What a GOP Senate Would Mean for Obamacare

Full repeal is impossible, but the GOP could do some real damage to the Affordable Care Act.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 14: (L-R) U.S. Senate Minority Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) walk from McConnell's office to the Senate Chamber on October 14, 2013 in Washington, DC. As Democratic and Republican leaders negotiate an end to the shutdown and a way to raise the debt limit, the White House postponed a planned Monday afternoon meeting with Boehner and other Congressional leaders. The government shutdown is currently in its 14th day. 
National Journal
Sam Baker
June 23, 2014, 1:10 a.m.

A Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate ma­jor­ity wouldn’t be able to fully re­peal Obama­care, but it could force some pretty sig­ni­fic­ant changes to the health care law.

For now, the GOP isn’t talk­ing much about what would come after Elec­tion Day. Its can­did­ates are fall­ing over them­selves to pledge their sup­port for full re­peal — which may well be a win­ning mes­sage in a cam­paign but will be polit­ic­ally im­possible even with the Sen­ate ma­jor­ity. After all, Pres­id­ent Obama will still be in the White House.

But as the odds of a GOP takeover in­crease, a rough out­line is start­ing to emerge of how Re­pub­lic­ans would handle Obama­care. Full re­peal might be a fantasy, but with total con­trol of Con­gress the GOP might be able to chalk up some real policy wins against the Af­ford­able Care Act, and the first tar­gets are already com­ing in­to view.

“The ul­ti­mate goal is to fully re­peal Obama­care and re­place it with com­mon­sense pro­pos­als that solve the cost prob­lem. But re­cog­niz­ing that Obama will be pres­id­ent for the next three years, we will use every lever we can in the mean­time to lay the ground­work for its re­peal,” a seni­or GOP aide said.

Win­ning the Sen­ate and keep­ing the House would also have some risks for the GOP. It would step up the pres­sure to pri­or­it­ize bills that Obama might sign, without dis­ap­point­ing con­ser­vat­ives who don’t want to see the party ac­cept Obama­care as the status quo. And it would bring in­to sharp­er re­lief the con­stant ques­tion of wheth­er Re­pub­lic­ans should ad­vance their own health care plans.

Here’s how a Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled Sen­ate’s Obama­care strategy would likely play out:

First, ex­pect a vote on full re­peal. Re­pub­lic­ans will use any pro­ced­ur­al open­ing they can to get a full-re­peal bill to Obama’s desk, a Re­pub­lic­an health care staffer said. Yes, Obama will veto it, and there will be plenty of eye rolling about how many fu­tile re­peal votes con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans have held. But the Sen­ate has nev­er held one, and any Re­pub­lic­an who doesn’t want to get primar­ied will want a chance to vote for re­peal be­fore mov­ing on to any­thing that might look like “fix­ing” Obama­care.

After that, Re­pub­lic­ans have two anti-Obama­care tracks — bills that might pass, and bills they could force Obama to veto.

There’s some low-hanging fruit that could gain bi­par­tis­an sup­port. If Re­pub­lic­ans win the Sen­ate, for ex­ample, Obama will al­most surely be presen­ted with a bill to re­peal the health care law’s tax on med­ic­al devices. That pro­pos­al has passed the House and could eas­ily pass the Sen­ate today, with strong bi­par­tis­an sup­port — if it ever came up for a bind­ing vote.

The GOP aide laid out a few more items that might win Demo­crat­ic sup­port, such as re­peal­ing the health in­sur­ance tax and step­ping up the pro­ced­ures for re­cap­tur­ing im­prop­er sub­sidies. Even a big-tick­et item like re­peal­ing the em­ploy­er man­date could at­tract red-state Demo­crats, al­low­ing Re­pub­lic­ans to ar­gue that they’re pur­su­ing bi­par­tis­an re­forms, even if most or all of their ef­forts are ul­ti­mately ve­toed.

Aides also said Re­pub­lic­ans will likely force Obama to veto a bill re­peal­ing the in­di­vidu­al man­date. There’s no way he’d ever sign such a bill, but the GOP sees polit­ic­al value in for­cing the is­sue all the way to his desk.

“It’s al­ways bet­ter to change the law than to force a veto, but on fun­da­ment­al dif­fer­ences, ve­toes can be use­ful too,” said Dean Clancy, a tea-party-aligned policy ana­lyst.

“Re­cog­niz­ing that Obama will be pres­id­ent for the next three years, we will use every lever we can in the mean­time to lay the ground­work for its re­peal.”

(Iron­ic­ally, it’s vul­ner­able Demo­crats who are prob­ably most eager to vote for some of these bills. Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id won’t call a vote on a device-tax re­peal; a Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell prob­ably would. And no one would be hap­pi­er about that vote than Sen. Joe Don­nelly, a Demo­crat from In­di­ana — a red state with a big device-in­dustry pres­ence.)

But even­tu­ally, the de­cisions for GOP lead­ers get harder: Do they want to fix­ate on un­pop­u­lar parts of Obama­care, es­sen­tially us­ing the Sen­ate ma­jor­ity to amp­li­fy the mes­sage the House has been send­ing for the past four years? Or would they be bet­ter off ad­van­cing their own ideas, send­ing Obama bills that lay out a con­ser­vat­ive vis­ion of health care policy, rather than simply chip­ping away at his vis­ion?

“If Re­pub­lic­ans think they’re go­ing to win big ma­jor­it­ies simply by say­ing the word ‘Obama­care’ over and over, I think they’re kid­ding them­selves,” Clancy said. “To be a gov­ern­ing ma­jor­ity, you have to act like a gov­ern­ing ma­jor­ity.”

But tak­ing on a sweep­ing pro­ject to over­haul the whole health care sys­tem has its own risks.

Everything in health care policy comes at a cost — lower premi­ums mean high­er de­duct­ibles, more doc­tors mean high­er premi­ums, cost con­trol means Medi­care cuts. Any plan is open to at­tack.

And Clancy, like oth­er con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ists, would have the GOP take on some of the sac­red cows of health care policy — such as the law re­quir­ing emer­gency rooms to treat the un­in­sured and pa­tient-pri­vacy laws.

That’s cer­tainly an af­firm­at­ive vis­ion, but it’s one that would take the party a long way away from the re­l­at­ive safety of simply at­tack­ing Obama­care, and Obama­care is what’s un­pop­u­lar. People like the U.S. health care sys­tem over­all, and as Obama­care has shown, try­ing to change that sys­tem is an ex­tremely hard sell.

“There is something to” that con­cern, Clancy said.”It’s a fight against gov­ern­ment-run health care and man­dates, and not just about Obama­care, but right now they’re sty­mied in fight­ing Obama­care.”

What We're Following See More »
“CLINTON MUST BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT”
Bernie Sanders Seeks to Unite the Party
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Instead of his usual stump speech, Bernie Sanders tonight threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, providing a clear contrast between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump on the many issues he used to discuss in his campaign stump speeches. Sanders spoke glowingly about the presumptive Democratic nominee, lauding her work as first lady and as a strong advocate for women and the poor. “We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he said. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president, and I am proud to stand with her tonight."

“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
×