Audrey Hudson has Democrat campaign strategy down pat: Republicans wont get a fair shake in the MSM. They never do, but Tea Party conservatives can neuter media bias by plastering this video all over the Internet until election day: Parenthetically, a fifty-fifty split in the Senate is the very best Democrats can hope for, and even that is one helluva stretch. I wont be surprised if the Republicans get a veto-proof majority, but lets say Democrats somehow manage to get an even split. Vice President Ryan would cast the tie-breaking vote when the healthcare law comes up for repeal. Democrats know that; so an even split isnt good enough. Democrats also know that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Hillarycare II repealed; so they have to portray Ryan as a . . . a toxic choice and politically extreme,. . .. The good news is that it wont play in Peoria; especially if R & R becomes an acronym for Reject & Repeal. In short: R & R the mess Hussein & Company made of everything. Finally, repealing the Affordable Care Act has been the number one priority for Americans since the day Hussein signed it into law. Every private sector American Republican, Democrat, and all the folks in-between should keep repeal uppermost in their thoughts when Democrats revert to their road game: The politics of personal destruction.
They cannot repeal it without holding a filibuster proof majority in the Senate no one is seening eleven seats changing hands this upcoming election and if they use their once a year reconciliation on this to eliminate what they can ,funding aspects of the ACA, the rest can be filibustered. And the Democrats can keep the dangerous part the mandate insurers accept everyone regardless of medical condition and other parts in play indefinately and without the law surrounding it that will kill the insurance industry in no time. If they try to include that in any way in a repeal the entire repeal bill can be filibustered. And this ASSUMES Romney/Ryan get into the White House if Obama/Biden does its over there will be no repeal or if the Senate is still held by Democrats its over. As for the repeal desired by Americans who says most like individual parts of the law fine its the mandate that is unpopular to some degree and that is needed to keep things like the mandate insurers take everyone in the long run workable.
To tkolter: Not so: Naturally, the socialized medicine crowd is arguing the opposite —— a losing argument. The public has only one concern with repeal: Establishment Republicans and-or a few RINO in the Senate will lie through their teeth and side with the Democrats. That’s primarily why I have been saying voters should forget the presidency and concentrate on a veto-proof Senate. Frankly, a Northeast liberal from Massachusetts is simply not to be trusted. When a veto-proof Congress sends Romney a repeal bill he will not have any place to hide. Beyond repealing Hillarycare II it matters not who lives in the White House because Congress runs the country not the president. Counting to 51: The fate of the device tax and the Affordable Care Act June 28, 2012 – 9:42 PM | By Mark McCarty The biggest judicial showdown in quite a while is finally over, and here are a couple of things to consider while we’re playing numerology games in an effort to interpret the scribblings of nine citizens in black robes we all now refer to as SCOTUS. I for one can understand why the Supreme Court was unimpressed with the attempt to argue the validity of the Affordable Care Act on the basis of the Commerce Clause. In this decision the Court basically said the government cannot force citizens to participate in commerce, a position that comports with precedent. By the way, that fencing-off of the Commerce Clause suggests the broccoli debate is over … for now anyway. The point I’d make about the Commerce Clause is that it was originally added to the Constitution as a means of tamping down on trade wars between the states. This may sound naïve, but to the best of my knowledge there’s nothing particularly “interstate” about sickness and healthcare, especially since health insurance is regulated primarily by the states. So this layperson’s sensibilities would argue that the Commerce Clause argument was a flatly disingenuous one, even if one supported the ACA as a whole. Nov. 6 + 51 = repeal? It appears that the majority decision left open – inadvertently or otherwise – the use of budget reconciliation to delete the ACA from the books. As we all now know, Chief Justice John Roberts and his four colleagues ditched the Commerce Clause argument in favor of a taxation argument, essentially stating that Congress has the authority to use its powers to tax to force citizens to enroll in a health plan or face a fine. Another thing we all know is budget reconciliation is a tool used in both houses of Congress to pass legislation that affects the budget, something which taxes clearly do. The real point of interest here is that the Senate, like the House, needs only a simple majority – 51 votes, not 60 – to pass an ACA repeal bill based on budget reconciliation rules. Ergo, all the repeal effort requires is the very tiniest of majorities, a far more attainable goal than six of ten. I’d love to take credit for having thought of this reconciliation idea first, but I can’t. My wife and I were having dinner when it came to me, which was apparently quite some time after the folks on Capitol Hill came up with it, as this report and others make clear. One point I will add to those reports is that 23 Democrats (and independents who caucus with them) are either retiring or running for re-election in November, while the same can be said of only 10 Republicans. Given that the GOP currently holds 47 seats, a repeal bill could easily fly in the Senate next year using budget reconciliation. Et tu device tax? Precisely how this all affects device makers is tough to flesh out, because while the device tax is still the law of the land, it could be repealed by year’s end, or it could be offset by other tax issues that have to be dealt with by then. Among the tax issues Congress has to take up before Jan. 1 are the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration and sustained by the Obama administration, the bonus depreciation, and the research and experimentation credit. The 2.3% device tax could sidestep industry opposition if Congress and the White House find an offsetting measure somewhere in this panoply of expiring taxes. Of course, if you can use budget reconciliation to delete the ACA, you could use it to dump the device tax, too, no? It is hardly a curse for someone in my line of work to live in interesting times, but making sense of all the moving parts is tricky. Still, even someone like me can count to 51, a number that could reverse what nine black robes wouldn’t. http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily...f-the-device-tax-and-the-affordable-care-act/
Here’s another R & R to think about. Reconciliation & Repeal. Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority when Republican Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy’s seat after he died; so Democrats used the reconciliation process to force their changes into the healthcare law. If you listen carefully you’ll see that the media is already laying the rules for the sure-to-come Senate debate. Rule #1: Americans must accept whatever the Democrats did as legal and above board. Rule #2: Republicans are dastardly schemers because they are breaking the rules when they use budget reconciliation to do what the American people want. A few months ago Senator McConnell said: McConnell’s position is a sure sign Democrats are going to pull the same old “Do as I say, not as I do.” The article goes on to say: These paragraphs say it all: Sen. McConnell: I’ll repeal ACA with GOP Majority June 29th, 2012 http://sago.com/2012/06/29/sen-mcconnell-ill-repeal-aca-with-gop-majority/ Finally, those Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 will be defeated if the ACA is not repealed next year. Bottom line: Repeal is not going away until it is accomplished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress) Not the Byrd rule which is law they can only use reconcilation on budget affecting parts of the ACA, the rest cannot be included this is including mandates and statutes not affecting funding in some way. So they can do a partial repeal but that will leave the mandates in place on insurers and that can be filibustered. In fact Democrats could say they will repeal that only if a bill is presented to us by the Republican side at which time it will be considered as the the ACA replacement. Until then prevent a vote. Here is really what one local hospital that handles most of the indigent care will do in the mandate in place to provide insurance they will pay for it on behalf of the patiant, give them the expensive care and not pay after the months of treatmement. Get a very generous plan it might be $5k to get 80% back but if the bill is $100k getting an adjusted $75k is better than nothing. And without the ACA shielding the insurers this would be legal and law of the land. How long would insurers stay in business forcing a serious bill to correct the health care system. And if they put the whole law up for repeal it can be filibustered those non-budget parts cannot be included in the bill at all. Now in theory they could vote that out but it would mean giving that tool up to all future Republican congresses who end up the minority stripping them of the one tool they would have to prevent legislation from moving, a very remote chance they would risk that. And your assuming the Senate will shift if the ratio stays where it is or the Democrats gain any seats its over, right now its 51 to 49 in practice when votes come up now, the seats left are largely in party strong districts. And if Obama is returned to office which is still a decent probability the chance of repeal is dead. In the end a repeal is going to be a mess to try, they would better off making changes leaving the main law in place than a repeal.
To tkolter: I love it when a liberal supports an opinion by telling conservatives how to be better off. As for the rest of your reply, I responded in #3 & #4 permalinks.
So did I did you check out the Byrd rule and how the law was passed the commitee merged the statutes and the financials which were reconciled into one bill then deemed and passed both, you cannot remove the ACA altogether by reconciliation that is the law just the finacials. The statutes if included will force a full vote against the Democratic filibuster, you do the statutes its again up against a filibuster. And isn't this all mute if Obama/Biden get in its over, if they Democrats hold or gain seats its over until then no use debating a law that is the law of the land and largely constitutional if its not an option to repeal it now is there?
To tkolter: First, it’s a Senate rule not the law of the land; the majority party can do anything it pleases. Second, I tend to believe that Senator McConnell knows more about Senate rules than you know: Third, there are two ways Hussein can win: 1. Romney & Ryan concede at midnight on November 5, 2012. 2. ACORN counts the ballots. Ditto for Democrats holding or gaining seats.
