Support NeoGAF

[Poodlestrike]

Just plain repeal loses Heller, Collins, and probably Murkowski. I know e can't rely on them, and I'm not saying we should but that's a real tough sell.

I think it's probably another bluff.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I just can't see moderates going for this. Makes no sense whatsoever. It is political suicide. They would basically be removing any blame that could be placed on the ACA.

It's still a massive cut to Medicaid, so it doesn't address any of their issues.

 

[Officerrob]

I've been VERY bullish that a bill passes the Senate, but a straight repeal has no chance

 

[benicillin]

Rand Paul already tweeting he is onboard with repealing on its own. This is insanity.

I mean that's literally all Paul has wanted to do this entire time, the idea that he'd be onboard with it should not be shocking.

 

[Diablos]

Just plain repeal loses Heller, Collins, and probably Murkowski. I know e can't rely on them, and I'm not saying we should but that's a real tough sell.

I think it's probably another bluff.

Hoping Portman comes through too.
But like I said always count on the GOP to stab you in the back when you least expect it. This is a party not grounded in in sound decision making, logic or reason. It's a party where one of its members will come to the Senate floor with a snowball to tell you global warming is fake.

The problem is much of their agenda is focused on ACA repeal because of the taxes and obviously ideological reasons...

They can't settle for a loss on repeal, even if it means the only way they can get to 51 or 50+Pence is just straight repeal and nothing to replace it with

 

[balladofwindfishes]

A full repeal is still 15+ million out of insurance as a headline

I also question if a full repeal is even able to be passed via reconciliation.

 

[nature boy]

So is the "counterpuncher" going to counterpuch or what

 

[Diablos]

A full repeal is still 15+ million out of insurance as a headline

They'll say it's inaccurate and they have better ideas while most Americans don't even realize they will probably never move on to those ideas after repeal would happen

They just see the ACA as being in their way at this point and they don't really care about what healthcare would look like after full repeal

 

[Crocodile]

Past 24 hours

Man fuck this presidency and fuck the GOP

 

[Ether_Snake]

There is no way they would vote no to repealing Obamacare.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

So is the "counterpuncher" going to counterpuch or what

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

 

[Chumley]

17:00 in for National Enquirer Morning Joe story http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/mika-fascinating-frightening-and-sad-for-the-us-980332099712

 

[balladofwindfishes]

There is no way they would vote no to repealing Obamacare.

Quite a lot of them don't even want the ACA repealed. Collins, Heller and probably Murkowski would be a no. Kasich would likely lobby Portman to his side as well.

Once the CBO report hit and it's the same story as this week, with it being a massive cut to Medicaid to pay to tax cuts. Same headlines, same issues with the bill.

 

[Officerrob]

Without a replacement it would throw the healthcare market into chaos. Plus the tax cuts that Republicans masterbate about are directly tied to the healthcare "savings". People are overreacting to a fucking tweet, this isn't happening

 

[Deuce Deuce]

Does a full repeal violate the requirements of reconciliation?

 

[Rebel Leader]

Mika is saying how easy it wasy to play donald trump

 

[tbm24]

Advocating for a full repeal with no replacement is such a laughable idea. That would never be voted on.

 

[thefro]

Does a full repeal violate the requirements of reconciliation?

Yes it does. They could cripple the law through reconciliation but that would be dumber electorally then passing the Senate bill.

 

[Diablos]

ACA is fucked no matter what because even without full repeal, if its not replaced Trump will have Price sabotage the ACA to death. A more 'sensible' replacement therefore may be the most ideal because it will have Trump's name on it and he will of course want it to succeed... the best outcome would be a bipartisan bill where tax credits are left in place and there are only minor tweaks

Doing nothing is almost as bad as full repeal tho, because again, Trump is going to slaughter the ACA from the inside out

There are really no good outcomes... it is basically "which outcome sucks less" at this point...

 

[Gruco]

Does a full repeal violate the requirements of reconciliation?

Hard to say...the Senate bill already should have.

===

CBO has evaluated full repeal BTW. 32M uninsured, 100% premium spikes.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Hard to say...the Senate bill already should have.

===

CBO has evaluated full repeal BTW. 32M uninsured, 100% premium spikes.

I though the estimate for a full repeal was more insured than the House bill was?

32m uninisured means it's DOA. The premium increases just compound onto that.

 

[A Serious Man]

ACA is fucked no matter what because even without full repeal, if its not replaced Trump will have Price sabotage the ACA to death. A more 'sensible' replacement therefore may be the most ideal because it will have Trump's name on it and he will of course want it to succeed... the best outcome would be a bipartisan bill where tax credits are left in place and there are only minor tweaks

Doing nothing is almost as bad as full repeal tho, because again, Trump is going to slaughter the ACA from the inside out

They can tank the exchanges but the exchanges are just one small part of the ACA. A full repeal has much broader implications for the healthcare system than failing individual markets in some states.

 

[Chumley]

Sending in federal help? What?

 

[Barzul]

Confused. Can they even do a full repeal without 60 votes? Also guys, the fact that the likes of Sasse and Paul are signing off on it means that it's not a baseless idea. It probably is being actively discussed in McConnells office.

 

[Plinko]

I mean that's literally all Paul has wanted to do this entire time, the idea that he'd be onboard with it should not be shocking.

This is wrong. Back in January he insisted they have a replacement plan right away.

 

[tbm24]

Sending in federal help? What?

His way of sending federal help is tweeting about it.

 

[Zolo]

Sending in federal help? What?

It's a toothless statement he's been making since campaigning because Obama's from Chicago.

 

[benicillin]

This is wrong. Back in January he insisted they have a replacement plan right away.

My mistake then.

 

[Owzers]

Watching morning joe...feeling great!

:0

 

[Plinko]

People on Twitter saying a replace on its own would need 60 votes.

Only way this would happen is if they repealed, let the system self-destruct for a year, then tried to push a replacement. That would be a political disaster.

 

[Deuce Deuce]

People on Twitter saying a replace on its own would need 60 votes.

Only way this would happen is if they repealed, let the system self-destruct for a year, then tried to push a replacement. That would be a political disaster.

I think the idea is if they repealed it first, Democrats would be onboard with a replacement plan since it would be better than nothing.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think the idea is if they repealed it first, Democrats would be onboard with a replacement plan since it would be better than nothing.

So they'd be holding the lives of millions as ransom to make a deal with the Democrats

I'm sure that'd go over well, politically.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Carl Bernstein just called it a Malignant Presidency

 

[Diablos]

Yes it does. They could cripple the law through reconciliation but that would be dumber electorally then passing the Senate bill.

Mitch could also just kill the filibuster

 

[Zolo]

Mitch could also just kill the filibuster

Not saying Mitch wouldn't stoop that low, but I feel he wouldn't do it for this.

 

[Diablos]

Not saying Mitch wouldn't stoop that low, but I feel he wouldn't do it for this.

If you think about it this is the one bill where you'd cross that line. They've been promising repeal since the day it was passed. If they can get to 50+1 he does it.

 

[Ecotic]

I'm starting to wonder if it's best for many Democrats in Congress to openly call for Trump's impeachment. I don't mean just mention it once and forget about it, but hammer it consistently. The idea being it will further create an aura of Washington dysfunction and Trump will suffer for it.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I think the idea is if they repealed it first, Democrats would be onboard with a replacement plan since it would be better than nothing.

But they don't need Democrats onboard for anything. If they wanted to put together a replacement bill that attracts D votes they could do that now. They're fighting with themselves, not the Democrats!

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Sending in federal help? What?

That's one way to shift the story.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If you think about it this is the one bill where you'd cross that line. They've been promising repeal since the day it was passed. If they can get to 50+1 he does it.

I don't think a clean repeal has 50 votes, because a clean repeal isn't really "clean" it still has a disastrous CBO estimate and possibly recession causing quakes through the health industry

 

[Lo-Volt]

Sending in federal help? What?

Have we gone back in time? He said dumb shit like this early in the term too. Trump is falling back to his Greatest Hits.

 

[Gruco]

If Republicans are willing to pass a Pretend and Rename Obamacare "repeal", but need Dem votes because of the right wing hold outs, should Dems play along? If so, for what price?

 

[Blader]

If you think about it this is the one bill where you'd cross that line. They've been promising repeal since the day it was passed. If they can get to 50+1 he does it.

Killing the legislative filibuster for a piece of legislation that you're not even sure you can get a simple majority does not seem like it's worth it to me. I don't really think McConnell will outright kill the filibuster anyway -- he'd probably just gut it more and more with reconciliation maneuvers -- but if we were to do it, it'd be on something that the GOP really wants, can get to 50 but not 60 on, and is uniformly blocked by the Dems. The legislative equivalent of confirming a SCOTUS appointment, basically.

 

[Plinko]

If Republicans are willing to pass a Pretend and Rename Obamacare "repeal", but need Dem votes because of the right wing hold outs, should Dems play along? If so, for what price?

I don't think so. Republicans will take the blame because they are the ones that repealed ACA.

 

[benicillin]

If Republicans are willing to pass a Pretend and Rename Obamacare "repeal", but need Dem votes because of the right wing hold outs, should Dems play along? If so, for what price?

In this political environment? No. Obstruction is literally the only option.

 

[Gruco]

I don't think so. Republicans will take the blame because they are the ones that repealed ACA.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was suggesting a scenario in which there is no actual repeal, just a fake, face-saving one for Republicans which keeps most/all major reforms in place.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You guys should read the article about Sasse's statement, not just go by Tweets

Because it paints a different picture, one where the bill is pretty much dead and this is just Sasse spit balling possible plans for when the senate bill collapses. This isn't currently being discussed as part of the plan supposedly being released today (but he doesn't seem to think that's happening any time soon)

Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska said that congressional leaders' prospects of overturning parts of the 2010 Affordable Care Act and enact their own provisions in its place were dimming. He said the party's best hope for passing a health-care bill now could be to wipe out the law in its entirety, then work on a deal to fill the void.

"On the current path it looks like Republicans will either fail to pass any meaningful bill at all, or will instead pass a bill that looks to prop up many of the crumbling Obama care structures," he said in a letter he announced he was sending to the White House.

"We must keep our word. Therefore, if on July 10 we don't have agreement on a combined repeal and replace plan, we should immediately vote again on H.R. 3762, the December 2015 Obamacare repeal legislation that the Congress passed but President Obama vetoed."

Within minutes of Mr. Sasse's announcement, which he also discussed on "Fox & Friends," Mr. Trump suggested his support in a tweet.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!

Rand Paul of Kentucky, another senator whose support could make or break the legislation's prospect, also endorsed the idea.

"I have spoken to @realDonaldTrump & Senate leadership about this and agree. Let's keep our word to repeal then work on replacing right away," he said on Twitter.

 

[benjipwns]

You guys should read the article about Scalise's statement, not just go by Tweets

Because it paints a different picture, one where the bill is pretty much dead and this is just Scalise spit balling possible plans for when the senate bill collapses.

He should probably be recovering from being shot instead of making plans for a legislative body he's not a member of.

Spoiler

 

[balladofwindfishes]

He should probably be recovering from being shot instead of making plans for a legislative body he's not a member of.

Spoiler

Had Scalise on the brain, since I was just looking up how he was doing (he's doing much better)

 

[Plinko]

You guys should read the article about Sasse's statement, not just go by Tweets

Because it paints a different picture, one where the bill is pretty much dead and this is just Sasse spit balling possible plans for when the senate bill collapses. This isn't currently being discussed as part of the plan supposedly being released today (but he doesn't seem to think that's happening any time soon)

It was dead regardless of what anyone said.