Trumpcare Megathread: It's dead (for now)

[BudgieForce]

They can vote on the parliamentarian rulings since Pence isnt obligated to listen(or something like that). But with a margin of 2 votes, I dont see them actually being able to over rule anyone.

[Mr.Phips]

Breaking: The Senate parliamentarian has determined that some provisions violate the Byrd rule, making them impermissible under reconciliation.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf

They could just fire the parliamentarian...they did it during the Bush years lol

They don't even need to do that, they can just overrule her as far as I know. But if they do that they might as well kill the filibuster.

Then why didn't Dems do.this in 2010 to pass the public option?

[BudgieForce]

Breaking: The Senate parliamentarian has determined that some provisions violate the Byrd rule, making them impermissible under reconciliation.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf

They could just fire the parliamentarian...they did it during the Bush years lol

They don't even need to do that, they can just overrule her as far as I know. But if they do that they might as well kill the filibuster.

Then why didn't Dems do.this in 2010 to pass the public option?

Because Reid cared about Senate protocol.

[mvd10]

Breaking: The Senate parliamentarian has determined that some provisions violate the Byrd rule, making them impermissible under reconciliation.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf

They could just fire the parliamentarian...they did it during the Bush years lol

They don't even need to do that, they can just overrule her as far as I know. But if they do that they might as well kill the filibuster.

Then why didn't Dems do.this in 2010 to pass the public option?

Because there is a sizable majority for keeping the current senate rules intact. The Dems don't want to see the GOP ramming through everything they want with 50-55 seats and vice versa.

Anyway:
As the Presiding Officer of the Senate may not be fully aware of the parliamentary situation currently facing the Senate, a parliamentary staff sits second from the left on the Senate dais to advise the Presiding Officer on how to respond to inquiries and motions from Senators. The role of the parliamentary staff is advisory, and the Presiding Officer may overrule the advice of the parliamentarian. In practice this is rare, and the most recent example of a Vice President (as President of the Senate) overruling the parliamentarian was Nelson Rockefeller in 1975.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate

[Gass3268]

Breaking: The Senate parliamentarian has determined that some provisions violate the Byrd rule, making them impermissible under reconciliation.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Background%20on%20Byrd%20Rule%20decisions_7.21%5B1%5D.pdf

They could just fire the parliamentarian...they did it during the Bush years lol

They don't even need to do that, they can just overrule her as far as I know. But if they do that they might as well kill the filibuster.

Byrd Rule is law, you can't overrule a law.

If they fire the parliamentarian, the Democrats will just nuke the fillibuster if they win again.

Why would the Senate GOP fire the parliamentarian or have Pence overrule him when they could just nuke the legislative filibuster?  They don't even need Collins and Heller to do it.

What is the big GOP fear with the legislative filibuster?  Future Dem SCOTUS packing?  If Dems come in in 2021/25 and do single payer, free college and a basic income with 51 votes, the next GOP government could just repeal with 51 votes (and they are way more likely to have those 51 votes under non-landslide circumstances)?  

There are enough old timers that would not vote to get rid of the filibuster.

[Virginiá]

What is the big GOP fear with the legislative filibuster?  Future Dem SCOTUS packing?  If Dems come in in 2021/25 and do single payer, free college and a basic income with 51 votes, the next GOP government could just repeal with 51 votes (and they are way more likely to have those 51 votes under non-landslide circumstances)?  

But it's not that easy, as we are seeing with R&R'ing PPACA. Even when they could, in theory, pass a repeal bill that does work with just a simple majority, they can't even put that together because numerous Senators go into self-preservation mode after realizing the political fallout it would cause. That would be an even bigger deal with things like single payer, basic income and free college.

The outcome is more or less the same: social programs are very hard to roll back once implemented and people get used to it. If Democrats were able to block repeal for just long enough, Republicans would lose that window to repeal without suffering unacceptable levels of blowback. Thus, the filibuster is far more useful to Republicans intact over the long run than it is gutted for a few short term wins.

[The Other Castro]

I highly doubt they'll do this, but Pence overruling the parliamentarian would set a huge precedent. Democrats would pass single payer under reconciliation in the future.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I guess this means Trumpcare really is dead

This is not meant as an offensive question but why do you oscillate from "Trump is invincible, the GOP is supreme" to "Trump is going to go down, the GOP is in shambles" post to post? Like, on healthcare you keep going from extreme to extreme.

It's just baffling.

Because I'm pretty sure they were gonna pass something up until now...

This isn't new.  It's always been likely that the bill wouldn't meet the Byrd rule.

[Person Man]

I highly doubt they'll do this, but Pence overruling the parliamentarian would set a huge precedent. Democrats would pass single payer under reconciliation in the future.

"its reconciliable because we say it is"

[GeorgiaModerate]

I highly doubt they'll do this, but Pence overruling the parliamentarian would set a huge precedent. Democrats would pass single payer under reconciliation in the future.

"its reconciliable because we say it is"

If someone makes a movie about this, will it be called "Irreconcilable Differences"?

(I'll show myself out...)

[The Other Castro]

I highly doubt they'll do this, but Pence overruling the parliamentarian would set a huge precedent. Democrats would pass single payer under reconciliation in the future.

"its reconciliable because we say it is"

Pretty much yeah. It'd be a de facto nuclear option.

[Person Man]

I highly doubt they'll do this, but Pence overruling the parliamentarian would set a huge precedent. Democrats would pass single payer under reconciliation in the future.

"its reconciliable because we say it is"

Pretty much yeah. It'd be a de facto nuclear option.

Overruling the Parliamentarian is basically a stealth nuclear option.

[GeorgiaModerate]

McCain may be a no:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gov. Ducey supports repealing the ACA, but has expressed objections to the Senate bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Person Man]

McCain may be a no:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gov. Ducey supports repealing the ACA, but has expressed objections to the Senate bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

or an excuse to avoid either voting to go nuclear, a ridiculous bill, or a watered down bill that doesn't do personhood.

[The Mikado]

Whether or not McCain comes back next week is a huge deal. If he cannot return this week, then the GOP bill will have to be delayed yet again, and the longer this ordeal goes on, the worse it is for the bill's chances because it means we'll have time for a big drawn-out debate over whether or not the Senate should override the Byrd Rule (or pass a post-Byrded Senate bill that will be untenable in the House due to funding Planned Parenthood and government money for abortion).

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Whether or not McCain comes back next week is a huge deal. If he cannot return this week, then the GOP bill will have to be delayed yet again, and the longer this ordeal goes on, the worse it is for the bill's chances because it means we'll have time for a big drawn-out debate over whether or not the Senate should override the Byrd Rule (or pass a post-Byrded Senate bill that will be untenable in the House due to funding Planned Parenthood and government money for abortion).

McConnell has been clear that he is holding the vote on Tuesday regardless of who shows up. (They are confirming the deputy interior secretary on Monday)

[Don Vito Corleone]

So then, that has to be the end of any ACA repeal efforts by the GOP, right?
To my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, they have to either:
A) Get 8 votes from the Democrats in order to reach 60 votes
B) Cut the sections that the Parliamentarian deems to violate the Byrd Rule, which as pointed out earlier, would probably not pass the house.
I really don't see either of those happening.

[The Other Castro]

^They don't even have the luxury of THAT being what they have to argue about. First they have to pass the motion to even begin debate, and that motion has had at least three NO votes for BCRA 1, BCRA 2, and full repeal. McConnell is probably just hoping that, with all the confusion on what they're actually voting to start debate on, the fence sitting senators can be persuaded with individual concessions. It doesn't really matter whether they're voting on full repeal or the BCRA, as both paths lead through the transformative jungle of vote-a-rama, providing a completely different end result.

[Hindsight was 2020]

GOP'S bribe distributors Club for Growth now threatening the Senators they bought off:

They're not good at this are they?

[Don Vito Corleone]

^They don't even have the luxury of THAT being what they have to argue about. First they have to pass the motion to even begin debate, and that motion has had at least three NO votes for BCRA 1, BCRA 2, and full repeal. McConnell is probably just hoping that, with all the confusion on what they're actually voting to start debate on, the fence sitting senators can be persuaded with individual concessions. It doesn't really matter whether they're voting on full repeal or the BCRA, as both paths lead through the transformative jungle of vote-a-rama, providing a completely different end result.

Begin debate on what?

[Person Man]

^They don't even have the luxury of THAT being what they have to argue about. First they have to pass the motion to even begin debate, and that motion has had at least three NO votes for BCRA 1, BCRA 2, and full repeal. McConnell is probably just hoping that, with all the confusion on what they're actually voting to start debate on, the fence sitting senators can be persuaded with individual concessions. It doesn't really matter whether they're voting on full repeal or the BCRA, as both paths lead through the transformative jungle of vote-a-rama, providing a completely different end result.

Begin debate on what?

We don't know...

[The Other Castro]

^They don't even have the luxury of THAT being what they have to argue about. First they have to pass the motion to even begin debate, and that motion has had at least three NO votes for BCRA 1, BCRA 2, and full repeal. McConnell is probably just hoping that, with all the confusion on what they're actually voting to start debate on, the fence sitting senators can be persuaded with individual concessions. It doesn't really matter whether they're voting on full repeal or the BCRA, as both paths lead through the transformative jungle of vote-a-rama, providing a completely different end result.

Begin debate on what?

It could be the 2015 repeal bill, the BCRA 2.0, the BCRA 1.0, a new bill (BCRA 3.0), or really whatever McConnell feels like saying they're doing.

[GeorgiaModerate]

^They don't even have the luxury of THAT being what they have to argue about. First they have to pass the motion to even begin debate, and that motion has had at least three NO votes for BCRA 1, BCRA 2, and full repeal. McConnell is probably just hoping that, with all the confusion on what they're actually voting to start debate on, the fence sitting senators can be persuaded with individual concessions. It doesn't really matter whether they're voting on full repeal or the BCRA, as both paths lead through the transformative jungle of vote-a-rama, providing a completely different end result.

Begin debate on what?

It could be the 2015 repeal bill, the BCRA 2.0, the BCRA 1.0, a new bill (BCRA 3.0), or really whatever McConnell feels like saying they're doing.

"Resolved: Obamacare is bad."

[The Other Castro]

I doubt McConnell intends to actually pass a 2015 repeal bill. This is all a gambit on his part to get a passing MTP vote. If a MTP passes, it doesn't mean they're going to pass something, but it means McConnell lives to fight another day on healthcare and GOP senators face greatly increased pressure. His tactic is probably to convince Paul, Lee, and Moran that they are voting on the 2015 repeal, and convince Murkowski and Capito that they are voting on BCRA 2.0. I believe the only current overlap in public opposition to both is Collins. It's a lot of ifs, but the perfect mixture of malice, gullibility, arrogance, and ignorance could provide a passing vote on the MTP.

[Don Vito Corleone]

So, what do you think the odds are that no Obamacare replacement is passed before the Midterms?