Ryan says House GOP budget will include Obamacare repeal

[pbrower2a]

Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.

Fight... and fail.

President Obama is going to veto any repeal attempt that isn't also an improvement. If the Republicans can give us single-payer we might have something. Until then it will take until at least 2017 with a new Republican President, a House majority, and control of the Senate. 

Republicans are going to have a hard time avoiding huge Senate losses in 2016.

Democracy also means that the People get to judge whether their elected officials are doing an adequate job and not going too far into the objectionable.

[Blue3]

Ryan's budget doesn't even propose repeal, it "assumes" repeal. So the budget projections are going to be way off from reality.

I bet this is how Ryan keeps his promise of coming up with a budget that balances itself within 10 years... repeal ObamaCare, and then we'll be catching leprachauns and finding pots of gold everywhere!

[anvi]

Neat.  It's a good precedent.  Budget committee chairs should routinely draft budget proposals based on which programs they wish stayed in place and wished repealed.  Henceforth, let all drafts of budgets be nothing more than statements of political agenda.  More good governance at work for you, folks.  Yay.

[Likely Voter]

Interesting how Ryan's budget also gets to balance in 10 years by
1. keeping the (Clinton era) higher tax rates on the top 1% instead of reverting back to the Bush tax cut rate
2. Keeping the medicare savings that were part of Obamacare
3. Keeping all the sequester cuts (including military)

Hasn't Ryan himself campaigned on the evils of these things? If this is a political statement/wish list shouldn't he get rid of them?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If Ryan wanted to cut healthcare costs, he'd repeal the HMO act, etc alongside Obamacare, which might actually achieve something. Really, the only different thing about the ACA vs the old system is that it ties Americans to the broken 3rd party payer system, which makes the flaws all the more obvious.

[pbrower2a]

Offering a budget that cannot pass is hardly good politics.

[Silent Hunter]

Offering a budget that cannot pass is hardly good politics.

Unless it gets you to a budget that can pass.

[Vosem]

Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.

Fight... and fail.

President Obama is going to veto any repeal attempt that isn't also an improvement. If the Republicans can give us single-payer we might have something. Until then it will take until at least 2017 with a new Republican President, a House majority, and control of the Senate.

You're right on the face of it here, though you should remember the Republicans in the House won't take any healthcare reform that doesn't scale down Obamacare and the like...and they have a veto, too.

Republicans are going to have a hard time avoiding huge Senate losses in 2016.

In 2014, Democrats hold 7 seats in states that voted for Romney. In 2016, Democrats hold 7 seats in states that voted for Obama (there is also one 2014 seat like this). The Democrats in Republican states are generally in more unfavorable states than the Republicans, though this rule isn't universal (of the 7 Democrats, the only one in a single-digit Romney state is Hagan, all the rest are double-digits; of the Republicans, the only double-digiters are Collins and Kirk). A lot of data there, but basically unless either party has a wave one year or the other 2014 and 2016 roughly cancel out, with maybe a slight Republican advantage if you put the two together.

Democracy also means that the People get to judge whether their elected officials are doing an adequate job and not going too far into the objectionable.

Indeed. The 7 Democratic Senators I mention in the previous post haven't faced the voters since before they voted in favor of Obamacare...

[Mr.Phips]

Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.

Fight... and fail.

President Obama is going to veto any repeal attempt that isn't also an improvement. If the Republicans can give us single-payer we might have something. Until then it will take until at least 2017 with a new Republican President, a House majority, and control of the Senate.

You're right on the face of it here, though you should remember the Republicans in the House won't take any healthcare reform that doesn't scale down Obamacare and the like...and they have a veto, too.

Republicans are going to have a hard time avoiding huge Senate losses in 2016.

In 2014, Democrats hold 7 seats in states that voted for Romney. In 2016, Democrats hold 7 seats in states that voted for Obama (there is also one 2014 seat like this). The Democrats in Republican states are generally in more unfavorable states than the Republicans, though this rule isn't universal (of the 7 Democrats, the only one in a single-digit Romney state is Hagan, all the rest are double-digits; of the Republicans, the only double-digiters are Collins and Kirk). A lot of data there, but basically unless either party has a wave one year or the other 2014 and 2016 roughly cancel out, with maybe a slight Republican advantage if you put the two together.

Id say that 2014 and 2016 cancel each other out almost perfectly.  2014 probably has two Dem seats that are completely gone(SD and WV) and 2016 has two Republicans seats that are probably completely gone(IL and WI).  Kirk is not surviving a Presidential year Chicago turnout and Johnson representing Wisconsin is essentially like Dennis Kucinich representing North Carolina. 

[Vosem]

Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.

Fight... and fail.

President Obama is going to veto any repeal attempt that isn't also an improvement. If the Republicans can give us single-payer we might have something. Until then it will take until at least 2017 with a new Republican President, a House majority, and control of the Senate.

You're right on the face of it here, though you should remember the Republicans in the House won't take any healthcare reform that doesn't scale down Obamacare and the like...and they have a veto, too.

Republicans are going to have a hard time avoiding huge Senate losses in 2016.

In 2014, Democrats hold 7 seats in states that voted for Romney. In 2016, Democrats hold 7 seats in states that voted for Obama (there is also one 2014 seat like this). The Democrats in Republican states are generally in more unfavorable states than the Republicans, though this rule isn't universal (of the 7 Democrats, the only one in a single-digit Romney state is Hagan, all the rest are double-digits; of the Republicans, the only double-digiters are Collins and Kirk). A lot of data there, but basically unless either party has a wave one year or the other 2014 and 2016 roughly cancel out, with maybe a slight Republican advantage if you put the two together.

Id say that 2014 and 2016 cancel each other out almost perfectly.  2014 probably has two Dem seats that are completely gone(SD and WV) and 2016 has two Republicans seats that are probably completely gone(IL and WI).  Kirk is not surviving a Presidential year Chicago turnout and Johnson representing Wisconsin is essentially like Dennis Kucinich representing North Carolina. 

A lot of people seem to think WI is gone but I don't think it is -- Johnson is very well-funded, a talented campaigner, and the Democratic bench in Wisconsin has been decimated of late. The only people who I think could beat Johnson are Feingold, who's left politics, and Kind, who I think is content with the House. Perhaps the Democratic permanent minority status there will put him off, though.

Kirk, yeah, is probably dead in the water. I personally think the scale of Republican possibilities for 2014 is greater than that for 2016, but they are rough approximates for each other. A lot of Democratic Senators in 2014 are in really hardcore Republican states (WV, AR, LA, SD...), but the 2016 Republicans, except Kirk, aren't -- Wisconsin is the most Democratic of the bunch at Obama+7; since Obama won by 4 nationwide, that's a rough D+3 tilt. It's more Republican at the local level, though, and trending that way as well. The others are mostly close to the national average, where in a neutral year incumbency advantage should be able to pull Republicans through.

Perhaps, so far removed from the actual action in '14 and '16, I'm just optimistic. If we really do enter an extended era of split Senate/House control, that would be basically unprecedented -- America has had six years twice, once in the 19th century and again in the 1980s, but if this continues past 2016, it would actually be a milestone in American political history.