Just 50 but that's not confirmed at all. If it doesn't meet reconciliation then I find it hard to believe that they nuke the filibuster to do this.
I am finding the contrast in the discussion and press coverage regarding the AHCA and the ACA to be completely fucked.
The ACA dealt with a number on non-budgetary regulatory issues in the health care market. No plan maximums, minimum guaranteed benefits, 26 year olds, rescission, preexisting conditions, and the individual mandate. The mandate is the only one which is credibly a reconciliation issue.
And yet, even though the AHCA deals with removing many of these same benefits, the press coverage is completely different. The ACA was all about whether the Dems could get to 60. The ACHA is all about whether the GOP can get to 50. There is no credible reason these two things should have a different standard.
Of course, there's a simple explanation for the difference. The Dems easily had 50 for the ACA, and the GOP will never approach 60 for the AHCA. So the press, in pursuit of an interesting story, lazily fixates in the closest number in terms of Senate composition.
There's more too it than that of course. The press way too readily accepted Mitch's 60 vote threshold for everything and expects them to employ whatever tactics will get a win now. Hand-wringing is a time honored tradition for the Democrats but the GOP gonna GOP.
The dynamic goalpost swapping for what counts as success, and the dismissal between what made 2009 so different from today are all import pieces of the media and the country's disfunction.
I guess what I am saying is, that Politico write up is garbage, and if the parliamentarian lets the AHCA slide, our government is an irredeemable shit show.
It's weird that people focus on 50.