Posted on 05/01/2015 5:12:58 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Republicans believe a Supreme Court ruling against ObamaCare this summer would give them leverage to force President Obama to scrap the healthcare law's central pillars.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who is leading the Senate GOP’s response to King v. Burwell, said Republicans will be willing to strike a deal with Obama to ensure that the 7.5 million people who stand to lose their subsidies are protected, at least until the 2016 elections.
But in return, they would demand that Obama to do something he has long resisted: nix the employer and individual mandates for insurance coverage.
“Is the president going to say, ‘Tough, I’m going to veto that’?” Barrasso said in an interview in his Dirksen office. “There will be, as part of that [deal], things we want to have happen.”
The GOP is far from a consensus about how to react to a potential conservative victory in the case, just two months out from an expected ruling at the end of June. So far, Republicans have put forward more than a half-dozen proposals that they described as ObamaCare alternatives.
The common thread in those plans is some kind of temporary aid for people who could lose their subsidies, which Barrasso said would be the key bargaining chip in a deal with Obama.
But, in the event the justices rule against ObamaCare, Democrats will offer a simpler solution — passing a bill to fix the few sentences of the statute that are under scrutiny.
“The president can say, here’s our one-page bill,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who opposes the current congressional strategy, told a D.C. audience on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
what?
without the mandates (which by the way the left hates) the whole thing wont work. People will simply just wait until they get sick to get insurance.
A few points here:
1) The Democrats, FOR SURE, have a contingency plan ready to roll the moment the Supreme Court kills the subsidies (assuming they do). The Republicans sure as hell better be ready.
2) To simply say we’re not going to do anything plays RIGHT INTO DEMOCRAT HANDS. That is their dream response from us. It also plays into what the Democrats had claimed to the Supreme Court - which is that Congress will not lift a finger if Obamacare is killed...and therefore you guys (i.e., the justices) had better not kill it, or there will be dead Americans on the street.
3) Getting rid of the mandate effectively kills Obamacare. That’s what the 2012 Supreme Court ruling covered. Obama will NEVER agree to it for the same reason, so it effectively would act as a poison pill in the end.
The REAL QUESTION is whether the Republicans can follow through with their plan. I doubt it.
This is the new model of the oligarchy. Instead of using federal tax receipts to subsidize their socialist constituents they keep that money for their own use and instead shift payment responsibility to other citizens to ‘subsidize’ their constituents. It’s a win-win for the uniparty. More money to spend on their sponsors and more money for their constituents at the expense of working people who support neither their sponsors nor constituents.
They’re doing this with internet fees now too. Shifting subsidies from the government to fellow citizens without a corresponding reduction in taxes. It’s a scam.
I like it. That would sting and cripple Obamacare and hurt Obama's head.
I know, any deal with Dems must be opposed.
Congress must do nothing, sigh
Our once governing institutions have been corrupted from their designed purposes. The House doesn't represent the people. The Senate doesn't represent the states. El Presidente has more in common with banana republic tyrants that he does with any of our early chief executives.
Isn't it clear that elections alone cannot, and obviously have not served the only legitimate purpose of government, which is to secure our rights?
We must renew, restore, reclaim our republic. Those who profit so well from the existing corrupt system are incapable and uninterested in changing the status quo.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petulant
having or showing the attitude of people who become angry and annoyed when they do not get what they want.
I agree. Look how badly we needed to give them a GOP Senate to go along with the GOP House—and they’ve done nothing but roll over for Obama over and over and over again.
Their claim now is that they need a GOP president too—but one of their uniparty variety, of course—yet look at just how much damage they did the last time they had a GOPe president.
We have seen it happen time and again.... Someone who wholeheartedly believes that he/she is "conservative" runs and we work our b***s off to get them elected. But once in Washington they get a taste of the money, power, probably even blackmail; and then they fall to the utter corruption and that is that.
It seems that a few good people are able to rise above this temptation. Examples: Bachmann, Cruz, Walker (perhaps, not sure about him yet). I watched this happen to a very close friend. There was a time when I thought he was salt-of-the-earth, and one of the finest men I had the privileged of knowing. A few months in Washington and he was divorcing his (childhood sweetheart) wife and his wealth was fastly growing. I think he is on his 3rd wife now (I lost count), his credibility as an attorney back in his hometown is in ruins, and the only good news is that his constituents did not reelect him this last go-around.
I still think that underneath it all, there is still a fine man there somewhere, and I hope and pray he can find find himself again one day and shed what he allowed Washington to do to him.
The GOP didn’t lie - the candidates who actually ran on those things are trying to make them happen.
It may have escaped your notice, but GOP office holders include Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Tom Cotton, etc....GOP figures include Allen West, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc.
Sorry to break it to you, but it’s intellectually lazy, not to mention inaccurate, to paint with such a broad brush. If you really want to make your point, why don’t you simply add “establishment” or “estabs” or even just “-e” after GOP - it will take your posts to a whole new level of accuracy - if that’s at all important to you.
“Demands” from demo-lites? Let me laugh about that for a bit. I hear they are all in for “optics” for the next election so they can add their “demands” to their re-election resumes.
What part of “no profanity” in the posting rules is so hard to understand?
That's all well and sounds good, but how do you propose to execute this grand plan? I'm almost 70, have two fake knees, a heart condition and live out in the country on a farm and survive on a fixed Social Security income. All I can do is vote and voice my opinion.
If you've got some better ideas, out with them. It's one thing to state the obvious. But a whole other thing to have a practical solution to that problem.
The GOP IS a single entity, and you claim it is not.
The GOP 100% lied to the American People, and you claim they did not.
"At the foundation of our civil liberties lies
the principle that denies to government officials
an exceptional position before the law and which
subjects them to the same rules of conduct
that are commands to the citizen."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Get your panties (can I say that or is that profane too?) out of a twist and go check someone else's language, Mr. Profane Language Policeperson
I called you out for use of the F word.
The punk-arse GOP in DC will only do this if there is some cash flow, lots of money in this. Otherwise they can give a bleep.
Now, how about moving on to some other interesting subject besides your personal predilections?
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.