IF a Repub. were to win the presidency in '12, would it be possible to repeal the health care law?

[jenmito]

Does anyone know how many Senators it would take to vote for it? TIA.

[secondwind]

1. 67

[jenmito]

4. Thanks. I thought that's how many it would take to over-ride a presidential veto,

which Obama would do. So it's 67 to repeal a law even with a Repub. president? Thanks. :hi:

[flpoljunkie]

6. That's right. A two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.

[karynnj]

8. No - assuming a Republican who will sign the repeal - it won't be vetoed

So, they would need 60 Senators to fight back a filibuster - though by then they will say the filibuster is unfair. :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Wrong.

That's an override.

Does anybody know anything? :shrug:

[HughMoran]

19. no

:shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. yep

:shrug:

[lazarus]

2. it would take sixty votes

if the Dems were in the minority, and had the spine to filibuster, they could stop it. There's no telling, though. When the going gets tough, some Dems decided being Repubs is a good thing.

[jenmito]

5. So just 60? If so, it's still not going to be able to happen (if ever) for a loooong time,

but with a Repub. president, it is more possible.

[karynnj]

10. It would under the nightmare scenario that we lose badly this November

and they run under repeal and the climate is the same in 2012 and we lose more Senate seats and the Presidency. The fear of the Democrats who remain light lead to many who refuse to filibuster. (It looks like this is what the Republicans are betting on.)

Now, that assumes that the healthcare plan is incredibly unpopular - which given the things it does is unlikely. Though there are plenty of complaints and the MA system is not perfect, the percent of people wanting to get rid of it is not that high.

[Lil Missy]

3. It would be a LOT harder to take it away once we have it. n/t

[RichGirl]

24. That's what I say!

Once a government program helps people it's hard to take back. And if it's helping the right-wing people, they'll treat it like it's part of the constitution, the way they do medicare and social security.

The right-wing leaders shouldn't have gone so extreme with their lies...death panels, armeggedon, etc. They'll be proven wrong.

[karynnj]

7. As long as we retain either more than 41 Senators who will vote to

filibuster the repeal or we have more than half of the house who would vote against it, we can stop it.

[depakid]

25. Nope- Republicans would dispense with the matter via 50 votes

promptly and without a lot of fuss.

[karynnj]

27. I don't think that's true - as I don't think it could be done completely

through reconciliation.

[depakid]

29. Republicans would just fire the parliamentarian in that case, as they have twice before

[karynnj]

30. I concede -they would at least defund and reduce it to something that

looks like swiss cheese. This means that we really do need to work very hard to keep at least one House and the Presidency - to get enough time to become something people would fight to keep.

[quiller4]

31. Only portions of the reform act could be repealed through reconciliation

just as only the "fixes" could be passed in that fashion.

[Cosmocat]

34. Yes ...

don't agree with you on a lot, but you are right about this ... AND, as a rider, whatever "fuss" there would be would be rationalized by somehow blaming the democrats to justify it ...

[bigdarryl]

11. 2012 is a DONE!!! deal already read my post on Mr. Lichtman statements on 2012

[Fearless]

15. Nothing is ever done until it is done.

[LeftyAndProud60]

12. I think I would leave the country. And I'm serious. That would be a new low. First

the thought of a republican pres and then a repeal of the bill. I couldn't take it. Those racist loons could have their country back.

[Ysabel]

13. "their country" ???

n/t...

[rocktivity]

14. Of course--look at all the things Bush did that weren't supposed to be "possible"

up to and including outing CIA agents and legalizing torture.

:eyes:
rocktivity

[greencharlie]

16. my theory is...

few of the benefits will be in place by 2012, but the taxes and probably higher insurance premiums probably WILL. So YES they could repeal. And could probably do it with 50 votes plus a Pub VP via nuclear option.

How to avoid it? Economy, baby... get the economy cookin' and get unemployment down to 7% then people won't care anymore.

[DatManFromNawlins]

17. They can simply refuse to fund it

Which takes 50 votes + VP.

[greencharlie]

18. true dat...

didn't think about it that way. Way too easy, imho...

[harkadog]

20. The HCR bill could be gutted without a specific repeal.

Many sections of the bill require annual funding. Any Congress in the future could refuse to allocate funds for it and there is nothing that could be done about that. No Congress can ever bind a future Congress to do anything.

[greencharlie]

21. which is WHY

full blown BENEFITS should have started IMMEDIATELY.

[karynnj]

28. True, and a budget bill can't be filibustered

[quakerboy]

23. With a repub president, yes

As things sit, I'm pretty sure it only takes 60 senators, a bare house majority and the president.

That said, when pubs next take over, particularly if the only have 51-59 senators, they may not be so shy about changing the rules to preclude filibusters. God forbid that is 2012, but even if they are not willing to take that step yet, they can gut it via reconciliation, which only takes 50+vice president. And considering how Democrats like to play pub, all they need is a hefty minority and the ability to get it to the floor, not even an actual majority, if they have the presidency.

Anyway, they are more likely to just putz around a little on the edges, claim they fixed it, and that they saved us all by bringing about true health care reform.

[totodeinhere]

26. Yes they could.

They could do it without 60 votes just like Dems just did it.

[tritsofme]

32. If Republicans gain control of either house before the bill is fully implemented

they could cause some major trouble for the program by refusing to appropriate funds.

[joe black]

33. Health care?

Do'nt you mean health insurance.