[apillar]

A question?

If this monstrosity can be passed with 51 votes through reconciliation, couldn't it just as easily be repealed with 51 votes through reconciliation if Obama is defeated in 2012?

The dems would be wise to remember that...

[Ikemeister]

I think it could be, especially since it wouldn’t be fully in effect then.

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

The DEMS are overly desperate to pass some form of this bill because of all the "paybacks" that are written into it. They owe their contributors big time. You have to believe that unions are all over them demanding the perks that they were promised.

One example. A portion of the Senate bill dolls out $10,000,000,000 (billion) for "reinsurance". It just so happens that a person qualifying for this perk is extremely likely to be a laid-off union worker. So, the minute they pass this unsustainable mess, the money begins to flow to the unions. We will never get the money back, even if the bill is rescinded by the next Congress.

[goldi]

I think Reid set it up so that there would have to be 67 votes to repeal it. I wouldn’t see why that would be written in stone though.