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
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
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 »
White House Proposes New Tax Plan
16 hours ago

The White House on Wednesday laid out its plan for tax reform, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin saying it would be "the biggest tax cut and the largest tax reform in the history of our country." The tax code would be broken down into just three tax brackets, with the highest personal income tax rate cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. The plan would also slash the tax rate on corporations and small businesses from 35 percent to 15 percent. "The White House plan is a set of principles with few details, but it’s designed to be the starting point of a major push to urge Congress to pass a comprehensive tax reform package this year," said National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

Dems Proposes Obamacare-for-Defense Deal
1 days ago

"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."

Michael Flynn Remains A Russian-Sized Problem
1 days ago

The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.

Sally Yates to Testify on May 8
1 days ago
U.S. To Conduct Exercises In Estonia
1 days ago

The U.S. deployed "F-35 joint strike fighters" to Estonia on Tuesday. The "jets will stay in Estonia for several weeks and will be a part of training flights with U.S. and other NATO air forces." The move comes at a time of high tension between the U.S. and Estonia's neighbor, Russia. The two nations have been at odds over a number of issues recently, most of all being Vladimir Putin's support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in light of Assad's chemical weapons attack on his own people in the midst of a civil war.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.