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.
Sixty votes is not Constitutionally required to pass
or repeal any legislation! The sixty vote requirement
is just an artificial construct to getting anything done in the Senate!
The Constitution only requires a simple majority vote to pass legislation!
The RINOS are only using this as an excuse to do nothing!!
I just can’t trust the establishment to surrender all the federal power over individuals in phase 3. Don’t see it happening.
You can’t get there from here.....
When Trump was elected and there was this euphoria that pubs would control the three branches I knew then we still didn’t have the votes to get rid of ObamaCare. As the article says - forget the 60 vote filibuster margin - we only have 51 Republican Senators and many of those are traitors and RINOs.
I knew this was coming. But don’t just blame Paul Ryan or McConnell. Trump is pushing this approach as well. The problem with this is that if it doesn’t fix the problem then Trump will own the mess. It will be known as TrumpCare.
Ping for posterity.
Bring up a ANY bill that’s popular with Senate Democrats, get all the conservative Republicans to pass it (with a minimum 60 votes), send it to the Congress to gut and reconcile. Done.
Bull Shit Plan - RINOs Ryan and McConnell will never get three phases passed.
“Sundance” has sold out and is selling snake oil here.
For example, reconciliation in no way forces the GOPe to add a massive new healthcare subsidy entitlement covering those making up to $290K per year.
But that’s what the Ryancare bill does.
Here’s the genius in this comment thread:
1) JUST REPEAL IT.
>The poster can’t read. There aren’t even 51 votes to “just repeal” with no replace. Let alone 60. This is not a matter of vicious, evil RINOs. The Dems could not get their single payer plan through, because they had DINOs. Extreme measures are really hard to get through, and that’s a good thing.
2) Didn’t the Democrats pass it? Didn’t they pass stuff in the bill that doesn’t say dollars and sense? Like pre-ex conditions? If they did it, why can’t we?
>The poster can’t read. They had 60 votes and passed it when Kennedy was alive. Then he died and they had 59. THEY, even THEY, with more majority than we have, had to use reconciliation to get it finally through, and it’s not the single payer plan their left wing wanted.
3) Now Trump will own this trainwreck! Just Repeal It.
>As above, you can’t get even 51 votes to just repeal with no replace. Trump made a promise to repeal and replace. Obama had 60 Senators in 2010. We have 52. Trump and this approach is killing every financial aspect of Obamacare and leaving some things and modifying some things. That’s repeal and replace — as promised. You want him to break his promise?
4) Those liars said if we had a majority we could do things.
>We have McCain, Flake and Collins, but we also have 2 Senators from Blue states (CO and NV). They aren’t going to backstab their state by voting for extreme things. We have a measure on the table that will eliminate the individual mandate fine, eliminate employer taxes, retain the pre-ex conditions coverage imposed on insurance carriers. If YOU have a better idea, submit your text that you’re sure will get past the Senate Parliamentarian who decides what’s Reconciliation or not.
We’ll wait here while you write it up.
Trump could issue an EO to not enforce mandates, or penalties. Let Ocare die on its own.
Start a mass revolt and all who can, cancel their ocare policy.
Another EO could drop enforcement of insurance rules, and let insurance companies sell individual policies again.
Geez bert, I don’t think making a clean break in the here and now as opposed to Ryan’s ‘3-step plan’, (which will come to fruition...when?) is nit-picking.
0bamacare was designed to cripple the economy, was it not? In addition to shrink, if nor eliminate, the middle class?
Seems to me we’re under some time pressure here.
The Filibuster provides power to the minority. Which we will be someday.
Reid didn’t change the rules to kill the filibuster in 2010 to get this thru. You say the Dems will change the rules in a heartbeat to get what they want, but they didn’t in 2010. That’s why Reconciliation had to be used.
You have all your premises wrong. All the complaints of how the GOP was stonewalling them during the final Obama years was because they would not kill the filibuster. So they won’t change rules just to get things through.
Not even for Obamacare.
That is all.
> Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a “repeal bill”, any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.
Surrender monkey doesn’t even try.
The problem, which the Republicans want to conceal, is that they all do not want to repeal ACA. They don’t want to go on record with a vote. They don’t want to get primaried.
Self serving SOBs
I could almost be persuaded to accept this approach.
Except for it being that I do not trust Paul Ryan.
= = =
Roger that.
How about a Poison Pill, or two.
If Phase 2 is not passed by ... date, Phase 1 is invalidated (or go back to already passed GOP bill).
If Phase 3 is not passed by ... date, ditto.
Ryan is lying.
Here is Price’s bill
What happened to Section 2?
And Speaker Ryans kick the can down the road, Three Stop or actually, Six Step program is a cruel joke, but with enough Democrat votes, this bill might get passed.
Once the fat cats and donors get their hot deal first, then real reform will never come.
This bill, format and philosophy means no legal reform, no health coops, no savings on insurance.
TWB
Remember , this is about bean counting as in Affordable(for some people), not Quality or even Improvement.
highly reminiscent of Ryan’s explanations of the gang of eight’s plan to “fix a broken immigration” system. That had to be done in steps, too.
2015
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/09/vote-paul-ryan-vote-amnesty-luis-gutierrez-endorses-paul-ryan-speaker/amp/
2016
https://www.numbersusa.com/print/news/ryan-pushes-gang-eight-style-amnesty-cnn-town-hall
2017
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/report-gang-of-eight-members-eye-immigration-reform-in-2017/amp/
a leopard doesn’t change its spots.
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.
