Could Mitt Romney actually do anything to overturn the affordable care act

One of the talking points he has been talking about is if he wins the presidency he will use whatever executive powers he has to overturn or limit the affordable care act.

If Romney is president from 2013-2020 and never has the congressional majority necessary to repeal all or part of the law in congress, what could he actually do to limit the ACA using only executive powers? Would the limitations on the law be permanent or would everything he does come to an end and the law go back into effect in full if a democratic president was elected in 2021?

Or is he just pandering with no intent of following through? Evenso, I want to know what he could actually do with the law.

He could do this in the same way Obama closed Guatanamo.

Actually, he maybe has some leeway. One of the provisions allows the executive branch to exempt certain companies and states from certain provisions, and Obama has already done this to some extent. Romney could be more liberal (pun intended) in granting exemptions.

There’s not much mystery, unless you haven’t been paying attention.

He has been talking about issuing waivers to states ever since the primaries.

My understanding is that the “waivers” existing under the law all expire in 2014 when the law comes fully into effect and no new ones can be issued after that date, so if that’s Romney’s plan then the most he can do is delay it for a year or so.

I think you’re right. But maybe it would be easier to get Congress to pass an extension of the waivers than to strike down the law.

While a bill to abolish Obamacare would be subject to a filibuster, it would likely be possible to use the budget reconciliation process to gut much of the bill through majority-only votes. Here is one theory on how that could be done.

He’ll be up against Democrats, not Republicans; he doesn’t necessarily need a majority, he just needs them to cave in as they usually do.

Won’t be that hard; the mandate part forcing us to buy is unConstitutional (I bravely write this b4 the SCOTUS decision has been announced - or leaked). Without the mandate, it’s a fast trip to realize that most Americans will not participate until they get sick - thus guaranteeing that a lot more $$$ will flow out of the ‘exchanges’ than flow in. Actually, the whole point of the mandatory premiums was that healthy people, who don’t cause a lot of $$$ expense, would subsidize those who do. That’s how private insurance worx - of course with the obvious difference that it ain’t mandatory. Anyway, once it’s realized how flawed the business model is without forced $$$, even Democrats won’t want to intentionally bankrupt the insurance companies (I think) - after all, their lobbyists bribe, I mean incentivize, *both *sides of the aisle. Once the mandate disappears like Kayzer Soze into the nite, no more Obamacare - which <> no healthcare reform.

But, assuming you are right, that would happen no matter who was president, so that’s not something Romney would actually be doing. It wouldn’t matter who the voters cast their ballots for.

Romney is obviously making this promise based on what he’d do if your scenario doesn’t happen, and thus that’s really the only interesting question.

well, in this case, assuming no huge protest vote for Roseann Barr & the Green Party, it will be Romney. If Obama would stay in, obviously he’d just keep throwing legislative fiats (executive orders) out there, until a version of Obamacare would become law. Under Romney, there would be some reform, but nothing resembling Obamacare. Maybe a subtle difference, but still different.

Cite, much?

Yeah, that is a possibility. Another is the GOP, if they win congress and the white house, abolish the filibuster.

Couldn’t Romney just refuse to enforce the law? Hey, if Obama can unilaterally decide not to enforce an immigration law then I can’t see why Romney can’t just refuse to enforce any of the healthcare law.

:rolleyes:Well, except that Obama has done no such thing.