Why is the House trying to repeal now?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Repeal of Obamacare will, of course, get through the Republican House, but it's destined to fail in the Democratically controlled Senate.

So what's the point of the vote on July 11? Seriously.

Save the energy for when Mitt and a slew of Republican Senators get elected in a few months time.....

Really, what's the rationale? Just a show to the American populace to look like they're doing something even though they know it will fail?

[Ljube]

The narrative from now on will be: Vote for Romney if you don't like the Health Care Law. He will repeal it.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

The narrative from now on will be: Vote for Romney if you don't like the Health Care Law. He will repeal it.

Of course, but that didn't answer my question.....

If I know trying to jump across a 50 foot bridge will fail, and I will die, why would I try? Same concept here.....

[Ljube]

The Republicans also need the Senate. So it is convenient to show that the Senate is the real obstacle to repealing the HCL.

[milhouse24]

To make democrats look bad.

To make Obama look bad.

to avoid other legislation and prove Obama is a powerless president.

[Mr.Phips]

The Republicans also need the Senate. So it is convenient to show that the Senate is the real obstacle to repealing the HCL.

Even with the Senate, repeal is going nowhere without 60 votes.  Democrats will filibuster any repeal bill and if Republicans try to use reconciliation, Democrats will just raise points of order on every non-budget related part of the bill(the mandate, the pre-existing conditions, the staying on parents' insurance until 27, ect.).  The only thing Republicans might be able to do is play around with the funding. 

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

But the Dems used reconciliation just to get it passed out of the senate. They don't like it when their tricks are/will be used against them.

[Mr.Phips]

But the Dems used reconciliation just to get it passed out of the senate. They don't like it when their tricks are/will be used against them.

No.  They used reconciliation to change the funding method of the original bill which passed the Senate with 60 votes and went through the House.  They could not have gotten the bill through by reconciliation and full repeal wouldnt get through reconiciliation either. 

[Joe Republic]

To make democrats look bad.

To make Obama look bad.

to avoid other legislation and prove Obama is a powerless president.

So, just so we're clear, the GOP wasting time on this instead of, say, attempting to fix the economy*, will be an indication of Obama being a do-nothing.  Got it.


* Yeah, I know the GOP has been actively working against that goal until they eventually retake the White House, but hey, the appearance of trying to fix things is still important.

[muon2]

But the Dems used reconciliation just to get it passed out of the senate. They don't like it when their tricks are/will be used against them.

No.  They used reconciliation to change the funding method of the original bill which passed the Senate with 60 votes and went through the House.  They could not have gotten the bill through by reconciliation and full repeal wouldnt get through reconiciliation either. 

But the mandate is a tax, so that can be dealt with as a budgetary matter and use reconciliation if necessary.

[Holmes]

to avoid other legislation and prove Obama is a powerless president.

It's not "proving" when their own grandstanding is the cause.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because they're dogmatic, ideological morons.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Because they're dogmatic, ideological morons.

And NYAGH NYAGH FIGHT OBAMACARE!!!!!!1!!1!

[Miles]

Well, some of of Blue Dogs running in redder districts can use this to their advantage; thay can run on voting for repeal twice.

[Zioneer]

Well, some of of Blue Dogs running in redder districts can use this to their advantage; thay can run on voting for repeal twice.

Yeah; that's the only reason the Blue Dogs went after Holder, after all. I'm pretty sure none of them actually believe he did anything wrong (he did do wrong, but that's not really what Issa is going after him for), but they need Republican votes, so they're going after Holder as an easy target. They'll go after Obamacare the same way.

[muon2]

I suspect that during the week they vote on repeal there will be one or more GOP bills that are touted to replace the existing act.

[Brittain33]

I suspect that during the week they vote on repeal there will be one or more GOP bills that are touted to replace the existing act.

How substantive do you think they will be? I expect they will float a bill with public relations items like interstate sales, tort reform, and various protections for not covering contraception and conscience exemptions, but nothing that would provide an actual framework for a health care systems or which address the issues associated with pre-existing conditions or low income.

[muon2]

I suspect that during the week they vote on repeal there will be one or more GOP bills that are touted to replace the existing act.

How substantive do you think they will be? I expect they will float a bill with public relations items like interstate sales, tort reform, and various protections for not covering contraception and conscience exemptions, but nothing that would provide an actual framework for a health care systems or which address the issues associated with pre-existing conditions or low income.

I don't have any intelligence on that yet.

[Torie]

I suspect that during the week they vote on repeal there will be one or more GOP bills that are touted to replace the existing act.

How substantive do you think they will be? I expect they will float a bill with public relations items like interstate sales, tort reform, and various protections for not covering contraception and conscience exemptions, but nothing that would provide an actual framework for a health care systems or which address the issues associated with pre-existing conditions or low income.

Getting the Pubs to agree on some grand unified alternative structure would be like herding cats. It will take a new POTUS and new leadership to get there.

[Brittain33]

I suspect that during the week they vote on repeal there will be one or more GOP bills that are touted to replace the existing act.

How substantive do you think they will be? I expect they will float a bill with public relations items like interstate sales, tort reform, and various protections for not covering contraception and conscience exemptions, but nothing that would provide an actual framework for a health care systems or which address the issues associated with pre-existing conditions or low income.

Getting the Pubs to agree on some grand unified alternative structure would be like herding cats. It will take a new POTUS and new leadership to get there.

I just don't think it's possible. Not because Republicans are uniquely evil, but because this isn't an issue that motivates people who are Republican to go into politics, so the caucus is full of people who don't feel strongly about this issue except in opposing new government funding for people who generally don't vote Republican. (I'm not trying to be nasty here.) I don't think there's anyone who has the leadership to make a dramatic change here and the will to confront a caucus which has many people who have reasons to vote against a major reform.

I'm trying to think of a similar issue with Democrats... maybe it's more like trying to reform Agriculture Policy with a party which has almost no farm state members. People just don't care.

[Torie]

I suspect that during the week they vote on repeal there will be one or more GOP bills that are touted to replace the existing act.

How substantive do you think they will be? I expect they will float a bill with public relations items like interstate sales, tort reform, and various protections for not covering contraception and conscience exemptions, but nothing that would provide an actual framework for a health care systems or which address the issues associated with pre-existing conditions or low income.

Getting the Pubs to agree on some grand unified alternative structure would be like herding cats. It will take a new POTUS and new leadership to get there.

I just don't think it's possible. Not because Republicans are uniquely evil, but because this isn't an issue that motivates people who are Republican to go into politics, so the caucus is full of people who don't feel strongly about this issue except in opposing new government funding for people who generally don't vote Republican. (I'm not trying to be nasty here.) I don't think there's anyone who has the leadership to make a dramatic change here and the will to confront a caucus which has many people who have reasons to vote against a major reform.

I'm trying to think of a similar issue with Democrats... maybe it's more like trying to reform Agriculture Policy with a party which has almost no farm state members. People just don't care.

Yes, except that we cannot afford the status quo. We are going broke. Plus the public won't stand for folks just going without treatment for something major or contagious. One can argue that many Pubs are mean or uncaring or whatever, but your thesis of Pub motivations requires major dumbness as well. The Pub masses just need some intelligent leadership, and a clear delineation of just what the realistic options are. Right now the voting public as a whole is just not getting much guidance at all - just demagoguery and pie in the sky word sketches of what it would be like if only the Jubilee occurred.

[Brittain33]

Yes, except that we cannot afford the status quo. We are going broke. Plus the public won't stand for folks just going without treatment for something major or contagious. One can argue that many Pubs are mean or uncaring or whatever, but your thesis of Pub motivations requires major dumbness as well. The Pub masses just need some intelligent leadership, and a clear delineation of just what the realistic options are. Right now the voting public as a whole is just not getting much guidance at all - just demagoguery and pie in the sky word sketches of what it would be like if only the Jubilee occurred.

I was really trying hard not to imply criticism of Republicans there. But I don't see us going broke, only a slow decay of our finances that gradually makes things more difficult but the large majority has basically ok healthcare that costs more than it should and squeezes consumption of other items. I don't see a tipping point or a collapse. We've already seen that Americans are ok with a sizable minority being shut out of the system. Medicare is a bigger cost issue and that's untouchable or requires a separate solution.

If we had a bond market crisis or a financial collapse that brought deficit spending to an end, or a cascading collapse of the employer-based health insurance market, then I could see Republicans doing something, but without that, why should America be an exception to countries being incapable of solving slow-evolving crises? I don't believe in that kind of American exceptionalism - I do believe we can [Inks] up by inertia alone.

[Torie]

I think you underestimate just how dire our fiscal house is, and how much worse it is going to get in our medical subsidy future with the status quo ante. My generation is going to BK you Brittain33. We are going to loot everything you got that is not nailed down if you let us.