Discussion: Why 'Repeal And Delay' Would Be An Unmitigated Health Care Disaster

1 Like

Not if you’re trying to tank the economy, collapse all insurance markets, provide obscene tax cuts for the filthy rich, and kill off the poor and elderly.

Then it becomes the core of the GOP platform…


“I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservative.” – John Stuart Mill, in March, 1866


But…but…once the 20,000,000+ Americans have been freed from their health insurance they’ll greet the GOP as liberators!


And still there would be pundits who managed to blame the democrats for not being bipartisan.


Sometimes you’re playing Fantasy Football and sometimes you’re in the real game,” he said.

I've been basically saying the same thing for awhile now. It's one thing to vote for a bill that stands no chance of ever becoming law. It's a totally different matter to vote for something that will become law. There are almost never any political consequences to obstruction, yet actually legislating is fraught with peril. It seems Republicans are learning his the hard way.

Chuck Todd’s ears are ringing.

Maggie Haberman is available.

1 Like

Feature not a bug in GOP-land…

…“clean repeal”…would also increase the federal deficit by more than $350 billion dollars over 10 years.

Doesn’t that mean they can’t pass a repeal-only bill through the budget reconciliation process (with just 51 votes) and instead would have to reach the 60 vote threshold to avoid a filibuster?

And since that would require a bunch of Democratic votes, doesn’t that mean that the chances of passing a repeal-only bill are essentially nil?

If so, why are we even talking about this? Also, why is this not mentioned in the article!?

Or is the assumption that the GOP would nuke the filibuster rule in order to pass a repeal-only bill with 51 votes?


If they don’t have the votes to repeal and replace then they’re not even close to having the votes for repeal only even with 51 votes. That’s why I don’t understand the point of this piece either.


Seems like only yesterday that Todd said it wasn’t his job nor the medias to explain what was in the ACA. Informing the public that the GOP had negative opinions about the ACA was the job of the media according to Todd and doing his job as a professional journalist was secondary. Such is the state of the “liberal media”.

1 Like

Yeah, I guess they pick up a couple of those on the right, like Rand Paul, who were attacking the repeal-and-replace bill as “Obamacare Lite.” But at the same time, it seems likely they’d lose even more (so-called) GOP moderates and other senators from states where repeal would cause the most carnage (although that’s hard to say with complete confidence, given the pusillanimous nature of GOP “moderates”),

So possibly this is more about positioning for an anticipated failure, and trying to influence who gets blamed for what by whom?

In other words, if they bring a “straight repeal” bill forward for a vote, then uberconservative / libertarian / tea partiers can vote for it, and can tell their rabid base back home that they voted for it, only to be stymied by the obstructionist Dems and backstabbing “RINOs.”

Meanwhile, milquetoast moderates and mavericks like Collins and McCain can vote against it, and tell their constituents that they put their state’s interests ahead of party dogma, and protected health care in their state.

This would explain why they might try to push a repeal-only bill, maybe all the way to a vote (at least a procedural one) even while realizing it had no real chance of passage. Just speculation, of course…but it wouldn’t surprise me if some kind of strategy along those lines is behind this. Because as a strategy to actually repeal the ACA, it doesn’t seem to make much sense.

1 Like

Interesting that US Business has become SO shortsighted that they don’t realize that if they blow up the individual insurance market, all the obscene profits they’ve been making go completely away.

They won’t even accept Excessive profits as those are less than obscene which may lead to their complete demise. All these middle man businesses that make money but actually provide no “services” are a key mover in mucking up the economy and yet they are given preference all to often.

Never let a terrible, destructive, disastrous, dangerous (but good for the 1%) idea go unsaid.

I wish someone on that side would tell us why we are required to have car insurance while mandatory health insurance is anathema. I really wish I could understand this reasoning.