In the largest measure, the basic problem is in 2009 Harry Reid passed the ObamaCare legislation in the Senate with 60 votes. The House then passed the exact same bill, and the Democrats moved to immediate reconciliation to remove the House concerns (Gator-Aid, Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase etc.).
In 2017 the Republican congress are attempting to repeal and replace that ObamaCare legislation with only 52 Senate votes available, well, maybe.
Unfortunately for the GOP there are not even 52 votes for repeal. Portman, Thune, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, McCain, Blunt, Cochran, Cornyn, Hatch, McConnell and others, are not necessarily on board; that’s 11. (Leaving only 41).
No amount of byzantine rule changes surrounding “reconciliation” are going to overcome that factual vote hurdle. In 2009 Senator Reid started with 60 votes. In 2017 Senator McConnell starts with 52.
So anything coming from the House of Representatives has to keep this reality in mind. Even if support or opposition is based on ideological principle, it still has to pass – or it’s moot.
There’s no doubt the Paul Ryan proposal holds the worst U.S. CoC aspects demanded by Tom Donohue. Heck, Donohue poured a lot of lobbying money into the entire architecture in ’09/’10 and he’s paid republicans in congress hundreds of millions to make sure his interests in keeping ObamaCare around are protected. Ryan is big GOPe and he’s supported by the Big Club.
And, as much as Paul Ryan is beholden to Donohue to retain some form of ObamaCare, so too are the Rand Paul / Ted Cruz types paid by billionaires like Cary Katz (Conservative Review); who want an abject repeal without compromise.
Everyone has a financial agenda, and almost every large website and media outlet on the conservative side of the equation has financial underwriting determining their projected position. The scope of their financial leverage in direct proportion to the severity of their opposition or support of ObamaCare.
The Conservative Review is on one ideological billionaire side. Salem Media Communications is on another. Money, not moral or guiding principle, is really the driving force within these media-promoted arguments.
CTH has no financial interest at all. None. We’re structurally and ideologically ambivalent to the outcome and simply choose to look at the entire situation from a perspective of politics. What can be reasonably expected to happen; what cannot happen; and how will any chosen direction influence the future stakes and bigger picture.
One of the best examples of the politics can be highlighted in a recent interview with Senator Rand Paul where he is promoting his bill as an option.
As you watch the interview remember Rand Paul has no co-sponsors, because he’s all alone. Listen carefully to him explain that his job is not to advance legislation that can pass, but rather to advance legislation that he alone is able to believe in.
Signals that people avoid:
♦ Rand Paul’s bill has no republican co-sponsors. Why Not? He doesn’t even try to make it appear he can get to 51 votes, let alone 60 votes.
♦ Rand Paul essentially admits his bill has no-chance of passage; and his argument is that it’s better than the alternative.
♦ Rand Paul falsely claims in 2015 the Senate repealed ObamaCare. They didn’t. It’s just simply a false statement. The senate passed a bill that defunded ObamaCare using reconciliation. They offered no alternative accompanying bill, and Obama vetoed it.
♦ Additionally, […] The 149 page Paul bill also would create a health insurance tax credit against payroll taxes. The new credit is complicated, but its general effect is straightforward. It offsets payroll tax liability, while the new deduction reduces income tax liability. The credit is thus especially valuable to workers with modest wages, since they often pay more in FICA taxes than in income taxes.
If the bill stopped there, it would consist largely of conservative staple. But there’s a twist: These new tax provisions do not replace the Obamacare refundable credits. Paul’s tax breaks would exist side-by-side with Obamacare’s. (continue reading)
I really think Joninmd22 hits the key points in this comment:
The Constitutionalists’ argument that we should not be perpetuating an entitlement is sound. However the battle over Health Care being a right was lost with the McCain campaign for President in 2007. As a matter of fact that position was not even defended by the nominee.
That doesn’t mean that the arguments for the free market were not sound nor put out by conservatives nor did they lack in their passion. That doesn’t mean that the battle cannot be re-fought at some time in the future after the Trump Administration’s economic growth and government reforms start to wean people away from welfare.
If you make the American electorate choose the free market or dependency cold turkey today they will vote democrat in millions in 2018 and 2020.
This is the reality we’re in not the world we’d like to be in. Now you can continue on this march to defeat the Trump Administrations repeal and Reform plan but consider the consequences.
If this current plan goes down now they’ll have to put up a replacement. Senator’s Cotton and Senator Paul are both well meaning gentleman but… They Don’t Have 60 Votes In The Senate. [Heck, they don’t even have 51]
There it is, like it, lump it ,or build a shed around it these bills will not pass. Which 8 democrats will crossover to deconstruct a government entitlement?
Consider how the democrats will use your defeat to gain seats in 2018?
Where that leaves Constitutionalists is either they can continue the banzai charge to defeat… Or work to make the Ryan bill better.
Now to the those supporting the Ryan Plan.. It sucks.
Written in secret and loaded down with contradictions it does represent an Insurance companies wish list in many aspects.
Supporters of Ryancare should adopt a more conciliatory tone and start working with Constitutional critics. Crafting and moving legislation Isn’t a my way or the highway proposition, nor are all critics closed minded Constitutional zealots.
Take the weekend all; and consider what will occur if we work together. Neither side can get it all but the Democrats are the big winners if we don’t work together. ~link~
The President supports the proposed path. HHS Secretary supports the proposed path. The Speaker of the House supports the proposed path. The Senate Majority Leader supports the proposed path.
Republicans really need to learn how to govern.
Or else, Trump will be facing Democrats’ in oppositional control of at least one house of the legislative branch of government.
Then again, maybe that’s really what congress wants.