Whats the numbers repealing health care reform

Lots of talk coming from Republicans about how they will repeal the health care bill after it becomes law. What actual numbers would be required to do that?

Looking at the House of Representatives first.

435 seats
178 republicans
253 Democrats
4 vacant

All seats are up for election in November? Are the two year terms staggered?

To gain a majority the Republicans would need to gain 40 seats?
To gain a veto proof majority they would need how many seats?

In the senate

100 seats
57 Democrat
41 Republican
2 Independent

How many seat are up for election? Given that no resignations or deaths happen between now and November what is the maximum number of seats that could change hands? Is it even possible to gain a filibuster proof majority?

It seems to me that in order to do what they want it simply wouldn’t be possible till the 2012 elections.

Follow up question with the census going out now when do those results have effect? How long before the house gains or loses seats with the results?

All HoR seats are up for election every 2 years (those guys seem to be running for election or fund raising all the time). A veto-proof majority would be 67% of the total House seats or 292 votes. That means the Pubs would have to gain 114. That doesn’t count any Dems who may vote with them on a repeal.

A third of the Senate seats are up for re-election every 2 years, but I don’t know the party breakdown of the seats up for election this cycle. Regardless, I don’t think it is feasible for the Pubs (or the Dems for that matter) to reach 67 votes in the Senate.

Realistically, it could only be done under a Republican president. Even then, while it’s plausible that the Democrats could lose the House and the White House by 2012, it would be difficult for them to get to 51 in the Senate by then, just due to the staggered way Senate elections are held.

Here’s a thread on the same subject, only with a more ambiguous title.

Two thirds of 435 is 290, not 292.

It’s fairly rare in recent times for either party to have a veto-proof majority in either house. Based on this wiki page, the most recent was in the 95th Congress (1977-79, Carter admin) when the Dems had 292 Representatives. The last time the Republicans had one was in the 67th Congress (1921-23, Harding admin) when they had 300 Representatives.

A party having a veto-proof majority when the other party is in the White House is extremely rare. The Dems had one in the House during Ford’s admin, but the time before that was in the House of the 54th Congress (1895-97, Cleveland’s 2nd admin).

Like it or not, the House will be “swept” in the next election, as will the Senate…as much as possible. The pendulum is quickly swinging the other way, and the Republicans will be victorious. Not saying this is all for the good, either. Besides, none of them are in this business to do good. They’re only in it to buy friends and make money…like a financial frat house!

In order to gain a veto proof majority in the Senate, the Republicans need to pick up 26 seats.

There are 18 Senate Democrats seats up for reelection this year. Even if the Republicans sweep every Senate race (and that’s not going to happen – do you really think Dan Inouye, Chuck Schumer are going to lose, or that a Democrat won’t win in Delaware and Connecticut?), the Republicans won’t even be able to stop a Democratic filibuster.

The numbers required to gain the ability to override a veto in the house are immense. (See above, 114?) To override in the senate, they need to go from 41 to 67, and 33 seats are up for grabs, quite a few I assume already Republican. It would be a landslide of epic proportions, even worse than what Cheney and his ilk did to the Republican majority.

Bill Clinton, during (after?) the last election in a candid interview about the process said that basically the US public already votes 40% Dem, 45% Republican, and the rest independent (of the 50% who bother to vote). A swarm of angry buzzing tea-bagger Republicans won’t change anything. The trick, as Clinton said, is to get that 15% independent to vote for you.

So by 2012 the Republicans will have to persuade voters - “That cheap health care you’re getting at the expense of higher taxes on rich people? Bad for you! Those rules against caps? Gotta go! The pool insurance for high-risk expensive patients? Cancel their coverage! Your 26-yo kids still covered? Out they go! Should your insurance be forced to keep covering you because now you cost them money? NO - let them toss you out!” It will be a hard sell, and the Dems will remind the voters.

They’ll be starting with the 40-plus million voters who became covered because of this bill, and the tens of millions more who realize they would not be able to afford the Republicans’ version of health care. The more entrenched the Health Care changes become, the harder to remove them. By 2012 it will be impossible. Welcome to the first world finally, USA!

I look forward to the next two election years being hilarious, since as a (health-care covered) Canadian, your election years just seem like an extended silly season.

My prediction? Obama’s low numbers were because he was perceived as being ineffective, since with clear majorities in both houses he could not accomplish anything. The louder the Republicans scream, the more it looks like he was a strong and forceful - and effective! - leader in the face of serious opposition. This can only help him.

Let the games begin!

[moderating]
This isn’t exactly a GQ response, Jinx. Please keep your answers here to supportable facts.
I know threads like this usually end up in GD, but this one is a question with a factual answer.
[/moderating]

Generally, government has a hard time taking away things once they’ve been granted. I dont see how this could be repealed. Essentially, you’re trying to get average people to say “Yes, I want to be denied on pre-existing conditions.” While the media does a good job playing up marginalized opinions like from the far right and the far left, I think its pretty obvious that this bill is here to stay.

Its questionable is the GOP strategy of just criticizing everything the Democrats do will lead to wins. Generally, Americans want some kind of gameplan other than just saying “No” to everything. If you look at the 2012 senate map, you’ll see there really isnt a plausible chance of a GOP majority.

Not debating that if I wanted to this thread wouldn’t be in general questions

Not only is there no politically conceivable chance that the Republicans will get a two-thirds majority in both houses, I question the entire premise of this thread and the others that the election will swing on the health care bill.

In broad terms - meaning that all politics is local, as Tip O’Neill famously said, so that health care will matter in some races - the election will turn on what the economy is like in October. The trends and the numbers in the unemployment rate, new job starts, new housing starts, and all the rest of the immediate issues surrounding peoples’ economic well-being will greatly swamp any effects over a health care bill. Especially one that has positive provisions happening in the short term and the more onerous ones happening over the long term.

The election is seven-and-a-half months away; forever in politics. The only constant wil be how people feel about their future. If they start feeling better, they will not vote against the party in power that made it so. If they don’t, they will punish them.

Nate Silver’s analysis on the subject seems pretty astute to me. It gets into GD territory, but his basic conclusion is that Republicans either need one of two things to gain control of both the Senate and the presidency: two “wave” elections in a row (both this year and in 2012), or a 2012 presidential candidate other than the two current front-runners (Romney and Palin). And as RealityChuck points out, it is literally impossible for the Republicans to make enough gains in the Senate this year to repeal the bill during the 112th Congress.

Their efforts at repealing won’t be through a vote (at least not any successful effort), but through challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. They are already preparing to sue.

Even a successful court challenge would only throw out that part of the law that was deemed unconstitutional. It wouldn’t repeal the bulk of the Reform Bill.

Are you certain? Can’t the court declare the whole bill unconstitutional?

They can if someone brings a challenge to the whole bill, so far as I know no ones done so. And given the fairly eclectic nature of the bill, its pretty hard to think of any such challenge that would be even remotely plausible.

The only thing that would affect the whole bill would be something like “It’s not valid because Obama, who signed it, isn’t the legitimate president because he’s a Kenyan”, but even with Republican-appointed judges, that would just get laughed out of court. They could try challenging something like the individual mandate, but if they kill that while leaving the rest of the bill intact, the entire insurance industry goes bankrupt nearly instantaneously. And in any event, court challenges would be completely independent of the composition of Congress, so it still doesn’t make sense to try to run on a “repeal the bill” platform, as many Republicans are saying they’ll do.

First, the Republicans would have to decide if they want to repeal only parts of the bill (and which ones), or the entire thing - including pre-existing condition coverage for children, closing of the Medicare donut hole, tax breaks for small employers, etc. Either way, they’ll have to come up with a good explanation that they can rally behind.

In the Senate, they’d have to flip more seats than are actually held by Dems anyway this fall to overcome Obama’s veto.