If Rubio becomes president, will he gut or change Obamacare?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I would assume Trump would veto any bill that would defund Obamacare, but how about Rubio? Would Republicans really risk axing a pretty popular program?

[Crumpets]

Only if the Republicans can win a few more seats in the Senate. I certainly think he wants to, but he won't try to go at it alone.

[Mike Thick]

I imagine he would attempt some kind of reform, but unless the Republicans have a yuuuuuge year in either 2016 or 2018 he's going to have a hard time getting anything major done.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes. Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... they'd all be effectively ended by Christmas 2017.

[Xing]

He'll try. It seems his goal is to basically undo Obama's presidency.

[RFayette]

He'll change it, but I suspect the Medicaid subsidies are here to stay given how bad the cosmetics would be were he to push to revoke them.  A lot of the regulations and mandates would likely be on the chopping block, however.

[Lief 🗽]

Guys, honestly, you're completely delusional if you don't think the GOP, with control of the Senate, House and Presidency, wouldn't immediately repeal Obamacare.

[RFayette]

Guys, honestly, you're completely delusional if you don't think the GOP, with control of the Senate, House and Presidency, wouldn't immediately repeal Obamacare.

Without 60 Senate seats, I don't think it would be as simple as you suggest.  Particularly with respect to the Medicaid expansion, it seems like it would be difficult for the GOP to get cloture, and nuking the filibuster would be too controversial.

[Devils30]

It's a tough decision, if Rubio repeals it then the next time the Democrats control everything is almost certainly going to result in single payer.

[Virginiá]

Guys, honestly, you're completely delusional if you don't think the GOP, with control of the Senate, House and Presidency, wouldn't immediately repeal Obamacare.

Without 60 Senate seats, I don't think it would be as simple as you suggest.  Particularly with respect to the Medicaid expansion, it seems like it would be difficult for the GOP to get cloture, and nuking the filibuster would be too controversial.

They used reconciliation to get a bill to Obama for veto that eviscerated PPACA. So they can do something about it, just maybe not the typical full repeal.

[Lief 🗽]

Guys, honestly, you're completely delusional if you don't think the GOP, with control of the Senate, House and Presidency, wouldn't immediately repeal Obamacare.

Without 60 Senate seats, I don't think it would be as simple as you suggest.  Particularly with respect to the Medicaid expansion, it seems like it would be difficult for the GOP to get cloture, and nuking the filibuster would be too controversial.

Nah, I think they'll abolish the filibuster as soon as they have full control over the presidency and congress. Mitch McConnell knows how powerful it can be in the opposition party's hands.

[Figueira]

He'll probably try. The prospect of a Rubio presidency is extremely scary.

[RFayette]

Guys, honestly, you're completely delusional if you don't think the GOP, with control of the Senate, House and Presidency, wouldn't immediately repeal Obamacare.

Without 60 Senate seats, I don't think it would be as simple as you suggest.  Particularly with respect to the Medicaid expansion, it seems like it would be difficult for the GOP to get cloture, and nuking the filibuster would be too controversial.

Nah, I think they'll abolish the filibuster as soon as they have full control over the presidency and congress. Mitch McConnell knows how powerful it can be in the opposition party's hands.

I suppose you may be right, but the aftermath of 2018 could be a depressing prospect, if so.  That fillibuster abolishment will really bite them in the back if they get big losses in 2018, which is more than possible if they get too reactionary.

[tallguy23]

Way too many people would lose their healthcare and the GOP would be smacked big time in 2018.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Yes, a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress would be under such intense pressure from the grassroots that he would have no choice but to either repeal Obamacare or risk the most formidable primary challenge to an incumbent president since Reagan in 1976 and a very possible schism within the party leading to a mass exodus on the part of either establishment Republicans or conservatives.

If Republicans elect a president in 2016, Obamacare (or at least the parts that can be repealed through reconciliation) will be repealed. It's whatever it gets replaced with that Republicans should be worried about at that point.

And unlike Obamacare, any problems with the new law will be Republicans' fault, so they'd better choose wisely.

[°Leprechaun]

He'll probably try. The prospect of a Rubio presidency is extremely scary.

Agreed. He says he will so he will if he can get Congress with him.

[angus]

how about Rubio?

one can only hope.  I think we're stuck with it for a while.

voted NO.

[DS0816]

A Republican president will not do damage to the Affordable Care Act. If one were to try to do that, the party will lose the midterm elections, including their majorities starting first with the U.S. House followed by the U.S. Senate. (On the campaign trail, they'll give lip service to their self-identified Republican caucuses and primaries voters.)

For that reason alone, and because both parties know the voting patterns of midterms vs. presidential elections cycles, a Republican pickup presidential winner (with 2016) will not screw with the Affordable Care Act (and, for a separate topic, will not try to get an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States against LGBT persons for same-sex marriage).

[angus]

I agree.  You have to sweep the house and control at least 60 senate seats to get any of the president's legislative agenda accomplished.  This what I always say when folks give me the hairy eyeball when I say that I'm supporting Bernie Sanders, and we're in it to win win it. Talking heads always going on about "how is he going to achieve his legislative agenda?  There's no way he'll get what he wants" as though that's a bad thing.  As long as one party controls the executive branch, and another controls the national legislature, they we can be sure that they're not going to fuck anything up too badly. 

My general position is that when I think the GOP is going to control the congress, I vote for a Democrat president, and when I think the Democrats will control the congress, I vote for a Republican president.  Gridlock is good. 

The PPACA is a particularly unfortunate bit of legislature, and probably a special case, since it is tailor-made to funnel wealth away from the many and toward the few.  (Ironically, many of its detractors claim that it is "socialist" when it is in fact the opposite thereof.)  It places many unnecessary burdens on individuals and on society as a whole.  Unsurprisingly, it is "popular" as has been pointed out.  Too bad those who voted on it didn't read the bill, as they freely admitted afterward.  Still, unless the GOP can control both the house and at least 60 seats in the senate, it will not be deconstructed.  I think your assessment is fair (except for some of the really inside baseball bit, which I don't totally understand).  Clearly, it is with us to stay.  Unfortunately.

also, that's a really big map.  Was that really necessary?  I have to scroll right just to read your post.  Please try to be more considerate in the future.

[SillyAmerican]

I agree.  You have to sweep the house and control at least 60 senate seats to get any of the president's legislative agenda accomplished.  This what I always say when folks give me the hairy eyeball when I say that I'm supporting Bernie Sanders, and we're in it to win win it. Talking heads always going on about "how is he going to achieve his legislative agenda?  There's no way he'll get what he wants" as though that's a bad thing.  As long as one party controls the executive branch, and another controls the national legislature, they we can be sure that they're not going to fuck anything up too badly. 

My general position is that when I think the GOP is going to control the congress, I vote for a Democrat president, and when I think the Democrats will control the congress, I vote for a Republican president.  Gridlock is good. 

I agree. Those who complain about Washington gridlock haven't given a lot of thought about the alternative. Generally speaking, gridlock is not a bad thing.

[RFayette]

One thing I would note to Skill and Chance is that the ruby-red nature in Senate races in states like Tennessee and Nebraska (possibly even Texas) may simply be due to having a Democratic President in the White House.  An extremely reactionary first two years could cause flips in TX, MS, NE, NV, and AZ (I don't think WY or UT will flip under any circumstances).   Repealing Obamacare wouldn't be enough for that though; it would likely to have involve a recession plus big Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks as well.