Posted on 03/21/2017 4:52:39 PM PDT by Enlightened1
No reconciliation process necessary. The Senate can go to full repeal without 60. The Ryan bill will be DOA in the Senate, and will go to conference, but the Freedom Caucus is going to get an amendment before the bill goes to conference. It will deal with introducing inter insurance company competition and pharmaceutical options.
**********************************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3534099/posts
Ted Cruz may have discovered a way to totally change Obamacare without 60 Senate votes
American Thinker ^ | Mar. 12, 2017 | Thomas Lifson
Democrats tend to love sneaky lawyer tricks because their side is so good at them. The passage of Obamacare under the Senate rules governing “reconciliation” is the most prominent example of creatively applying the rules to get what they want.
But it turns out that there are some really smart and creative legal minds on the GOP side, and now that the GOP runs the Senate, the sauce for the Democrat goose also flavors the Republican gander, if that isn’t too disagreeable an abuse of metaphorical license. Ted Cruz is one such legal mind; in the words of legendary Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, “…one of the best students I ever had.”
how did you come to the 400,000 number
obamacare in a nut shell
obamacare in a nut shell
>>>There he replace is replace with HSA and free market principles like competition across state lines.
...
Help me understand how this works. I live in Alabama. If an insurer in say Nevada has a cheaper plan, but all of the in network doctors and hospitals are in Nevada, how does this help me?
Dobbs or a guest said they are all posturing and we’ll not know until the house vote. Much easier for thid to die in the senate, but moot point if it doesn’t get there.
Great game of chess and we’re not really sure who is on wbich side.
>>>There he replace is replace with HSA and free market principles like competition across state lines.
...
Help me understand how this works. I live in Alabama. If an insurer in say Nevada has a cheaper plan, but all of the in network doctors and hospitals are in Nevada, how does this help me?
If you paragraphed more people would read your comment.
I don’t know if it is time to despair although the hour is dark. When the going gets tough the tough get going. Our President is the epitome of tough.
If this bill fails as I hope it does, he will have the leverage to craft an approach closer to the conservative ideal and the chaos may get the leaners on board.
Google Insurance competition accross state lines. Here is something to start with.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx
The plans that offer networks are only one type of plan, my least favorite, so your question is based on only HMO type plans which constrict the network to constrain their costs and your choices. These type of plans are notorious for rationing care. The biggest plus to opening the marketplace across state lines is that it would put some pressures on the states to decrease the requirements so that a greater variety of plans could be offered.
Major medical plans are cheaper and provide coverage that is an excellent bargain for young people, healthy people. A company could get volume on that concept for college students who might otherwise do without and provide a real service for a few $100 a year. Companies could offer plans targeted at the YMCA’s or the NRA and any other group. These are just examples because I don’t believe we can underestimate the ingenuity of the marketplace once innovation is freed from bureaucratic overreach. And people will decide which approaches win.
Ping to comment #166.
So much for looking into Medi-Share now. >:-(
I called congressman Luke Messer’s office and told him to vote no. Like that’s going to happen though. He is mostly a moderate.
Now you can sneer at that, or you can accept it as fact. They had no need to go to the administrative effort to filibuster when it would not be signed. Now that there is a risk of signature, they would filibuster.
We don’t have 60 votes. In 2009, they did.
The Senate doesn't need sixty votes to repeal the ACA. Since the USSC ruled that the ACA is a tax bill, reconciliation could be used to pass repeal just as reconciliation was used to pass it in the first place. Fifty plus Pence and the ACA dies.
If the Republicans wanted to repeal the ACA they could do so today and President Trump would sign the repeal killing this unconstitutional overreach. The fact they haven't shows they don't really want repeal. The simple facts are that the PLP has had a minimum of two years to craft a replacement for the ACA and they don't have one. This further illustrates that they never really meant their promises to repeal the ACA. Two cheeks of the same ass indeed.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat
What is it you don’t understand about 60 votes. No, don’t ladle up bullshit about having Pence ignore the Parliamentarian. You won’t get even 10 Senators to vote to kill the filibuster, which is what that is. You can’t declare every single bill to be Reconciliation. That’s silly and has already been dismissed.
The PLP lied to you in 2014 saying they needed to control the Senate, even though they could have defunded the ACA during any of the previous four years. The PLP lied to you again in 2016 saying they needed the Presidency to repeal, again, they could have easily defunded while controlling both houses of congress. Now, the PLP lies about repeal and replace. How many lies until it is obvious they never intended to repeal the ACA?
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat
“But the filibuster can be broken by Senate rule 19 which limits speeches to 2 per senator per subject.”
Nope.
Here’s an article from 2010 when the Dems were angry about GOP filibusters.
Synopsis: The two speech rule applies only to each debateable question. The minority can propose amendments and give two speeches on each of them. There can be a limit on number of amendments (very rare, Senators don’t like not being able to amend) but more to the point the minority can raise points of order, each of which is allowed 2 speeches. There is no limit on number of points of order.
And so, no, you don’t dodge 60 votes with anything other than eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. You won’t get even 10 votes in favor of that.
This is not rocket science. The Dems would not have contorted themselves as they did in 2010 if there had been ANY other way than Reconciliation. They would have had a single payer plan. The filibuster and Scott Brown stopped it.
There IS no other way. The rules are the rules. They often help conservatives.
We take what we can get. We don’t get petulant about being unable to get more. If the Dems had been petulant, they would not have even gotten Obamacare.
I will say one thing, at least Democrats face towards you when the stab you. Republicans constantly are stabbing their supporters in the back.
Bingo! Give that man a cigar. How long will some on FR regurgitate the lies the PLP feeds them about wanting to repeal the ACA?
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat
Anytime an Establishment Republican pats you on the back, he/she is merely feeling for a soft place to stick the knife. Always remember that, and you won’t get snookered.
The HOUSE passed the previously passed Senate bill, and using the reconciliation process adjusted some of the numbers on taxes and subsidies.
The problem is Article 1, Section 7 states, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." The ACA is a taxing (revenue) bill as confirmed by the USSC, therefore it cannot have constitutionally originated in the Senate and is unconstitutional legislation.
The bill was legally passed as statute.
Not according to Article 1, Section 7 it wasn't.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat
Interesting. This is the first time I’ve seen this said: “[the proposed legislation] creates high-risk pools to take care of those with pre-existing conditions without burdening all other insurance buyers with those costs.”
Is that true? From what I’ve read elsewhere, there’s no mention of any “high risk pool” for those with preexisting conditions.
Can you (or anyone) explain how that will work specifically? Will those with preexisting conditions (in this high risk pool) pay higher premiums?
Will the proposed “tax credits” be used to offset any higher premiums for those people?
If the answer to the second question is “yes” you just have the individual mandate just masked as “tax credits” (where do you or Norquist think the dollars for those tax credits come from? Obama’s trillion dollar coin?)
Another thing Norquist doesn’t address at all (from what I saw) is the fact that liability limits remain uncapped. This too has a danger of driving up costs for everyone, unless that’s somehow rolled into this amorphous “high risk pool” category.
Until I see explaination to the contrary I’m going to believe the fact that preexisting conditions will still be covered and no cap liabilities are going to drive up the cost for everyone. It’s just basic economics.
And I don’t like Beck or Levin.
In the interests of putting some things to bed:
1) No, Mike Pence can’t ignore the Parliamentarian. This would be the mechanism in effect of making all bills budget reconciliation bills. That obviously is just a way to kill the filibuster in the Senate. It would not get even 10 votes. That’s why this proposal has already been dismissed as a non starter.
2) You can stop filibuster in ways not requiring 60 votes? No. You can’t. People are saying this via the Two Speech Rule. Senators are limited to 2 speeches per legislative day on a given subject. So glory be, you can require them to talk, they’re only allowed to talk twice and you shut them down without 60 votes! Bullshit. Completely wrong.
Senators are allowed to offer amendments to a bill. They can then give two speeches on each amendment. A minority can propose zillions of amendments. You CAN limit the number of amendments (NO senators like being limited in amendments) but then if you do that, senators can raise points of order and give two speeches on those. No limit on points of order.
Here’s discussion of this from 2010, when the Dems were raging at the power of the GOP filibusters.
Bottom line: THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. If there were a way around 60 votes that does not constrain to Reconciliation, the Dems would have used it. There is nothing new under the sun in all this. The GOP is not going to discover any genius maneuver. The Dems would have discovered it in 2010 if there were.
The Filibuster is what spared the country from a single payer Canada NHS style healthcare plan. Only the Filibuster and Scott Brown stopped that. You will not find even 10 votes to kill the Filibuster for non USSC issues.
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.