Can the ACA be repealed with only a simple majority?

[kentuck]

In its entirety, it can be repealed and replaced by a process called reconciliation. Because the CBO scored it and it did not require revenues, with the cuts made in Medicaid and other programs, they were able to repeal it with simple majority, if they had the votes.

But, simple repeal will cost a lot of money. Would it not require a 60-vote majority in the Senate to pass? Just wondering.

[MattP]

1. They could change the rules if they wanted

I wouldn't be shocked by anything

[unblock]

2. have they scored simple repeal?

[C_U_L8R]

3. If they only repeal, they will kill a lot of people

Maybe that's their intention, who's to say.

[W_HAMILTON]

4. I've been wondering about this as well.

I don't see why that the original ACA had to be passed with a filibuster-proof majority if it can be repealed with simply 50 votes.

Hell, the ACA originally reduced the deficit, so it seems like it could have passed through reconciliation, so why not just simply strive for 50 votes as well and make it even more robust (public option, etc.) than trying to strive for 60 votes?

[BzaDem]

5. It is not the case that the entire bill can be repealed with a simple majority.

They tried this in 2015 as a test run. In particular, they were not able to repeal the insurance regulations (such as guaranteed issue and community rating). Here is what they were able to repeal:

"The Senate amendment is much more comprehensive. Like the House bill, it would effectively repeal the individual and employer mandate. However, because the Senate Parliamentarian decided that outright mandate repeals could not be included in a budget reconciliation bill under the Senate rules, the legislation did not eliminate the mandates but simply amended them to provide that there would be no penalty for noncompliance. Curiously, the bill does not repeal the ACA’s reporting requirements that apply to large employers and insurers, which are subject to their own penalty. Thus employers would have to continue to report compliance with the mandate even though they faced no penalties for noncompliance.

As mentioned, the Senate bill goes much further than the House, however. Specifically, it would end the premium tax credits, the cost-sharing reduction payments, the Medicaid expansion, and the small business tax credits—that is, all of the assistance that the ACA gives to low and moderate-income Americans. It would hold off repeal until 2018, however, reportedly to give the Republicans until after the 2016 elections to find a replacement."

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/12/04/senate-approves-reconciliation-bill-repealing-large-portions-of-aca/

[shraby]

5. It had to have 60 to pass, it should have to have 60 to repeal.

It would have been a much better law if they hadn't had to make it so it would garner 60 votes, but they had to leave out stuff to placate the rw idiots.

[onecaliberal]

7. From what I'm reading no. Logic also says turtle would have already done that if

It were an option.