Posted on 06/19/2015 11:24:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Barack Obama and the White House threaten vetoes daily on bills under consideration in the Republican-controlled Congress, especially those impacting Obama’s signature health-care system. That threat may end up backfiring on Obama when it comes to the medical-device tax. The House took action yesterday on the most unpopular funding mechanism in ObamaCare, repealing it outright on a 280-140 vote. That’s just shy of the two-thirds necessary, but the GOP has some reserves on this vote:
The 2.3 percent tax on medical devices enacted as part of that law passed Thursday in the House 280-140, giving Republicans hope they’ll have the votes for an override, which requires a two-thirds majority. That came with a dozen Republicans absent for the vote. Every Republican present and 46 Democrats voted to nuke the tax.
A nonbinding vote to repeal the medical device tax passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority backed by 34 members of the Democratic caucus as part of the 2013 budget resolution vote-a-rama in the Senate, but never got anywhere with then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., putting the clamps down on the chamber.
This vote presents Senate Democrats with three problems. First, there are fewer of them than in 2013, dropping from 55 seats (including two independents) to 46. Republicans don’t need 34 Democrats to go along with them for a veto-proof majority — they only need 13. Second, Reid no longer controls the agenda, which means that Mitch McConnell can put a repeal of the medical device tax on the floor at any time, and he’s already promised to do so as soon as he gets it from the House.
This brings us to the biggest of the problems for Senate Democrats. ObamaCare costs will shoot through the roof in the next year, thanks to large premium increases and the need to escalate subsidies to offset them. The medical-device tax accounts for $26 billion in estimated revenue for the first ten years of the program, a chunk of money whose elimination will create even more red ink, with a Republican Congress unlikely to replace it. On the other hand, several Senate Democrats represent states where medical devices are manufactured or their producers headquartered, including the two Senators from Minnesota, the two from Massachusetts, and so on. Their constituents want this tax eliminated, and so do those Senators … or at least they did when the issue was purely academic in 2013.
The showdown looks almost unavoidable for Obama, and potentially humiliating. However, Republicans have another option laid out yesterday by Heather Higgins and Hadley Heath Manning at The Hill. The two activists from Independent Women’s Voice argue that a repeal of the tax now would lessen leverage for a full ObamaCare repeal in 2017:
Republicans ought to take a longer view of this battle and craft a smart strategy that does more than just satisfy one interest group. If they play it right, Republicans can simultaneously mitigate the immediate damage caused by the tax—demonstrating to industry and its backers that they are committed to ultimately rescinding the tax—without either reifying the trope that Republicans care more about corporate contributors than they do about average Americans, or undermining the cause of repealing and replacing ObamaCare in its entirety in 2017 – both of which are at risk with the present approach.
This year, the priority should be to pass a moratorium on the medical device tax that would last until 2017. That’s a vote that is in line with many GOP members’ previous votes to repeal the tax. A moratorium would spare the medical device industry from immediate and near-term financial harm, while preserving the important policy principle that no special interest should jump ahead in line and be permanently out from under ObamaCare while the law exists.
This approach would still be a win for the industry, but unlike just repealing the tax now, also for Republicans’ long term goals.
With a moratorium, unlike repeal, the medical device industry would still be better off, but it would have an incentive to stay engaged in working to roll back ObamaCare completely in 2017. They would have incentive to support candidates committed to repeal, which—from Republicans’ most crass perspective—is good news in terms of campaign fundraising and also for the industry lobbyists.
The best reform would be full repeal of the entire ObamaCare law and the implementation of a market-based health-insurance reform that eliminates mandates and restores proper pricing signals for routine care. This strategy offers more leverage for that longer-term goal, even if it relies on the kind of “crass” lobbying leverage most find distasteful. Either way, they have Senate Democrats in a vise, and either option turns the crank on them and President Obama.
Yes they can, with a 2/3 majority.
The medical device tax is the most unpopular funding mechanism on K Street, other than that, nobody has heard of it.
This illustrates the reason the GOP is in such poor condition - their #1 problem with Obamacare, their #1 target for repeal, is something that matters only to crony capitalists - who, of course, are the only people who matter to the GOP on the Hill.
I'm no mathemagician, but I think 280-140 is EXACTLY a 2/3 majority, not "just shy".
280/420 = 2/3
I suspect some of the big medical device manufacturers (Boston Medical, Medtronic, etc) may no longer see it as much in their interests to go along with Obama this time, and pressure their lawmakers accordingly.
“However, Republicans have another option laid out yesterday by Heather Higgins and Hadley Heath Manning at The Hill. The two activists from Independent Women’s Voice argue that a repeal of the tax now would lessen leverage for a full ObamaCare repeal in 2017:”
Nope... kill the tax you kill Obamacare. No need to wait until 2017.
Sounds good to me!
Bovine excretion. It won't.
Secondly, this do nothing now & wait for the big attack later is the usual Republican lie. McConnell said give them Pubbie majorities and he would do everything possible to kill OC. What is he doing? Crafting a way to keep the illegal subsidies alive. According to the GOPe that's just to help the leetle people until 2017 when Mitch and his merry gang of fake Republicans will repeal it completely.
Does any person not wearing diapers actually believe that?
I think there are 435 members so 2/3 would be 288 members
I hope not. Repeal it all or just keep it going as is. If the Republicans fix one thing in it they will be blamed for all bad things in the bill. They need to stick to their guns and say this is a Democrat bill—vote for them if you like it.
Of course voting for Republicans wont’ fix anything either.
So tired of the “game playing.” Just get ‘er DoNE!
It is. Later never becomes now.
So what’s the rule? Do you need 2/3 of all House members to override, meaning 2/3 of the full 435 House membership, or is it 2/3 of members present and voting that day? It seems there are always a few members of Congress who are absent and miss votes.
IIRC, there’s 435 memebers in the house.
always voting on the particular bill
I was going by the number who voted on the bill, which was 420. I guess the question of whether they could muster a 2/3 majority of full House depends on which 15 house of reprehensible members were shirking their duty to the People on the day of the original vote.
Yes. But only 420 of them voted. Of those who voted, 2/3 voted for the measure.
Good question. I’m not sure.
It seems to me that a strict, literal, interpretation of the Constitution would mean 2/3 of the entire House.
However, given the history of congress as regards strict, literal reading of that document, they may have made their own “rule” regarding the issue.
That being the case, they passed the bill with a 2/3 majority.
Congress is a system of political favors. Obama isn't worried...
And Obama is stupid enough to veto it....but what's new.
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.