Probability of Obamacare repeal?

[Хahar 🤔]

I always find it interesting how reasonable Kentucky's government is. It's one of the last vestiges of not-crazy in the Upper South.

[LastVoter]

Wisconsin and Iowa... lol.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Romney will need control of the Senate...

But even in that case... full repeal? virtually no chance... tweaking, 100%

[morgieb]

I always find it interesting how reasonable Kentucky's government is. It's one of the last vestiges of not-crazy in the Upper South.

Well tbf it is controlled by Democrats.

[Badger]

Yes the tax goes out the window through reconciliation, making the budget problems worse unless other changes are made. In a way, it is a pity this has become such a partisan issue. In the end, the goals of both parties are largely the same. I haven't heard any Pubs saying the poor should do without medical care. So it becomes an issue as to how much is covered/subsidized, and what the the most effective ways of delivering it, at a competitive market price, without "over treatment" and fraud. The way this whole matter has been handled is just shameful really.

I suspect you can find posts from me over the last few years highlighting some of the bipartisan approaches that have emerged in the states as well as plans put forward in Congress. I remain convinced that the Obama administration took a narrow approach to a solution from the outset primarily to keep employer-based health care as a bargainable issue for the unions. In early 2009 he had eliminated both Kucinich's single-payer and Wyden's Healthy Americans Act on that basis. The narrow constraints from the administration helped push towards a partisan approach to the issue.

So you think Wydens plan would have been supported by any Republicans? As soon as Obama would have endorsed it, the opposition to it would have solidified. McConnell made very clear what the goals of the Republicans were and that was to make Obama a one term president which would be hard to do if he passed a bipartisan health care reform bill. Regardless of whether union influence was involved, selling wydens plan would be much harder than obamacare due to people having to change their current insurance plans. It would only pass with bipartisan support. Also if Republicans are so in favor of such a bill, why don't they propose it? Personally I would be much more inclined to vote for Romney if he proposed such a plan. I think both Romney and Obama suck regarding the debt but Obamas health care plan is better than nothing.....which currently is Romney and the Republicans health care plan.

I do think it would have been supported by GOP members for two reasons. One was the consistent support of the US Chamber of Commerce for the proposal since it would remove the employer from health care coverage and most companies see that as making them more competitive in the global economy. The other is the number of signed cosponsors. In a legislative body like the US Senate one does not renege easily on a pledge to back a proposal. Only if the plan was amended with some poison pill would members who had signed on jump off.

Muon, you're one of the most reasonable fellow Republicans on this forum, but I don't think that you are being at all realistic in considering the utter raison d' etere washington Republicans have placed on beating obama over passing reforms they once supported (and likely still believe, privately, are good for the country). We've seen it over and over and over again the culmination of McConnell's frank promise to making his top legislatve priority making obama a one-term president. The ACA (previously known as Romneycare, and Gingrichcare before that), Cap and Trade, the DREAM became 'socialism' or 'amnesty' or 'job-killing government interferenc' once Obama was in power.

Being signed on as a co-sponser would make it somewhat more difficult to back out of, but the last four years prove congressional Republicans WOULD have found a way--en masse--to back out of Wyden-Bennett. It's the worst thing about the DC GOP; they'll sacrifice their own values and even what they apparently believe deep down to be good for the country in order to deny President Obama a victory he might rely on for re-election. Iguess getting chairmanships and corner offices back are what's most important....

[muon2]

Yes the tax goes out the window through reconciliation, making the budget problems worse unless other changes are made. In a way, it is a pity this has become such a partisan issue. In the end, the goals of both parties are largely the same. I haven't heard any Pubs saying the poor should do without medical care. So it becomes an issue as to how much is covered/subsidized, and what the the most effective ways of delivering it, at a competitive market price, without "over treatment" and fraud. The way this whole matter has been handled is just shameful really.

I suspect you can find posts from me over the last few years highlighting some of the bipartisan approaches that have emerged in the states as well as plans put forward in Congress. I remain convinced that the Obama administration took a narrow approach to a solution from the outset primarily to keep employer-based health care as a bargainable issue for the unions. In early 2009 he had eliminated both Kucinich's single-payer and Wyden's Healthy Americans Act on that basis. The narrow constraints from the administration helped push towards a partisan approach to the issue.

So you think Wydens plan would have been supported by any Republicans? As soon as Obama would have endorsed it, the opposition to it would have solidified. McConnell made very clear what the goals of the Republicans were and that was to make Obama a one term president which would be hard to do if he passed a bipartisan health care reform bill. Regardless of whether union influence was involved, selling wydens plan would be much harder than obamacare due to people having to change their current insurance plans. It would only pass with bipartisan support. Also if Republicans are so in favor of such a bill, why don't they propose it? Personally I would be much more inclined to vote for Romney if he proposed such a plan. I think both Romney and Obama suck regarding the debt but Obamas health care plan is better than nothing.....which currently is Romney and the Republicans health care plan.

I do think it would have been supported by GOP members for two reasons. One was the consistent support of the US Chamber of Commerce for the proposal since it would remove the employer from health care coverage and most companies see that as making them more competitive in the global economy. The other is the number of signed cosponsors. In a legislative body like the US Senate one does not renege easily on a pledge to back a proposal. Only if the plan was amended with some poison pill would members who had signed on jump off.

Muon, you're one of the most reasonable fellow Republicans on this forum, but I don't think that you are being at all realistic in considering the utter raison d' etere washington Republicans have placed on beating obama over passing reforms they once supported (and likely still believe, privately, are good for the country). We've seen it over and over and over again the culmination of McConnell's frank promise to making his top legislatve priority making obama a one-term president. The ACA (previously known as Romneycare, and Gingrichcare before that), Cap and Trade, the DREAM became 'socialism' or 'amnesty' or 'job-killing government interferenc' once Obama was in power.

Being signed on as a co-sponser would make it somewhat more difficult to back out of, but the last four years prove congressional Republicans WOULD have found a way--en masse--to back out of Wyden-Bennett. It's the worst thing about the DC GOP; they'll sacrifice their own values and even what they apparently believe deep down to be good for the country in order to deny President Obama a victory he might rely on for re-election. Iguess getting chairmanships and corner offices back are what's most important....

Despite McConnell's comments the DC atmosphere in Spring '09 was very different from what was to follow in late summer during recess. It's easy to forget the sea change wrought by the Tea Party in their first six months.

[Badger]

Yes the tax goes out the window through reconciliation, making the budget problems worse unless other changes are made. In a way, it is a pity this has become such a partisan issue. In the end, the goals of both parties are largely the same. I haven't heard any Pubs saying the poor should do without medical care. So it becomes an issue as to how much is covered/subsidized, and what the the most effective ways of delivering it, at a competitive market price, without "over treatment" and fraud. The way this whole matter has been handled is just shameful really.

I suspect you can find posts from me over the last few years highlighting some of the bipartisan approaches that have emerged in the states as well as plans put forward in Congress. I remain convinced that the Obama administration took a narrow approach to a solution from the outset primarily to keep employer-based health care as a bargainable issue for the unions. In early 2009 he had eliminated both Kucinich's single-payer and Wyden's Healthy Americans Act on that basis. The narrow constraints from the administration helped push towards a partisan approach to the issue.

So you think Wydens plan would have been supported by any Republicans? As soon as Obama would have endorsed it, the opposition to it would have solidified. McConnell made very clear what the goals of the Republicans were and that was to make Obama a one term president which would be hard to do if he passed a bipartisan health care reform bill. Regardless of whether union influence was involved, selling wydens plan would be much harder than obamacare due to people having to change their current insurance plans. It would only pass with bipartisan support. Also if Republicans are so in favor of such a bill, why don't they propose it? Personally I would be much more inclined to vote for Romney if he proposed such a plan. I think both Romney and Obama suck regarding the debt but Obamas health care plan is better than nothing.....which currently is Romney and the Republicans health care plan.

I do think it would have been supported by GOP members for two reasons. One was the consistent support of the US Chamber of Commerce for the proposal since it would remove the employer from health care coverage and most companies see that as making them more competitive in the global economy. The other is the number of signed cosponsors. In a legislative body like the US Senate one does not renege easily on a pledge to back a proposal. Only if the plan was amended with some poison pill would members who had signed on jump off.

Muon, you're one of the most reasonable fellow Republicans on this forum, but I don't think that you are being at all realistic in considering the utter raison d' etere washington Republicans have placed on beating obama over passing reforms they once supported (and likely still believe, privately, are good for the country). We've seen it over and over and over again the culmination of McConnell's frank promise to making his top legislatve priority making obama a one-term president. The ACA (previously known as Romneycare, and Gingrichcare before that), Cap and Trade, the DREAM became 'socialism' or 'amnesty' or 'job-killing government interferenc' once Obama was in power.

Being signed on as a co-sponser would make it somewhat more difficult to back out of, but the last four years prove congressional Republicans WOULD have found a way--en masse--to back out of Wyden-Bennett. It's the worst thing about the DC GOP; they'll sacrifice their own values and even what they apparently believe deep down to be good for the country in order to deny President Obama a victory he might rely on for re-election. Iguess getting chairmanships and corner offices back are what's most important....

Despite McConnell's comments the DC atmosphere in Spring '09 was very different from what was to follow in late summer during recess. It's easy to forget the sea change wrought by the Tea Party in their first six months.

There may be some truth in what you say, but I believe it's still fundimentally overstating the changes wrought, or the importance of any such changes, over just a couple months.

Put another way, the embarrassing loonies who filled tea party rallies in the summer of 09 were the same embarassing loonies who thronged to Palin rallies several months earlier. As far as the DC gop was concerened, the traditional presidential-congressional honeymoon didn't last fortnight for obama--if it ever even existed at all.