Repeal of the ACA will be impossible - you need 2/3's vote

[Annie]

One, Romney wants some form of romneycare nationally.

Two, GOP are not going to get the 60 votes they need in the Senate.

Three, there will be some sort of compromise that will permit the reform and revision of ACA.

That's not necessarily true. As governor he represented the people of MA, he went along with their representatives and got it done.

He certainly doesn't appear to be a strong ideologue, so there is a better than even shot he'll seek legislation that the people want, won't crater the budget, and more likely than not, be bi-partisan. Yes, it's much easier for a non-ideologue to find common ground with various factions.

That is what is scaring so many on the left.

Romney wouldn't have been the first choice of many, but he managed to cross the line while others feel to the sidelines.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty, it is going to require 60 Senators. End of argument. You are wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

The First start on Repeal is to vote out Obama in November.

lets make it happen

Vote out all the democrats and give President Romney a majority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He will need a GOP House and a GOP Senate with 60 votes.

 

[Liability]

Why does the right wing think they will be able to repeal the ACA?

Both Romney and Obama support the individual mandate. So no matter who wins, you'll need a 2/3 vote in both houses to override their veto.

In fact, I don't see why the thing is even such a big issue, considering both major candidates support it.

There is no need for a 2/3rds vote.

A simple majority will suffice.

And there is no place for a filibuster considering how this particular TAX bill got passed in the first place.

OomphyDufus is just wrong -- again.

 

[Bloodline]

Since it's a tax, they only need 51 votes in the Senate to repeal it. Romney will sign it. He promised he would. If he doesnt, he wouldnt have a shot in hell of getting reelected and he knows it.

Romney won't sign it.

Mark my words.

He's full of hot air and since he doesn't really have anything else to run on this is good noise for him.

He's dead in the water and let's face it....he wasn't exactly the candidate you guys really wanted to represent your party anyway.

During the primaries you guys....even El (Rush) Blimpbo had other "pics" but now you're all stuck with the slick Mormon two-faced job killer.

Funny how now you're all lining up dutifully behind him like good little teeny-bop cheerleaders pretending you have supported him all along!

 

[Big Fitz]

The First start on Repeal is to vote out Obama in November.

lets make it happen

Vote out all the democrats and give President Romney a majority.

Well that's just good common sense regardless of whether Obamatax was allowed or not.

 

[Bloodline]

Why does the right wing think they will be able to repeal the ACA?

Both Romney and Obama support the individual mandate. So no matter who wins, you'll need a 2/3 vote in both houses to override their veto.

In fact, I don't see why the thing is even such a big issue, considering both major candidates support it.

There is no need for a 2/3rds vote.

A simple majority will suffice.

And there is no place for a filibuster considering how this particular TAX bill got passed in the first place.

OomphyDufus is just wrong -- again.

Nice touch.

Gotta put emphasis on that TAX word huh?

Good little sheeple!

 

[Liability]

Since it's a tax, they only need 51 votes in the Senate to repeal it. Romney will sign it. He promised he would. If he doesnt, he wouldnt have a shot in hell of getting reelected and he knows it.

Romney won't sign it.

Mark my words.

He's full of hot air and since he doesn't really have anything else to run on this is good noise for him.

He's dead in the water and let's face it....he wasn't exactly the candidate you guys really wanted to represent your party anyway.

During the primaries you guys....even El (Rush) Blimpbo had other "pics" but now you're all stuck with the slick Mormon two-faced job killer.

Funny how now you're all lining up dutifully behind him like good little teeny-bop cheerleaders pretending you have supported him all along!

It will get repealed IF the GOP retakes the majority of the Senate (with enough extra to offset the fucking RINOs). It will fall promptly if Romney wins and the GOP has adequate control of both houses of Congress.

And there is NO chance that Romney wouldn't speed to sign the repeal.

ObamaCrapTax can be killed off provided the GOP controls the Senate and Romney defeats the incumbent.

 

[Contumacious]

There is no need for a 2/3rds vote.A simple majority will suffice.
.

Byrd Rule

Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; and
if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling

.

 

[Liability]

Why does the right wing think they will be able to repeal the ACA?

Both Romney and Obama support the individual mandate. So no matter who wins, you'll need a 2/3 vote in both houses to override their veto.

In fact, I don't see why the thing is even such a big issue, considering both major candidates support it.

There is no need for a 2/3rds vote.

A simple majority will suffice.

And there is no place for a filibuster considering how this particular TAX bill got passed in the first place.

OomphyDufus is just wrong -- again.

Nice touch.

Gotta put emphasis on that TAX word huh?

Good little sheeple!

Hey douche nozzle:

It is either a tax or it isn't. If it can only survive as a law IF it's a tax, then your argument is with CJ Roberts and the SCOTUS Majority. Thus, it is a fucking tax.

As such, it is now doomed.

And you are a sheeple.

 

[Bloodline]

The First start on Repeal is to vote out Obama in November.

lets make it happen

Vote out all the democrats and give President Romney a majority.

Well that's just good common sense regardless of whether Obamatax was allowed or not.

"Obamatax?"

HILARIOUS!!

The only thing your party has to run on is some faux Boston Tea Party rebellion mentality!

Didn't work in 2008 and BARELY had an effect in 2010!

 

[Care4all]

HUH?

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010

By the end of 2009, separate health care reform bills had been passed by both houses of Congress. The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, became the most viable avenue to reform following the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and his replacement by Republican Scott Brown. Lacking a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate, the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began encouraging the House to pass an amended version of the Senate bill using the reconciliation process.[4]

Under the Fiscal Year 2010 budget resolution[5], the text submitted to the Budget Committee had to have been reported by October 15, 2009.[6] Therefore, the Democrats combined the text of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, and as it was reported out of the Education and Labor Committee, and the text of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act as reported out of the Education and Labor Committee.[7][8] This version was never meant to be passed, it was only there to serve as the base for the actual 'fix' bill.[6]

.

that was the House, using the reconciliation process NOT the Senate according to the first paragraph in the article you pasted, and the R's are talking about being able to use it in the Senate.... not the House????

As stated ,

(a) the House never uses reconciliation , but assuming that such was the case then:

(b) A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. That never happened. Had they attempted the Republicans were going to filibuster the fucking thing until the end of time;

.

It's a little confusing....?

THIS IS FROM YOUR PASTED ARTICLE:

By the end of 2009, separate health care reform bills had been passed by both houses of Congress. The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, became the most viable avenue to reform following the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and his replacement by Republican Scott Brown. Lacking a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began encouraging the House to pass an amended version of the Senate bill using the reconciliation process.[4]

THAT SPECIFICALLY is speaking about the House, having to use a reconciliation process to match up to the senate's bill that they passed???

 

[Liability]

There is no need for a 2/3rds vote.A simple majority will suffice.
.

Byrd Rule

Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; and
if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling

.

It was passed as a reconciliation bill, therefore there is no prospect for a filibuster. The Senate Presiding Officer will so rule (assuming we can get the Dims into the minority position, of course). The Parliamentarian will so advise.

And there is NO need to worry about a filibuster since it has now been declared a fucking TAX bill.

There is no need for a super majority of 3/5ths or 2/3rds. A simple majority will suffice.

Indeed, if Romney wins, his VP will cast the deciding vote.

It will be repealed.

Period.

 

[Liability]

It was PASSED as a penalty. But the Chief Justice has intoned that Congress cannot use words correctly or wisely. HE gets to decide. He decided that it was a tax. And it had to BE a tax to preserve it.

Thus, it's a tax.

You libbies can quibble to the end of time, but it is what it is. A tax.

 

[Contumacious]

[And there is NO need to worry about a filibuster since it has now been declared a fucking TAX bill.

SCOTUS ruling was based, or it was supposed to be based , on the arguments presented. The arguments used were against Obama Hellcare, being Constitutional based on the Commerce Clause.

But Roberts concluded that it was a tax.

Then , we must go back to federal court and use the ruling against them because the bill

1) did not originate in the house

2) the house didn't reconcile it because it was not a tax

We can not give up because:

Why neither Obama nor Romney wants to linger on the semantics of a health care tax … I mean penalty.

.

 

[Contumacious]

that was the House, using the reconciliation process NOT the Senate according to the first paragraph in the article you pasted, and the R's are talking about being able to use it in the Senate.... not the House????

As stated ,

(a) the House never uses reconciliation , but assuming that such was the case then:

(b) A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. That never happened. Had they attempted the Republicans were going to filibuster the fucking thing until the end of time;

.

It's a little confusing....?

THIS IS FROM YOUR PASTED ARTICLE:

By the end of 2009, separate health care reform bills had been passed by both houses of Congress. The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, became the most viable avenue to reform following the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and his replacement by Republican Scott Brown. Lacking a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began encouraging the House to pass an amended version of the Senate bill using the reconciliation process.[4]

THAT SPECIFICALLY is speaking about the House, having to use a reconciliation process to match up to the senate's bill that they passed???

That was going to be the Obama/Pelosi strategy.

But that would have required the admission that ACA was a tax matter. Something that they wanted to conceal.

.

 

[Care4all]

There is no need for a 2/3rds vote.A simple majority will suffice.
.

Byrd Rule

Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; and
if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling

.

It was passed as a reconciliation bill, therefore there is no prospect for a filibuster. The Senate Presiding Officer will so rule (assuming we can get the Dims into the minority position, of course). The Parliamentarian will so advise.

And there is NO need to worry about a filibuster since it has now been declared a fucking TAX bill.

There is no need for a super majority of 3/5ths or 2/3rds. A simple majority will suffice.

Indeed, if Romney wins, his VP will cast the deciding vote.

It will be repealed.

Period.

maybe the mandate penalty tax can be repealed using reconciliation, but the Health Care Bill Can not be, without 60 votes in the senate...period. and congress will have their hands full repealing those tax penalties and not the bill itself, because they have to balance the budget or the health care bill...i believe it has to be "paid for", so they have to add taxes somewhere else to make up for the loss of the mandate Penalty tax.....at least this is how I view it.

 

[Liability]

Byrd Rule

Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; and
if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling

.

It was passed as a reconciliation bill, therefore there is no prospect for a filibuster. The Senate Presiding Officer will so rule (assuming we can get the Dims into the minority position, of course). The Parliamentarian will so advise.

And there is NO need to worry about a filibuster since it has now been declared a fucking TAX bill.

There is no need for a super majority of 3/5ths or 2/3rds. A simple majority will suffice.

Indeed, if Romney wins, his VP will cast the deciding vote.

It will be repealed.

Period.

maybe the mandate penalty tax can be repealed using reconciliation, but the Health Care Bill Can not be, without 60 votes in the senate...period. and congress will have their hands full repealing those tax penalties and not the bill itself, because they have to balance the budget or the health care bill...i believe it has to be "paid for", so they have to add taxes somewhere else to make up for the loss of the mandate Penalty tax.....at least this is how I view it.

How was the entire bill passed in the first place?

 

[Greenbeard]

The ACA wasn't passed using reconciliation; it received 60 votes to break a filibuster and pass out of the Senate in 2009. Certain budget-related aspects of it were amended by a reconciliation bill (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) but those kinds of budget-related edits are the only thing you can do with reconciliation.

So Republicans could try to reduce the mandate penalty to $0 using reconciliation, but they wouldn't be able to overturn the insurance rules or unwind the exchanges, etc.

HUH?

You'll have to be more specific. What's confusing you?

How was the entire bill passed in the first place?

With 60 votes in the Senate.