Health

More Americans have affordable health insurance, access to a personal doctor, and feel they are in better health after the first two open-enrollment periods of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to an analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Increased Competition Kept Lid on Health Insurance Inflation, U.S. Says

Most people who bought insurance through the federal marketplace had a greater choice of health plans this year than in 2014, the administration said, and premiums rose less in counties where more insurers were competing for business.

The presence of additional insurers “played an important role in moderating premium increases,” said Richard G. Frank, an assistant secretary of health and human services.

'Jaw-dropping': Medicare deaths, hospitalizations AND costs reduced

The U.S. health care system has scored a medical hat trick, reducing deaths, hospitalizations and costs, a new study shows.

How the ACA is changing chronic care at hospitals

Healthcare professionals say the landmark health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, is accelerating changes in how hospitals treat patients with chronic conditions like diabetes, heart failure and obesity. . .

America's health system has been structured to respond to major health episodes like heart attacks after the damage is done, said Jonathan Maner, senior vice president of Langhorne Physician Services at St. Mary Medical Center.

"That's the most expensive way to practice healthcare. It requires hospitalization, pricey tests and specialists that inflate the cost of care. Obamacare is turning that on its head. We're placing a greater emphasis on prevention and early detection. The cheapest way to manage diabetes is to never have it, to manage heart disease by monitoring blood pressure, weight and cholesterol, and teaching patients how to manage their conditions."

No Longer a Unicorn: Improving Health Through Accountable Care Organizations

As recently as 2012, accountable care organizations (ACOs) were often described as “mythical unicorn creatures.” We’ve come a long way in a few short years, thanks to the incentives included in the 2010 Affordable Care Act that encourage medical centers, clinics, and practitioners to band together and create these coordinated, integrated healthcare entities that may finally end the problematic fee-for-service payment model.

Prediction vs. reality: The amazing slowdown in health costs continues

Objective Voice · Aug 2, 2015

ludin said:
not at all since reconciliation was unconstitutionally used to put it in then it only makes sense to use it to get rid of it.

You can't repeal a law through the reconciliation process, not without tacking a repeal provision onto another bill. The moment this is discovered, the original bill will be dead on arrival. There's just no way something like that would go unnoticed. And even if such a bill did manage to make it out of the House via a GOP majority vote, there's no way it would make it out of the Senate let alone go unnoticed. Still, let's suppose such a bill did find its way unto the President's desk. He'd veto it and there just isn't a 2/3 majority to over-right his veto.

The only tool Republicans have to taking the wind out of ObamaCare's sails is to once again attempt to defund it. But as has already been pointed out, there are enough of even GOP constituents who are reaping the benefits of ObamaCare even if it's only through state-supported Medicaid Expansions that voters across political divides likely be upset with Congressional Republicans not to mention the insurance lobby who despite what some might think want this law to remain intact.

Bottom Line: This tactic has little to no chance of changing anything where the PPACA is concerned. It's a prelude to political theater.

Captain Adverse · Aug 2, 2015

This is why I've always supported the line item Presidential veto.

Too many bills come out of Congress with all sorts of riders on them that have nothing to do with the original bill. These riders are either pork barrel or political sops to get enough votes for passage. Why Congress is allowed to add unrelated riders, but the President can't veto unrelated riders is a complete mystery to me.

ludin · Aug 2, 2015

Captain Adverse said:
This is why I've always supported the line item Presidential veto.

Too many bills come out of Congress with all sorts of riders on them that have nothing to do with the original bill. These riders are either pork barrel or political sops to get enough votes for passage. Why Congress is allowed to add unrelated riders, but the President can't veto unrelated riders is a complete mystery to me.

Line item veto was ruled unconstitutional as it meant that the president was writing law and that is a violation of the separation of Power according to the SCOTUS.

ludin · Aug 2, 2015

Greenbeard said:
If only someone would come up with something that actually works! I can almost imagine what that would look like.

Affordable Care Act Improves Insurance, Physician Access, Health

Increased Competition Kept Lid on Health Insurance Inflation, U.S. Says

'Jaw-dropping': Medicare deaths, hospitalizations AND costs reduced

How the ACA is changing chronic care at hospitals

No Longer a Unicorn: Improving Health Through Accountable Care Organizations

Prediction vs. reality: The amazing slowdown in health costs continues

let me know how those 20-100% (depending on the plan) insurance premium increases are affordable again?
lol slow down in costs means costs continue to go up lol. good grief. no wonder these article make it to the light of day.

costs going up means they are not going down you do realize this yes?
maybe not.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/06/29/u-s-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-inflation/

Greenbeard · Aug 2, 2015

ludin said:
let me know how those 20-100% (depending on the plan) insurance premium increases are affordable again?

Plenty of plans (even entire states, on average) will see flat premiums or only moderate growth next year. Regardless, exchange subsidies scale with market conditions, what matters for the individual is his income.

costs going up means they are not going down you do realize this yes?

The large majority of costs in the health sector are labor costs. Costs going down means layoffs. The goal of all health policy is to bend the cost curve--slow the growth in health care costs, allowing labor and spending to flow into other sectors of the economy over time going forward.

Unless you're suggesting the GOP is promising abrupt mass layoffs in the health sector?

ludin · Aug 2, 2015

Greenbeard said:
Plenty of plans (even entire states, on average) will see flat premiums or only moderate growth next year. Regardless, exchange subsidies scale with market conditions, what matters for the individual is his income.

actually they don't. exchange subsidies are based on the lowest 2 silver plan costs. so unless they go up people will lose money.
however we are not counting the subsidies because they are useless at determining real insurance costs. they hide the actual premium increases.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/06/nies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html

yep costs are going down. insurance companies are seeking 20-40% more (some are higher depending).
yep tell me again costs are going down and more affordable :lamo

The large majority of costs in the health sector are labor costs. Costs going down means layoffs. The goal of all health policy is to bend the cost curve--slow the growth in health care costs, allowing labor and spending to flow into other sectors of the economy over time going forward.

Unless you're suggesting the GOP is promising abrupt mass layoffs in the health sector?

you do realize that increases are not costs going down correct? you do realize when it says that costs are not as much still means the cost went up correct?
it means it still isn't going down but continuing to go up.

I thought obamacare was supposed to be affordable.

I can't wait to see how affordable my healthcare is for next year. last year it went up 40%. the costs were decreasing so badly I got a new car :lamo
ol wait it was a 40% INCREASE, but according to you it means costs are going down.

only in liberal land do increases mean decreases.

Captain Adverse · Aug 2, 2015

ludin said:
Line item veto was ruled unconstitutional as it meant that the president was writing law and that is a violation of the separation of Power according to the SCOTUS.

I was aware of the decision. I simply don't agree with the SCOTUS Majority rationale. This is one of those decisions where I am on the opposite side of the Court. Whereas, I support the SCOTUS decision on Gay Marriage. We can't always agree with SCOTUS decisions but it is the law of the land.

Greenbeard · Aug 2, 2015

ludin said:
actually they don't. exchange subsidies are based on the lowest 2 silver plan costs. so unless they go up people will lose money.

If they don't go up, then we're not talking about increases are we? If premiums for some some plans in a market go up and others decline or stay flat, consumers have affordable options and can choose accordingly. It's a market.

however we are not counting the subsidies because they are useless at determining real insurance costs. they hide the actual premium increases.

And yet they're key to determining affordability. Which is what you asked about.

insurance companies are seeking 20-40% more (some are higher depending). yep tell me again costs are going down and more affordable :lamo

Apparently, per you, the benchmarks are flat. If so, the markets are extraordinarily stable and affordable options remain.

you do realize that increases are not costs going down correct? you do realize when it says that costs are not as much still means the cost went up correct?
it means it still isn't going down but continuing to go up.

See above post.

I can't wait to see how affordable my healthcare is for next year. last year it went up 40%.

Shop around. The average increase last year was a few percent.

The ObamaCare "Go Around" Repeal...#51 and counting

Objective Voice

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball

sangha

Objective Voice

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball

Chomsky

Social Democrat

Objective Voice

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball

Objective Voice

sangha

fmw

ludin

ludin

Greenbeard

Objective Voice

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

ludin

ludin

Greenbeard

ludin

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Greenbeard