|
Fulchrum posted:We might actually see these freaks fighting between delaying and replacing for so long that we make it past 2018 and they can't do either. Unless Republicans get a supermajority in 2018, they'll never be able to completely repeal ACA. However, they can get really far by just defunding ACA. Which Republicans will most assuredly set out to do this year. If there's going to be any fight, it'll be over how long to delay the defunding. Rand Paul's skepticism is still justified though. Health insurance are freaking the gently caress out and what Rand Paul doesn't want to see happen is the federal government bailing out private health insurance for a few years until the post-ACA repeal stabilizes. Think of it like the 2007 financial panic but affecting 20% of the economy. There far-right Republicans who will not vote for a health insurance bailout. Requiring the democrats to pass anything to prop up the health insurance markets and to finally fully repeal/replace the ACA. Rand Paul for all his insanity at least understands that it's easier to replace ACA while the private health insurance market isn't imploding. He also seems to think the voters will punish them for all the disruption that will occur if you repeal without a replace but I have no such illusions.
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Wait, so what exactly can and cannot get put in their simple majority bill? Reconciliation only affects the budget. In effect, republicans can remove all the funding aspects of ACA: medicaid expansion, exchanges, premium support, medicare tax increase, individual mandate, death panels, etc. What reconciliation cannot do is change the statutes in ACA: preexisting conditions clause, kids on their parents health insurance until 26, etc. There are few other statute limitations like annual/lifetime limits but those are set by the head of the HHS. Trump's pick to head the HHS, Tom Price, will probably day 1 gut all the things they can within their authority like the limits. Another shady bit is house republicans rule package included a provision barring the CBO from calculating the deficit increase upon an ACA repeal. Which violates one of the reconciliation rules that the bill cannot add to the deficit. Then there's all the economic effects of the repeal itself. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2017/Jan/Repealing-Federal-Health-Reform quote:Findings and Conclusions: Repeal results in a $140 billion loss in federal funding for health care in 2019, leading to the loss of 2.6 million jobs (mostly in the private sector) that year across all states. A third of lost jobs are in health care, with the majority in other industries. If replacement policies are not in place, there will be a cumulative $1.5 trillion loss in gross state products and a $2.6 trillion reduction in business output from 2019 to 2023. States and health care providers will be particularly hard hit by the funding cuts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So thats a function that can be done with just a simple majority and not with the necessary 60 votes? With regards to an ACA repeal vote?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:With regards to anything horrific. Muslim registry, union busting, rolling back lgbt rights, voter suppression, Alec created legislation. Hard to gauge really. Most of that can be regulatory in nature. The executive can instruct the DOJ to not pursue LGBT/voter suppression inquiries. The NLRB is already pretty neutered but with a republican administration you can forget about anything substantive occurring. The muslim registry can come back. Obama removed the regulatory framework of NSEERS (Bush era muslim registry) but Trump can put it back, maybe. ALEC stuff maybe. This term probably not but midterms can go badly for democrats. If Republicans get 60 in the senate from the midterms, all bets are off. Gonna be two very rough years for republicans. All that isn't too bad. It can be undone with a democrat swing a la 2008. But losing the opportunity to to appoint a liberal justice to replace Scalia will have ramifications for decades. If RBG dies, that's game over.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The latter requires that they not just take the exact same "gently caress yo appointment, bitch" tactics that McConnell did, and that SC appointments don't just become something that only happens with a supermajority. Ugh, no. Republicans will appoint a Scalia type to fill the vacancy. That's the status quo. If RGB dies, that's a 6-3 conservative majority. Four of whom would be of the crazy rear end federalist society strain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 07:06
|
|