Ed Senate vote to repeal ACA

[Tony Stark]

I've read the article linked in the OP twice, but I can't find any details about the bill in question.

The ACA is a huge piece of legislation, with many, many clauses and provisions. The "repeal" bill is a budget bill. Does it include a literal "repeal ACA" provision? A blanket "no funding for ACA" provision? Doe it defund some or all parts of the ACA that require federal funds? If so, what's the exact wording?

My guess is that the bill defunds some part of the ACA that some believe are vital to its success, such that defunding them amounts to a de facto "repeal" of the ACA. And that even though a literal "repeal" as such has not been voted on, CNN is justified to some extent in characterizing the budget resolution as a "repeal".

But I would definitely like to see the details of what actually got passed in this piece of legislation.

The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262071-senate-approves-bill-repealing-much-of-obamacare

So basically Republicans are demonstrating that they are low life scum who will literally take health insurance from millions of people if given the chance.

 

[applecorped]

...those retards...

Stay classy.

 

[theprestige]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262071-senate-approves-bill-repealing-much-of-obamacare

Thanks! I'll be sure to keep thehill.com in mind for the next time I'm looking for details on a particular piece of legislation.

From the article:

The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance.

[ . . . ]

It repeals the expansion of Medicaid adopted by 30 states as well as many of the law’s tax increases, which the House bill left in place.

It cuts funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund and eliminates risk adjustment programs from insurance companies that lose money because of the law.

The House bill eliminates the individual and employer mandates, the "Cadillac tax" on expensive insurance plans and the medical device tax.​

The article also mentions the Planned Parenthood funding issue, and a couple other points of dissent among the legislators.

Anyway, it's about what I expected: They're not really repealing the ACA, they're just defunding the key provisions of the ACA, which would have about the same effect. It's all academic, though since as many have pointed out the president will obviously veto the thing anyway (assuming it ever gets to his desk).

What I find interesting is that in addition to defunding some ACA provisions, it also eliminates the penalty for anyone who chooses to not to have or provide insurance. And it cuts taxes.

 

[The_Animus]

The house has voted to end ACA what, 50 or 60 times now? While actually accomplishing pretty much nothing. Sad.

Don't forget the 500 million or so that has been spent fighting it.

 

[dudalb]

Meaningless symbolic vote. Free ride since Obama would will veto it and they will not have to deal with the consquences...which would not be good for the GOP.
This kind of crap happens all the time.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't know why those retards think that getting a bill to repeal Obamacare to Obama's desk for him to veto is some kind of accomplishment.

First, please refrain from calling people retards.

Second, for them, it is a kind of accomplishment. Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz stood on the senate floor and asserted that those people who do not continually fight against ACA are equivalent to Nazi appeasers. Their goal is to give the appearance that they are tirelessly trying to repeal Obamacare. If these Republicans do not participate in this dog and pony show, then other Republicans will run against them on the platform: my-opponent-did-not-tirelessly-fight-to-repeal-Obamacare.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm wondering why this was headline-worthy again? I have to assume the news is taking advantage of the Planned Parenthood connection.

 

[foophil]

What I find interesting is that in addition to defunding some ACA provisions, it also eliminates the penalty for anyone who chooses to not to have or provide insurance. And it cuts taxes.

Yeah, I thought that in order for the Senate to do any kind of budgetary vote that requires only a simple majority to pass, the bill had to be revenue neutral. Since ACA actually saved money, defunding it would raise the debt. Throw in the tax cuts and I doubt it could be revenue neutral with just defunding Planned Parenthood. I wonder what all had to be cut to make that happen....

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, I thought that in order for the Senate to do any kind of budgetary vote that requires only a simple majority to pass, the bill had to be revenue neutral. Since ACA actually saved money, defunding it would raise the debt. Throw in the tax cuts and I doubt it could be revenue neutral with just defunding Planned Parenthood. I wonder what all had to be cut to make that happen....

I'm not too familiar with this particular clam. Do you mean that the budget was spending money elsewhere, that it stopped spending when the ACA spending was approved in its place? And this bill not only gets rid of the ACA spending but also restores the other spending the ACA had replaced?

 

[crescent]

I'm wondering why this was headline-worthy again? I have to assume the news is taking advantage of the Planned Parenthood connection.

I think this is the first time a ACA repeal bill has been voted on in the Senate. The Housed passed scores of them, but they were all filibustered in the Senate and therefore not voted on in the Senate.

This will be the first one Obama has to veto.

As others have said, this scores points with the base, nothing more.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think this is the first time a ACA repeal bill has been voted on in the Senate. The Housed passed scores of them, but they were all filibustered in the Senate and therefore not voted on in the Senate.

This will be the first one Obama has to veto.

As others have said, this scores points with the base, nothing more.

This will definitely be the first anti Obamacare bill that the President has vetoed. He has only vetoed a few bills period.

Republicans are low life scum that care more about appeasing their base than they do about the American people as a whole.

 

[Trebuchet]

Did Rubio show up to vote for it?

 

[ehcks]

This will definitely be the first anti Obamacare bill that the President has vetoed. He has only vetoed a few bills period.

Republicans are low life scum that care more about appeasing their base than they do about the American people as a whole.

He's still only at 5 vetoes. I guess the GOP thinks that's too low.

 

[Trebuchet]

He's still only at 5 vetoes. I guess the GOP thinks that's too low.

Up until this year, he's been able count on the Senate, with its arcane and archaic rules, to keep the R's stuff from getting to his desk.

 

[Upchurch]

Did Rubio show up to vote for it?

Does it matter either way?

 

[Tony Stark]

Up until this year, he's been able count on the Senate, with its arcane and archaic rules, to keep the R's stuff from getting to his desk.

Before the begining of this year, garbage GOP bills didn't hit his desk for him to veto because Democrats had the Senate. Now garbage GOP bills still don't hit his desk for him to veto due to the filibuster. This one is an exception. They are using the reconciliation process which doesn't allow the use of the filibuster and can only be used once a year.

 

[ddt]

Republicans: "Let's try to end health insurance for millions of people!"
A month later:
Republicans: "I don't understand, why aren't people voting for us?"

I woudn't count on that consequence. There are millions of Joe the Plumbers out there who objectively profit from the ACA but are still dead-set against it because it's government interference with their choice to not be insure or to pay through the nose, or some such.

 

[Metullus]

I woudn't count on that consequence. There are millions of Joe the Plumbers out there who objectively profit from the ACA but are still dead-set against it because it's government interference with their choice to not be insure or to pay through the nose, or some such.

Are you suggesting that it is not possible or rational for a person to be opposed to a policy if they personally profit from that same policy?

 

[ehcks]

Before the begining of this year, garbage GOP bills didn't hit his desk for him to veto because Democrats had the Senate. Now garbage GOP bills still don't hit his desk for him to veto due to the filibuster. This one is an exception. They are using the reconciliation process which doesn't allow the use of the filibuster and can only be used once a year.

They're wasting a once-a-year process on a bill they know won't pass?

Why am I surprised by that?

 

[Trebuchet]

They want to force Obama to veto it because they think it will help them. I think they're probably wrong.