Posted on 03/09/2017 12:44:19 PM PST by Bratch
Good news, they’re listening to you. No other approach to repealing ObamaCare is possible. It’s not ideological, it is simply reality. The backstory on our prior explanations are HERE and expanded HERE.
After listening to conservative groups at a White House meeting yesterday, it became obvious to POTUS those group leaders/members did not understand WHY no other approach to repeal is possible. POTUS asked Speaker Ryan to put this together and deliver it today:
WOW: Paul Ryan's American Health Care Act (Obamacare Replacement) FULL PowerPoint Presentation
Most of you already know this outline because you’ve understood the bigger picture. Hopefully this message will reach the 99% who don’t understand that “reconciliation” doesn’t allow for substantive structural add-ons to ObamaCare, until step #3. Again, HERE and HERE.
FACT: ObamaCare was passed, using the original legislative vehicle, at 1:38am on 12/24/09 with 60 votes in the Senate (see below). The House then approved that Senate Bill without changes; and in February 2010 created a secondary bill which created the opportunity for the Senate to modify ObamaCare using “reconciliation” for a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.
Literally under the cloak of darkness Democrats rammed their holy grail of a socialist construct down the throat of every American. We no longer needed to imagine having usurping representation that did not represent the will of the people – we saw it.
[Understand the full construct by reading HERE] If you do not understand how legislation is created; if you do not understand the difference between the Senate and House; if you do not understand the way ObamaCare was created, you really need to read this first.
A clean repeal bill, meaning a law to repeal the entire ObamaCare construct only, would require another 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.
Republicans, while in the majority, only control 52 seats. Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a “repeal bill”, any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.
This is why Mark Levin is a con-man; selling snake oil as outrage to keep a listening audience angry, yet clueless and hopeless. That’s what I don’t like.
A complete repeal of ObamaCare is currently impossible. The House Freedom Caucus can push all the repeal bills they want, but they cannot get a clean repeal bill through the Senate because they cannot get the 60 votes needed. Period.
Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever. What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules. The current Ryan bill is almost identical to the 2016 defunding bill everyone is mistakenly calling a prior “repeal bill”.
A complete independent repeal bill of ObamaCare is currently impossible.
The only bill that can pass the Senate is a bill that can utilize the process of reconciliation, which has a lower vote threshold of 51 votes. A reconciliation bill is a budgetary bill designed around the financial drivers of ObamaCare. This is what HHS Secretary Tom Price, Speaker Ryan and President Trump are attempting to do.
A reconciliation bill cannot add substantively to the existing law. It can only modify the financial structures and retain the same 10-year budgetary impact. If you want substantive adds or removals of the law, beyond the financial structure, it is no longer a reconciliation bill.
If it is no longer a reconciliation bill, it requires 60 votes. 52 Republicans + 8 democrats. Democrats have already stated they will not support any substantive changes that undermine the key ObamaCare provisions.
Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law… The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority, for all legislation.
However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.
There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions. What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.
The constitutional republic being now replaced with a pure majority rule democracy. The founding fathers regarded majority rule democracy less desirable than a monarchy because a simple majority means mob rule. At least in a monarchy you might get a wise king once-in-a-while. In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything. You go from being a nation of laws, to a nation of laws of the moment based on emotion.
Eliminating the 3/5th’s vote threshold in the Senate would also mean there’s no real reason to keep the Senate around when in the hands of the same party as the House. The House can pass 50% +1 bills all by themselves. The Senate, the place where grand deliberations required the protection and consideration of the minority position, would be unnecessary.
All structural protections for the minority views would be dispatched. Forever.
Without the filibuster rule, and with the Senate having only a simple majority rule for passage, there would no longer exist an internal legislative check for any minority party to protect themselves from the laws created by a greater mob.
The ruling party would be in power as if they held a Senate super majority at all times. As a consequence, with minority protection eliminated, legislation impacting Texas (or any state) is then ruled by the legislative federal dictates from those representing New York and California (or any other aggregate). There is no legislative pressure to listen to, or consider, the position of the minority party.
You would think that constitutional conservatives would be necessarily predisposed against the dropping of a constitutional republic in favor of a pure democracy (mob rule).
However, within this current argument over the Price/Ryan approach to replacing ObamaCare you find exactly that. Emotional conservatives, and crony-constitutional conservatives like Mark Levin, arguing against the current House bill leaving only the option to drop the Senate filibuster on legislation and pass laws with a simple majority.
So you tell me, is this really a constitutional-conservative approach?
Really and honestly?
Two more points on this issue:
♦ Point One – OK, lets say your Senator would agree to change the Senate Rules and eliminate the filibuster, allowing legislation to pass with 51 votes (there are about 28 +/- of them who would). To change the rules you need a majority of Senators to agree to do it. THERE ARE NOT 51 Senators willing to change the Senate rules to pass legislation.
♦ Point Two – There are not even 51 Senators who would agree to repeal ObamaCare. Forget the 60 vote threshold, for a moment. Even if you didn’t have the filibuster rule, there are not currently 51 Republican Senators willing to repeal ObamaCare without an existing replacement available.
Of course there are problems with the current Ryan bill. It can only approach ObamaCare from the reconciliation aspect. It cannot go into the substantive changes, adds or modifications because that would require the 60 vote Senate. Again, See Here.
Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever. What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.
Yes, the GOP could defund it 100% again, but then what?… It still exists as a program, and Trump would have to fund the existing (non repealed law) from somewhere. So you’re back to the 60 votes for a replacement again or eliminate the filibuster and go with the 51-vote threshold for all future legislation.
Back to current ObamaCare’s replacement – there are three options if we are going to retain a constitutional republic, and pass laws with the 60 vote senate filibuster threshold:
♦ Option #1 – We can do nothing – and allow ObamaCare to collapse on it’s own. In the interim many Americans will be negatively impacted and the more vulnerable and needy will be worst hurt. Premiums and co-pays continue to skyrocket while the insurance system tries to preserve itself.
♦ Option #2 – We can Repeal and Replace using the three-phase approach being proposed by Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:
Yes, this has it’s risks. No guarantee you’ll get the cookie you want in phase three because any structural amendment, any add-on, will take 60 Senate votes to pass.
♦ Option #3 – Pass futile structural repeal bills in the House, and watch them pile up in the Senate without the ability to pass and earn 60 votes. Shout and holler some more, gnash some teeth, and wait for 2018 when Republicans will attempt to win the other 8 seats needed. Again, even less of a guarantee on the outcome.
Those are our options.
Choose wisely.
Is this really the only way to remove Obamacare?
Sundance lays out a compelling argument; if it's true that any other approach would require a filibuster-proof majority, it's not going to happen.
So what's the alternative?
I have a better approach: vote all leftos and RINOS out of office.
The Paul Ryan “3’ steps:
1) call master Obama
2) confirm with second master george soros
3) intentionally be an ass and not do anything until Trump gets mad and kicks his ass
Remind me, did not the Democrats do exactly that, take one bill, gut it and replace it with ObamaCare and then pass it via reconciliation?
What worked for them, should work for us. Repeal the damn thing in its entirety.
Just repeal it.
The President can then remaining regulations which are not rendered a nullity by the appeal.
Forget replacing.
Step 2 can be done concurrently with Step 1. Heck — Step 2 already started when the IRS announced a few weeks ago that they would not enforce the individual mandate for people filing their 2016 tax returns.
Except for it being that I do not trust Paul Ryan.
Why would it have to be funded?
Whatever it takes. Has to happen. And to ‘heck’ with the GOPe stooges who want to compromise the important effort.
My Congressman Dr Phil Roe is in favor of the method and the bill
My President Donald Trump is in favor of the procedure and the bill
I’m not a nitpicker and will go with their wisdom
Gimme Three Steps
Lynyrd Skynyrd
I was cutting a rug
Down at place called The Jug
With a girl named Linda Lou
When in walked a man
With a gun in his hand
And he was looking for you know who
He said, “Hey there, fellow
With the hair colored yellow
Whatcha tryin’ to prove?
‘Cause that’s my woman there
And I’m a man who cares
And this might be all for you
I said, excuse me
I was scared and fearing for my life
I was shaking like a leaf on a tree
‘Cause he was lean, mean
Big and bad, Lord
Pointin’ that gun at me
“Oh, wait a minute, mister
I didn’t even kiss her
Don’t want no trouble with you
And I know you don’t owe me
But I wish you’d let me
Ask one favor from you”
“Oh, won’t you
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
Gimme three steps towards the door?
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
And you’ll never see me no more”
For, sure
Well the crowd cleared away
And I began to pray
And the water fell on the floor
And I’m telling you, son
Well, it ain’t no fun
Staring straight down a forty-four
Well, he turned and screamed at Linda Lou
And that’s the break I was looking for
And you could hear me screaming a mile away
As I was headed out toward your door
“Oh, won’t you
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
Gimme three steps towards the door?
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
And you’ll never see me no more”
Show me the back door
Written by Allen Collins, Ronnie Van Zant • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group
It’s better to pass nothing than pass Ryancare and own Obamacare.
Ryancare opens Obamacare up to illegal aliens.
marked for later readin
I hope people will get it now. The existing House & Senate rules are binding and must be considered when executing a plan to overturn Obamacare. It won’t be easy but it can be done. B!tching about this or that simply b/c you don’t like it won’t help.
That’s just the way it is, folks.
Do you think the dems will hesitate to remove the filibuster for legislation when they are in power? They have already shown their willingness to remove it when it suits their needs. We may as well remove the filibuster and get what we can done for once. We always take the high road and get screwed every time.
No fair telling the Paultards the truth.
Ain’t buyin’ it.
They could do Step 3 RIGHT NOW
Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an >>Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever. What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.
Yes, the GOP could defund it 100% again, but then what?… It still exists as a program, and Trump would have to fund the existing (non repealed law) from somewhere. So you’re back to the 60 votes for a replacement again or eliminate the filibuster and go with the 51-vote threshold for all future legislation.<<
We haven’t got the votes.
bump
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.
