Will the GOP kill the health care reform law?

[LBJ Revivalist]

I've seen some right wingers saying the GOP should, upon taking office in January, refuse to provide any funding for the healthcare reform.

Do you see healthcare reform being killed by the GOP Congress, or any major (negative) revisions happening to it? Or will it go ahead as planned "with teeth" and become a legacy of Obama's presidency like Social Security is to FDR and Medicare and Medicaid are to LBJ?

[memphis]

They'd like to, but it's not possible. Even the Dems can't fail that badly.

[Zarn]

They'd like to, but it's not possible. Even the Dems can't fail that badly.

Are you sure?

[Mr.Phips]

No.  The only way would be if the won the White House and Senate in 2012. 

[Skill and Chance]

They'd like to, but it's not possible. Even the Dems can't fail that badly.

Are you sure?

Obama will pledge to veto any spending/budget bill that does not include full funding of everything mandated in the law (save for some tax filing technicalities).  If the House GOP is dumb enough to shut down the federal government over it, then they completely deserve the 1996, Part 2 that will be coming for them.

[Free Palestine]

Hopefully

[Torie]

Assuming SCOTUS does not tank it (a 50-50 proposition), it will in any event be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

[Skill and Chance]

The only way the whole law will be repealed is if the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate and rules the entire law unseverable or if the GOP ha 60+ Senators in 2013.  If Obama gets reelected, then it is basically assured that it will not be repealed in any meaningful way.  Don't forget that Obama will quite likely get to replace a conservative Supreme Court Justice if he gets reelected.

[Skill and Chance]

It will be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

Any action in the near future (prior to 2020) would require 60+ GOP senators given how politically charged the issue will still be.  Why would Senate Democrats allow their holy grail of past 40 years to be attacked if they had any say in the matter, especially after the way the filibuster was politicized back when they were in charge?

Something unpleasant will definitely happen due to some flaw uncovered after a few years of implementation, though.  That is where bipartisan re-reform comes in, but probably not until the whole system has been on line for 5-10 years (the 2014 provisions).  If it's the GOP in charge or divided govenrment at that point, then a lot of the things you mentioned should end up happening.  If the Dems get the presidency and full control of congress again during the 2020s, then they might get cocky and go for single payer.   

[Beet]

I don't think SCOTUS will tank it; they would have to overturn 75 years of case law and it would be blatantly political. Besides that, I think everything Torie said is reasonable. The left will of course accuse some Dems of 'capitulating', but their health care efforts are more fruitfully directed towards the state level for the time being anyway.

[tpfkaw]

If Obamacare is ever repealed (and not "replaced" with something equally if not more unpalatable) by the GOP, I'll go blue avatar.

That won't happen.

[Torie]

It will be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

Any action in the near future (prior to 2020) would require 60+ GOP senators given how politically charged the issue will still be.  Why would Senate Democrats allow their holy grail of past 40 years to be attacked if they had any say in the matter, especially after the way the filibuster was politicized back when they were in charge?

Something unpleasant will definitely happen due to some flaw uncovered after a few years of implementation, though.  That is where bipartisan re-reform comes in, but probably not until the whole system has been on line for 5-10 years (the 2014 provisions).  If it's the GOP in charge or divided govenrment at that point, then a lot of the things you mentioned should end up happening.  If the Dems get the presidency and full control of congress again during the 2020s, then they might get cocky and go for single payer.    

I suspect Cloture will be a thing of the past if a Pubbie wins in 2012. I certainly hope it dies. It can be dumped by majority vote at the beginning of a Senate legislature session - yes it can (it almost was in 1957, but that is another story). The Dems should have had free reign to run riot the last 2 years, and if the GOP takes control, they should have free rein to revise, extend, repeal, and modify.

[Franzl]

The Dems should have had free reign to run riot the last 2 years, and if the GOP takes control, they should have free reign to revise, extend, repeal, and modify.

Agreed entirely. Look at what Cameron in the UK is able to push through with his majority, for example.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It will be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

Any action in the near future (prior to 2020) would require 60+ GOP senators given how politically charged the issue will still be.  Why would Senate Democrats allow their holy grail of past 40 years to be attacked if they had any say in the matter, especially after the way the filibuster was politicized back when they were in charge?

Something unpleasant will definitely happen due to some flaw uncovered after a few years of implementation, though.  That is where bipartisan re-reform comes in, but probably not until the whole system has been on line for 5-10 years (the 2014 provisions).  If it's the GOP in charge or divided govenrment at that point, then a lot of the things you mentioned should end up happening.  If the Dems get the presidency and full control of congress again during the 2020s, then they might get cocky and go for single payer.   

Wait, so the Democrats' holy grail for the last 40 years was to get a health care bill passed that was more conservative than Nixon's proposal? The Democrats truly are a joke party.

[Frodo]

Possibly -though only through a 'thousand cuts' approach as opposed to an outright repeal.  And that is my greatest concern regarding the health care reform law.

Don't forget that Obama will quite likely get to replace a conservative Supreme Court Justice if he gets reelected.

Really?  I was under the impression that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the next runner-up for replacement.  

[Torie]

I don't think SCOTUS will tank it; they would have to overturn 75 years of case law and it would be blatantly political. Besides that, I think everything Torie said is reasonable. The left will of course accuse some Dems of 'capitulating', but their health care efforts are more fruitfully directed towards the state level for the time being anyway.

There is no current SCOTUS case law, that considers doing nothing but breathing to be interstate commerce, nor any case, that has held that making you pay a penalty for not doing something, is well a tax rather than what it really is - a penalty - and so described by the authors of HCR, who vehemently denied it was a tax. So putting aside the political implications, HCR is skating on very thin legal ground in my opinion. If it is not within the reach of interstate commerce, nor a tax, than it is beyond the power of Congress under our Constitution, to do what it did.

[Mr.Phips]

Assuming SCOTUS does not tank it (a 50-50 proposition), it will in any event be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

The Supreme Court wont tank it.  That would be the most obscene act of Judicial Activism in history. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Possibly -though only through a 'thousand cuts' approach as opposed to an outright repeal.  And that is my greatest concern regarding the health care reform law.

Don't forget that Obama will quite likely get to replace a conservative Supreme Court Justice if he gets reelected.

Really?  I was under the impression that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the next runner-up for replacement.  

Yes, it's looking like Obama will only get to replace the sane members of the court. And Kagen is to the right of Stevens, so he's actually moving the court to the right. When he got to name a replacement for the most liberal member of the court when his party had 59 Senators, he chose a moderate hero. That really says a lot. This President is not a fighter. He is not trying to change the direction of this country. He's a useless don't rock the boat moderate hero.

[Skill and Chance]

Assuming SCOTUS does not tank it (a 50-50 proposition), it will in any event be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

The Supreme Court wont tank it.  That would be the most obscene act of Judicial Activism in history. 

They did it to the NRA and the WPA in the 1930's and those were the signature measures of FDR's presidency up to that point.  I think it is very possible (>35% chance) that the supreme court strikes down the individual mandate, but much less likely that Justice Kennedy is willing to strike down the whole law.  This is of course assuming that all of the Republican appointees presently on the court will still be serving when the case is heard.  Striking down the whole law would be Roe v. Wade part 2, except with the far left going wild instead.  Rational conservatives would never want to empower a public backlash that strong, and cede the issue of "Judicial Activism" completely to the other side.  Remember, since Roe v. Wade we have had 23 years of Republicans in the White House and only 14 years of Democratic control.  There are obviously a lot of other issues influencing this outcome, but Roe v. Wade is one of the only political issues that have persisted for the entire period.

[angus]

Do you see healthcare reform being killed by the GOP Congress,

I'd respectfully label that wishful thinking. 

The answer is no.  Even if the House did try to repeal, it'd be unlikely to get through the Senate.  And even if by some miracle it did, the president wouldn't sign the bill. 

We're stuck with it. 

[Skill and Chance]

It will be substantially modified with some bipartisan consensus in due course, closer to the plan which I have suggested. It is the only way out of the box really. It must be done. We target subsidies like a laser beam to those treatments most deserving of subsidy on a means tested basis, using private insurance companies, that are at once more regulated, and less, in an attempt to create a competitive market.  We encourage folks to insure with means tested subsidies, rather than mandates, using a carrot rather than a stick approach, except that general tax revenues will need to go up to pay for the subsidy, so there is a stick, but it is buried in the tax code. And we stop subsidizing drug research for the planet.

Any action in the near future (prior to 2020) would require 60+ GOP senators given how politically charged the issue will still be.  Why would Senate Democrats allow their holy grail of past 40 years to be attacked if they had any say in the matter, especially after the way the filibuster was politicized back when they were in charge?

Something unpleasant will definitely happen due to some flaw uncovered after a few years of implementation, though.  That is where bipartisan re-reform comes in, but probably not until the whole system has been on line for 5-10 years (the 2014 provisions).  If it's the GOP in charge or divided govenrment at that point, then a lot of the things you mentioned should end up happening.  If the Dems get the presidency and full control of congress again during the 2020s, then they might get cocky and go for single payer.    

I suspect Cloture will be a thing of the past if a Pubbie wins in 2012. I certainly hope it dies. It can be dumped by majority vote at the beginning of a Senate legislature session - yes it can (it almost was in 1957, but that is another story). The Dems should have had free reign to run riot the last 2 years, and if the GOP takes control, they should have free rein to revise, extend, repeal, and modify.

Ending cloture by brute force when one party has full control of the federal government would lead directly to a 2010 or 1974 style outcome in the next midterm depending on which party did it.  There is also huge moral hazard involved.  As much as the GOP wanted to privatize social security and appoint very partisan judges in 2005, they would regret every minute of it when single payer, a carbon tax, and a 60% top income tax rate were thrown at them in 2009.  Similarly, for Obama and Reid having an easier time passing very liberal legislation in 2009 isn't worth the risk of having it all repealed and entire departments of the federal government disbanded in 2013 (and don't tell me that someone, at least the president, won't be thinking a few years ahead).