The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Repeal Through Reconciliation

Text Size

Repeal Through Reconciliation

By Philip Klein on 1.19.11 @ 5:01PM

House Republicans are soon expected to pass their bill repealing the national health care law, but the bill won't go any further than that given Democratic control of the Senate.

To do a clean repeal of the entire bill, Republicans would have to maintain control of the House in 2012 while gaining the White House and a 60-vote majority in the Senate. That's unlikely to happen, which means that it's more likely Republicans will have to pursue a more piecemeal approach. In the short term, there will be some efforts to defund ObamaCare -- but that will only get them so far. If Republicans are willing to use reconciliation, however, they could make a major dent in ObamaCare with a simple majority in the Senate. Though this method would still require them to take back the White House, they wouldn't need 60 votes in the Senate.

Last year, I spoke with former Senate parlimentarian Robert Dove about the prospect of repealing ObamaCare through reconciliation, and he gave me this simple formula: "Anything that reduces the deficit is okay...and nothing that increases the deficit is okay." The key thing to keep in mind is that this is judged on a provision by provision basis, not taking into account the legislation as a whole.

What this means is that it will require a lot of political fortitude by Republicans, because to meet the requirements of reconciliation, the bill would have to focus on rescinding benefits, which account for the bulk of the cost of ObamaCare. Chief among them are the expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies to purchase insurance on government run exchanges. The Republicans would not be able to use reconciliation to repeal regulations, tax increases, or Medicare cuts.

However, were they to show the courage to repeal the government benefits, it would make it easier to go after other aspects of the bill. Without the subsidies to purchase insurance, the new exchanges that provide the infastructure for ObamaCare would be effectively gutted and the mandate forcing people to purchase insurance becomes even harder to defend. At the same time, it would be difficult to justify the tax increases -- totaling $770 billion through 2021.

Today's vote on repeal, as I noted before, is a no-brainer -- it's the bare minimum Republicans should do. But it is only the first step in a long and arduous process that will require an increasing amount of resolve by Republicans.

View all comments (12) | Leave a comment

CalMark| 1.19.11 @ 6:32PM

We don't have the votes; we can't do anything; let's just give up.

O, thou lionhearts! Sheesh.

Al Adab| 1.19.11 @ 6:39PM

You are on to something here. Since the bill passed with only a reconsiliation vote, cannot the House simply rescind that vote? No Senate action or executive signature needed. The House has done such in the past and once even expunged it's own record. Sounds like a viable plan.

Bob McNally| 1.20.11 @ 7:05AM

Philip, The lynchpin of the bill that will prevent reconciliation repeal is the community rating and guaranteed issue regulations. With those, you need a mandate, and with a mandate, you need subsidies.

If Republicans think they can implement community rating and guaranteed issue without a mandate/subsidies, I'd like to see them try. But they won't be able to repeal those two regulations (nor would there be political will to do so anyway), so they'll have to figure out how to implement their own healthcare reform with those two regulations.

You know what? I think it will look significantly like Obamacare (since it was after all designed based on Romney's bill, and based on the Republican counterproposal to Clintoncare).

Stan Redmond| 1.20.11 @ 10:42AM

Kill this stupid law. Pull a Pelosi and Deem it repealed. Already 230 companies are exempt from the law. Once more and more "benefits" (i.e. tax increases) more and more companies will just write the big check to Obama and get on the exemption list. The law WILL destroy itself and the entire medical system with it. It must be repealed before the damage really starts.

S. Weasel| 1.20.11 @ 10:50AM

Wait! We wouldn't need 60 Senate seats AND the presidency. We'd need 60 OR the presidency, right? The point of the supermajority is to overcome presidential veto, isn't it?

I'll take the "or" bet.

Eichendorff| 1.20.11 @ 11:32AM

No the supermajority is not enough to override a presidential veto. To overcome a filibuster (supermajority) you need 60 votes, or 3/5. To override a presidential veto, you need 67 votes, or 2/3.

S. Weasel| 1.20.11 @ 11:37AM

I fail civics. So if D's keep the presidency, R's need 67 Senate seats, but if an R takes the presidency, a Senate majority of 60 will do (assuming the D's still support the law enough to filibuster)?

John A.| 1.20.11 @ 1:19PM

Here's a way to end Obamacare completely. Article 1, S7 ,P1 of the US Constitution says "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Obamacare is revenue raising. (Look at all of the taxes and penalties.) The bill originated in the House as HR 3200 (OK so far.) But it was completely rejected in the Senate. (As in they didn't keep one word. Gone. Done. Finito. HR 3200 ceased to exist. There was nothing left to amend.) The Senate Finance Committee then took a series of its own revenue proposals and cobbled them together to create the Senate Bill, S 1796. (Yes. The revenue raising bill originated in the Senate. A big no-no. Remember S510 and the flurry when Congress realized they had broken this rule and had to revote?) To foster the appearance Obamacare originated in the Senate, an old House Bill, "The Service Members Home Tax Act of 2009", was stripped of its 6 pages, replaced with the 2409 page Senate Bill and renamed HR 3590. Voila! We violate the US Constitution and look like we didn't! Now, Congress will whine that this is no big deal, it is an "amendment in substitution." They do this as a matter of established procedure. Problem is, it violates the Constitution, is an illegal procedure and has never been challenged. Now is the time.

Jacobite| 1.20.11 @ 1:40PM

This is why conservatives are never gonna get it done -- you have to go right-wing. What the hell is the govt doing telling insurance companies who to sell insurance to? Right now health insurance is strictly intra-state commerce. By any definition, the Feds have zero authority to tell them anything. So 'conservatives' think removing some financial aspects to Obamacare, but leaving the regulations and restrictions, is accomplishing something? The Tea Party's about to find out that conservatives are never going to do what they want. It's a lose-lose with conservatives: if you win, nothing much happens; if you lose, the Left enacts another Big Govt program. Gotta go with the right-wing, and tear it all down.

Devasahayam| 1.20.11 @ 3:50PM

Actually, GOP has a "nuke-option" available, as pointed out by Joe Farah--hold the debt-ceiling hostage!

Susan| 1.20.11 @ 4:01PM

I have just three words: the Governor of Hawaii. He cannot find the birth certificate - this may just work favor of the Republicans at the next election. It is starting to look like the enforcer in chief was never eligible to begin with.

SDN| 1.21.11 @ 10:59PM

"No money of any kind appropiated in this bill shall be used to enact or enforce any regulation in any way intended to enact any provision of Obamacare."

This provision simply has to be in all appropriation bills. If O! doesn't sign it, then shut down the whole mess. If he and his minions attempt to operate anyway, then they are operating illegally under color of law and can be arrested. And the military can decide if their oath is worth a damn.