John Boehner vows to repeal Obamacare. Will he and the repubs succeed?

Not sure how the technicalities work with this.

What is the likelihood they will actually be able to do this?

0% chance of happening in this Congress. Unlikely in the next Congress, though I suppose if Romney wins and the GOP wins the Senate and comes within two or three seats of a fillibuster proof majority they might convince a few Dems to join them and get rid of the mandate.

Even then, I think they’ll have a hard time repealing a lot of the more popular parts of the law.

Since the Democrats control the Senate, it’s unlikely to happen anytime before the elections. Even after the elections, it’s unlikely the Republicans will manage to win enough seats to block any Senate shenanigans.

I can see Boehner (and one of his Senate counterparts) at least trying to introduce legislation to that effect, though, even if there’s little chance of success.

So if Romney wins and the Repubs control the Senate and the House and they eliminate the filibuster (or have a filibuster-proof majority) they could do it.

If Obama wins the Republicans would need veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

Unlikely, but I wouldn’t put eliminating the filibuster past the current Republican Senate, assuming they are in the majority.

What’s the current best progressive thinking on the filibuster? Should it stay? Go? What?

They can get rid of at least part of the law via reconciliation. So they actually don’t need to break a filibuster proof majority to get rid of chunks of the law.

But even under a President Romney with a small Senate majority, I think the practical problems of repealing the bill (especially only the chunks of it that can be repealed under reconciliation) will cause a few GOP Senators vote to protect most of it, and we’d only see a symbolic effort. A larger GOP Senate majority would probably damn the torpedos and repeal as much as they could.

I don’t know what the best thinking is, but I would probably make it require 60 votes overcome the filibuster for two weeks. Then 55 votes for another two weeks. Then 51 for another two weeks. Then it drops away.

I’m not sure how it would work, and I want the minority to have time to make its case, but obviously we can no longer trust decency to limit overuse.

Whose opinion would you take as the spokesman for the hive-mind of progressivism? If you find another progressive stating the opposite opinion in another thread, will you call him out as a hypocrite for going against the one unified progressive opinion?

The House will vote on this in early July. It’ll pass the House again and fail in the Senate again. They can do it every week if they want to- it’s an empty gesture.

I didn’t think of reconciliation. I wonder what sections of the law they can remove, only stuff that changes the budget, right? That probably includes the stuff that would save us money.

They could get rid of the subsidies. But that’s sort of what I mean. Getting rid of the subsidies would be a pretty big kick in the nuts to a lot of voters and re-create the problem of a large uninsured population. I don’t think it would be easy to convince the ever-shrinking group of GOP moderates to sign on for that. They’d need not just a majority, but some extra votes on top of it.

They could get rid of the mandate, but insurance companies would still have to take patients with pre-existing conditions. If we’ve learned nothing over the last few years its that insurance companies have a lot of pull. I’m sure a few GOP senators could be bought to resist getting rid of the mandate, and so again, you’d need more then a small GOP majority to win that vote.

And finally, somewhere deep inside the mandate-hating, Obamacare-cursing exterior of President Romney is the technocratic guy that not so long ago worked to pass more or less the same bill in Massachucettes. Presumably at least some of his anti-Obamacare rhetoric is a front, and we can hope that once elected he’ll be looking for an excuse to avoid major changes.

I don’t see a President Romney actually putting any effort into repealing Obamacare. But I can’t see him taking the political hit of vetoing it if it actually makes it to his desk, either.

I agree, I don’t think he’ll veto repeal if it ever comes to that. But at least at the beginning of his administration (when a putative GOP congress is most likely to be hot-to-trot on repeal), the President usually sets the legislative agenda. I suspect if he wanted to he could channel GOP resentment against Obamacare into some sort of largely symbolic measure.

Considering the strong and legnedary party discipline of the Democrats, and the tendency of half or more of the Democratic senators to squeal like stuck pigs whenever someone calls them a tax-raiser, I’d think the Republicans would need to have at least a 52 votes before they could pull that off.

I could see Boehner insisting that the whole law be repealed as part of the next deal to raise the debt ceiling.

I think a more interesting question is if there is a Pub House and Pub Senate and a Pub president with 40-50 Dem Senators that hold up the repeal bill, will the minority be characterized as obstructionists?

For all of you that are against the filibuster, what limits would you put on debate?*

*The motion Previous Question requires 2/3 vote so without limits on debate, a smaller minority than 40 members could hold up the vote.

You find an imagined “gottcha” to be a more interesting question then whether or not the Healthcare bill survives the next few years? Well, I guess we all have our priorities.

But in anycase, the “obstructionist” thing wasn’t about the GOP filibustering this or that bill. It was about them filibustering almost every bill, often for reasons that didn’t have anything to do with the bill itself, as well as appointments, budgets, etc.

Would a Senate with a slight Republican majority use the nuclear option to push through a repeal?

I’m somewhat doubtful that a future Romney administration would want to put this much time and energy into just undoing some of Obama’s policies instead of trying to get his own legislation passed. On the other hand it’ll set a great precedent: every new president immediately starts undoing everything his predecessor did, and nothing new ever gets dealt with again.

For certain issues I would like to see the filibuster set aside. Appointments of officials such as Cabinet officials, ambassadors, and members of the judiciary.

Give it a max of one hour per Senator. Then vote. Straight majority takes it. Voting, up or down, is a part of the job of Senator.