Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 02:22 PM Jul 2017

Wouldn't A Full Repeal of Obamacare Require a 60-Vote Majority?

That's my understanding, though I don't know all the reasons (anybody?).

Rand Paul saying full repeal of Obamacare is what's needed. How many votes would that take?

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

jpljr77

(1,004 posts)
1. I don't think so. Repealing would be a gain for general account.
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 02:29 PM
Jul 2017

The 60-vote majority to begin debate is triggered by legislation that will create more spending than a certain threshold. Since the current ACA spends more than it brings in, repealing it would have a positive impact on the general fund. So only 51 votes are required to begin debate.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
3. The CBO's analysis indicates that repealing the ACA would result in increased budget deficits...
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 02:35 PM
Jul 2017

and thus could not be considered a "budgetary reconciliation" act.

See: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252 :

jpljr77

(1,004 posts)
4. That's an old analysis and no longer the case.
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 02:41 PM
Jul 2017

Medicaid expansion has taken hold since then. Repeal rolls it back, thus saving money from the federal budget.

To be clear, I think we should spend every dime of it and more on healthcare. But as the ACA has rolled out in full, it has become a net expense.

jpljr77

(1,004 posts)
6. No, you only need a majority to pass stuff. The 60 is to begin and end debate.
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 03:42 PM
Jul 2017

It doesn't matter anyway, they'll just change the rules if they have to.

Point blank: they only need 50 to repeal it and they can't even get that.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
2. The original ACA was passed in 2 parts. The first part was subject to filibuster...
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 02:30 PM
Jul 2017

as it was just a regular bill and so required 60 votes to pass (to avoid a Republican filibuster).
The second part passed as a "budgetary reconciliation" bill which isn't subject to filibuster under
Senate rules and so only needed 50 votes to pass. A repeal of the entire ACA would be subject
to filibuster unless the Senate filibuster rules were changed.

For more information see:
Reconciliation_(United States Congress): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
Filibuster in the United States Senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

Gothmog

(145,126 posts)
7. Trump believes that he needs sixty votes for part of the repeal effort
Tue Jul 18, 2017, 06:56 PM
Jul 2017

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicususa.com%2F2017%2F07%2F18%2Ftrump-full-man-baby-tantrum-demands-senate-rule-change-healthcare-failure.html
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wouldn't A Full Repeal of...