PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Could the Republicans really repeal Obamacare?


Donger
06-29-2012, 11:08 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of key provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the health care law commonly known as Obamacare, on Thursday, but on Capitol Hill, Republicans are vowing to press on with plans to fully repeal the law.

Repealing the law won't happen before January 2013. It would be dependent on a triple Republican victory this November: Mitt Romney would need to defeat President Barack Obama, Republicans must hold their majority in the House, and they must also gain enough seats in the Senate so they have at least 50 of their own in the upper chamber.

What about the filibuster? Don't you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate?

Not in this case. Because Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a "tax," a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision--and others--using what is called "budget reconciliation," a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)

Budget reconciliation is at least one option that Senate Republicans are considering.

"There are a lot of ways to protect the American people from this horrible law, and Republicans are looking at all of them," John Ashbrook, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told Yahoo News when asked if the party's congressional leadership was open to repeal using that process.

In the meantime, House Republicans are scheduling their own vote to repeal the law on July 11, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Thursday. The vote would be symbolic because it would never pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. Also, the same House already voted to repeal the law in January 2011, during the same Congress that is up for re-election in November.

Speaking outside the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders criticized Republicans for moving forward with another repeal vote after the Supreme Court ruled its key provisions constitutional.

"Now that all three branches of government have ratified the law, the time for quarreling is over," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. "The time for disputing its validity is over. Congress should now return to its full time focus: The issue of jobs and the economy in America."

"If you ask people what they want us to focus on," he added, "it's not rehashing health care."

Garcia Bronco
06-29-2012, 12:06 PM
So to Chuck Schumer...the heatlhcare bill is a Ronco product...just set it and forget it.

alpha_omega
06-29-2012, 12:10 PM
Because Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a "tax," a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision--and others--using what is called "budget reconciliation," a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)

Wouldn't that be ironic?

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 12:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html

Speaking outside the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders criticized Republicans for moving forward with another repeal vote after the Supreme Court ruled its key provisions constitutional.

"Now that all three branches of government have ratified the law, the time for quarreling is over," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. "The time for disputing its validity is over. Congress should now return to its full time focus: The issue of jobs and the economy in America."
"If you ask people what they want us to focus on," he added, "it's not rehashing health care."


Yes, because obviously this outrageous violation of the constitution and obscenely expensive legislation has no effect on the economy, you retarded fuck.

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 12:59 PM
Yes, because obviously this outrageous violation of the constitution and obscenely expensive legislation has no effect on the economy, you retarded ****.

It does not violate the constitution, it violates your interpretation of the constitution.

go bowe
06-29-2012, 01:03 PM
It does not violate the constitution, it violates your interpretation of the constitution.

oh c'mon...

who cares what those black-robed traitors think?

mikey has it right...

it's unconstitutional...

oh, wait...

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 01:07 PM
oh c'mon...

who cares what those black-robed traitors think?

mikey has it right...

it's unconstitutional...

oh, wait...

oh wait...Four of the justices thought so too, and it was five until the last moment...so yeah, I'm a real nutjob, huh?

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 01:18 PM
oh wait...Four of the justices thought so too, and it was five until the last moment...so yeah, I'm a real nutjob, huh?

So the 4 that thought it was right were wrong and the four that thought it was wrong were right and then the strong arming on the 9th member.

I get it. I'm going to buy stock in reynolds wrap today.

tredadda
06-29-2012, 01:27 PM
Could the Republicans repeal Obamacare? Sure. Will they? Highly doubtful.

Direckshun
06-29-2012, 01:30 PM
Here's a technical question...

How long does a bill exist after it's been passed by one chamber?

The House has already voted to repeal Obamacare. The Senate's going to need 60, but right now they only have (I think) 49.

What if, in like eight years, the Republicans actually do score 60 votes on the issue?

Can they just pick up the House-passed repeal where it was left lying 10 years ago?

Donger
06-29-2012, 01:32 PM
Could the Republicans repeal Obamacare? Sure. Will they? Highly doubtful.

I posted this because Romney is getting in the habit of saying "I'll repeal Obamacare on my first day" without mentioning that two other things have to happen for that to come to fruition (not including him becoming POTUS).

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 01:33 PM
So the 4 that thought it was right were wrong and the four that thought it was wrong were right and then the strong arming on the 9th member.

I get it. I'm going to buy stock in reynolds wrap today.

Are you actually questioning that the vote was 5 to 4, and that many court experts feel that Roberts changed his mind for some reason at the last moment?...Really?

Really?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 01:36 PM
It does not violate the constitution, it violates your interpretation of the constitution.

As if your and the four socialist justices, and one RINO/NeoCon, haven't enforced their interpretation either. Actually it wasn't an interpretation that much anyway—they rewrote the law to make it Constitutional.

Still, just because one justice outweighed the matter doesn't make it Constitutional. It just means they had the numbers.

FD
06-29-2012, 01:36 PM
Here's a technical question...

How long does a bill exist after it's been passed by one chamber?

The House has already voted to repeal Obamacare. The Senate's going to need 60, but right now they only have (I think) 49.

What if, in like eight years, the Republicans actually do score 60 votes on the issue?

Can they just pick up the House-passed repeal where it was left lying 10 years ago?

I'm pretty sure bills have to be passed in the same Congress.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 01:37 PM
Yes, the Rs could repeal it. The real question should be, do they really have the will.

Direckshun
06-29-2012, 01:40 PM
I'm pretty sure bills have to be passed in the same Congress.

'Preciate it.

vailpass
06-29-2012, 01:40 PM
Hell yes and they'd do it out of spite even if it weren't an economic imperative.

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 01:41 PM
Here's a technical question...

How long does a bill exist after it's been passed by one chamber?

The House has already voted to repeal Obamacare. The Senate's going to need 60, but right now they only have (I think) 49.

What if, in like eight years, the Republicans actually do score 60 votes on the issue?

Can they just pick up the House-passed repeal where it was left lying 10 years ago?

It didn't pass in the senate it is dead. They'd have to start over.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 01:51 PM
Hell yes and they'd do it out of spite even if it weren't an economic imperative.

Don't forget they passed Bushcare.

Saul Good
06-29-2012, 01:59 PM
I posted this because Romney is getting in the habit of saying "I'll repeal Obamacare on my first day" without mentioning that two other things have to happen for that to come to fruition (not including him becoming POTUS).

I think he could effectively neuter it by granting waivers to all fifty states.

go bowe
06-29-2012, 02:15 PM
oh wait...Four of the justices thought so too, and it was five until the last moment...so yeah, I'm a real nutjob, huh?

mikey my good man i seriously doubt that i have ever called you a real nutjob or any other kind of nut job...

and, as usual, it was a 5-4 decision but it still counts...

and i can't disagree with the majority (on this issue) opinion limiting the reach of the commerce clause, but i do agree with the other majority that calling the mandate a tax makes it constitutional under supreme court precedent going back to the time of the great flood...

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 02:20 PM
I think he could effectively neuter it by granting waivers to all fifty states.

Some states already, are not and plan not to set up these exchanges.

Nullify Now! If that doesn't work secede!

ILChief
06-29-2012, 02:25 PM
Yes, because obviously this outrageous violation of the constitution and obscenely expensive legislation has no effect on the economy, you retarded fuck.

The highest court in the land with a conservative majority said it does not violate the constitution. There is no higher authority. Game over

vailpass
06-29-2012, 02:27 PM
The highest court in the land with a conservative majority said it does not violate the constitution. There is no higher authority. Game over

Right.
Right.
Not necessarily.

Pawnmower
06-29-2012, 02:28 PM
The House has already voted to repeal Obamacare. The Senate's going to need 60, but right now they only have (I think) 49.

What if, in like eight years, the Republicans actually do score 60 votes on the issue?


Actually they may only need 51 votes under a special clause called "Budget Reconciliation" or something like that... non-filibuster able

donkhater
06-29-2012, 02:38 PM
Yes, the Rs could repeal it. The real question should be, do they really have the will.

That's the question and a valid one. The GOP is as drunk with power as the DNC and can see this health care bill as yet a another way to shake down businesses for political donations.

My guess is that they are pandering to the base so that they will be in power, but it is a longshot that they will control all three branches of government to do it. Because of this, they will be let off the hook and will be seen as wanting to do it and would do it if it weren't for those darn Democrats.

Sound familar?

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 04:42 PM
oh wait...Four of the justices thought so too, and it was five until the last moment...so yeah, I'm a real nutjob, huh?

Yeah, I mean if a team kicks a go-ahead field goal, but it does it in the 4th quarter, it doesn't really count. Good point.

kcpasco
06-29-2012, 04:55 PM
Republicans also have to be careful here. Can't deny children with pre-existing medical conditions is something the majority of people want.

HonestChieffan
06-29-2012, 04:59 PM
The highest court in the land with a conservative majority said it does not violate the constitution. There is no higher authority. Game over

And what does that have to do with repeal?

vailpass
06-29-2012, 05:03 PM
Republicans also have to be careful here. Can't deny children with pre-existing medical conditions is something the majority of people want.

Non issue in terms of repealing obamacare.

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 05:20 PM
Yeah, I mean if a team kicks a go-ahead field goal, but it does it in the 4th quarter, it doesn't really count. Good point.

Is that really what you got from that post, Orange?

vailpass
06-29-2012, 05:33 PM
Is that really what you got from that post, Orange?

It's the closest I've seen that eunuch come to an actual football post.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 05:59 PM
Is that really what you got from that post, Orange?

Yes, what I got was someone saying that a vote given at "the last moment" (which is conjecture anyway) is somehow worth less than a vote given earlier.

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 06:21 PM
Some states already, are not and plan not to set up these exchanges.

Nullify Now! If that doesn't work secede!

Yeah that's the way to go. We need another brother killing brother scenario to play out with modern warfare.

Dumbass.

CoMoChief
06-29-2012, 06:29 PM
How is SCJ Kagan eligible to rule on Obamacare? Didn't he/she serve as the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administration’s legal defense of Obamacare? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

mlyonsd
06-29-2012, 06:35 PM
How is SCJ Kagan eligible to rule on Obamacare? Didn't he/she serve as the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administration’s legal defense of Obamacare? Isn't that a conflict of interest?I thought she had something to do with the AZ immigration case, not health care.

Aries Walker
06-29-2012, 06:43 PM
Right.
Right.
Not necessarily.
Correct. It's game over judicially, but legislatively, sure, if the Republicans win the Presidency and both houses (or convince some Democrats to cross the aisle), they can certainly repeal it with plenty of time before 2014.

I think they will, too, if they can. I wouldn't be surprised if, even if they're missing an ingredient, they could convince some moderate, frightened, or easily-buffaloed Democrats to repeal the individual mandate, while leaving the rest intact.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 07:02 PM
Correct. It's game over judicially, but legislatively, sure, if the Republicans win the Presidency and both houses (or convince some Democrats to cross the aisle), they can certainly repeal it with plenty of time before 2014.

I think they will, too, if they can. I wouldn't be surprised if, even if they're missing an ingredient, they could convince some moderate, frightened, or easily-buffaloed Democrats to repeal the individual mandate, while leaving the rest intact.

Best-case scenario for the Rs would be winning the pres, holding the House, winning the Senate with maybe 52 seats. That means they would need at least 8 Ds to beat a philibuster.

Or since the penalty is a tax, they could reduce the tax to zero (thereby effectively removing the mandate) through reconciliation in the Senate which only needs 50 votes. BUT, if they go that route, eliminating the penalty cuts revenue (increases the deficit) and there is a rule that if they do that they have to offset it with additional revenues. If the tax is as huge as they say it is, they would have to raise major revenue from some other source to make the whole operation budgetarily neutral. Good luck with all that.

AustinChief
06-29-2012, 07:08 PM
Best-case scenario for the Rs would be winning the pres, holding the House, winning the Senate with maybe 52 seats. That means they would need at least 8 Ds to beat a philibuster.

Or since the penalty is a tax, they could reduce the tax to zero (thereby effectively removing the mandate) through reconciliation in the Senate which only needs 50 votes. BUT, if they go that route, eliminating the penalty cuts revenue (increases the deficit) and there is a rule that if they do that they have to offset it with additional revenues. If the tax is as huge as they say it is, they would have to raise major revenue from some other source to make the whole operation budgetarily neutral. Good luck with all that.

NO NO NO.. you fail to realize the new system we live under. If Romney gets elected, he can just order the IRS to not assess any tax penalty due to a "lack of resources." Same with the rest of the law... he can claim we simply don't have the resources to enact the changes.

Look at all these new Presidential powers! Thanks Obama!

Aries Walker
06-29-2012, 07:14 PM
Best-case scenario for the Rs would be winning the pres, holding the House, winning the Senate with maybe 52 seats. That means they would need at least 8 Ds to beat a philibuster.

Keep reading.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html

What about the filibuster? Don't you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate?

Not in this case. Because Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a "tax," a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision--and others--using what is called "budget reconciliation," a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)

Ah, there we are. In the original post, no less.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 07:22 PM
Keep reading.



Ah, there we are. In the original post, no less.

Keep reading...

The part I posted about having to offset the redcution in revenue. Its kind of relevant.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 08:42 PM
Yeah that's the way to go. We need another brother killing brother scenario to play out with modern warfare.

Dumbass.

I know you were looking in the mirror when you said the last word, Red. :LOL:

CoMoChief
06-29-2012, 09:00 PM
I thought she had something to do with the AZ immigration case, not health care.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-documents-show-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-s-comments-obamacare-legislation/



I dunno man..... I heard she was very much apart of it.

Dylan
06-29-2012, 09:25 PM
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts


According to The Wall Street Journal, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are committed to a health insurance that allows us to design our own health care and buy health care coverage across state lines.

Romney will modify the ACA by authorizing a new charter mandate, which works for the individual and the employer. The solution for young and low wage, entry-level employees - the health care charter will be very inexpensive for employers to cover. However, these workers will be covered for serious illness.

Altogether, health care insurers, hospitals and doctors will be competing for business, and consumers can take advantage on price and quality.

Obamacare is unsustainable and is an unreformed "tax" health care entitlement program that would bankrupt our country.

Consider Chief Justice John Roberts ruling a gift to Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

Roberts said, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of the political choices." SCOTUS exposed the Obamacare lie - It is an unreformed tax health care system.

Striking down Medicaid expansion is a huge victory for the Republicans. Many states can opt-out to pay those costs and shift the burden back to the federal government. Obamacare is doomed.

Reports suggest, Republicans will roll out the American's health care plans in September.

Thanks to Judge Roberts, rather than the Supreme Court jurists decide...it will be a jury of 200,000,000 or so Americans who will decide our fate on health care law.

Vote wisely on November 6, 2012.




*There is more to the story - Wish I could have saved the link.

Direckshun
07-10-2012, 12:02 PM
Romney might be able to do it himself...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78174.html

Health care reform: 5 ways to kill 'Obamacare' without repealing
By J. LESTER FEDER
7/7/12 4:35 PM EDT

Even conservatives admit Mitt Romney’s promise to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law with an executive order might not work — but that doesn’t mean he’s out of luck.

Romney could still begin to gut the law immediately by taking some more passive-aggressive steps — a jumbo-sized version of a strategy Obama has embraced on issues ranging from immigration to education.

Even if Romney can’t rely on a Republican-controlled Congress to pass a repeal bill, he could achieve a similar end, experts who have studied the law closely tell POLITICO. And although Romney’s health care advisers won’t say so on the record, they’re aware of the options and aren’t dismissing them.

“The bottom line is, if Romney were to win, he can do a lot through administrative action to say this thing is not going to be implemented,” said James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who was a top health official in President George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget.

Officially, the Romney campaign says it’s committed to a Day One strategy. But if that doesn’t work out, here are five other ways Romney could take on health care reform.

1. Break the federal exchanges

Under the law, the federal government is supposed to build health insurance exchanges for states that don’t create their own.

But with Romney’s help, those states could defeat that effort, too, even if the law remains unchanged.

A quirk in the language of the law — which the law's supporters call a “drafting error” — could allow Romney to make it basically impossible for federally run exchanges to function. That’s because the law doesn’t explicitly give federal exchanges the ability to provide the same insurance subsidies that it will give to state-run exchanges.

Obama’s Internal Revenue Service issued rules intended to eliminate this problem, but Romney’s IRS could reverse that interpretation of the law.

This couldn’t happen overnight. A Romney administration would have to launch a full rulemaking process with a comment period and would have to provide extensive justification for the change, which would likely be challenged in court.

The Romney campaign has said it is sticking to its executive order strategy.

“Gov. Romney’s Day One plan includes an executive order instructing federal agencies to return maximum possible authority to the states. This will include as much flexibility as the law permits. He will then begin the work of fully repealing Obamacare and replacing it with common-sense reforms that will ensure Americans have access to the highest quality health care in the world,” campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said by email.

But if Romney took this route, it could mean that a large number of the people who expected to get coverage in the federal exchange won’t be able to buy in. And many of these people will then be exempt from the individual mandate since the insurance for sale will likely be too expensive for it to meet the health reform law’s “affordability” test.

This could dramatically shrink the number of people buying insurance in federally run exchanges, which means they could collapse altogether.

For that reason, said the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon, reversing the IRS rule “is the most important thing that Mitt Romney can do to repeal Obamacare.”

Without a working exchange, Cannon reasons, the remaining insurance market will buckle under the weight of the health reform law’s rules, forcing Congress ultimately to repeal the law.

“It has the potential to change votes in Congress. ... He’s just showing them how bad the law really is,” Cannon said.

2. Starve the federal exchanges

This one would take some help from Congress. But if Republicans find a way to stop funding the federal exchanges, a Romney administration would be under no obligation to come up with the funds.

Of course, the Republican House has repeatedly tried to pass legislation defunding parts of the law without success. But with Romney as president, House Republicans wouldn’t have to win passage of language that specifically defunds the federal exchanges. All they would have to do is block any language that explicitly funds them.

And even if the Senate stays in Democratic hands — with the power to push for the funding — it wouldn’t have nearly as much leverage to demand it without a Democratic president to back them up.

Here, Republicans would be taking advantage of yet another quirk in the design of the Affordable Care Act. The law didn’t appropriate funding for the federal exchanges. So far, HHS has paid for the federal exchanges out of a $1 billion appropriation that’s meant to cover all of the federal government’s expenses for implementing health reform. That fund is expected to run out by the end of this year.

The HHS secretary in a second Obama administration might still move money around inside the department to fund federal exchanges even if Congress didn’t make the funds available. But Romney’s secretary might not feel so inclined — and there wouldn’t be a legal obligation to do so.

“A Romney administration probably could slow adoption of a federal exchange in part by just not funding it itself at the federal level,” said Capretta.

3. Withdraw rules

A new administration can’t just change existing rules that its predecessors have gotten into final form. That requires a full rulemaking process, and they have to prove they have a “rational” reason for the change.

But rules that aren’t finalized can easily be tossed out or reworked. And many people close to the Obama administration expect that at least one major health reform rule won’t be proposed until after the November election — which means there won’t be time to finalize it before a change in administration.

That’s the rule defining the essential health benefit package that must be covered by health insurance plans. The way the rules are written will have a substantial effect on how much everyone’s coverage will cost and how much protection it will give to people who have insurance.

This makes the rule politically sensitive, which is why many expect the law to be held till November. But it also makes it a target for heavy revision by a Romney administration.

George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, a health reform supporter, suspects that this fact is weighing on the Obama administration.

“I’m sure they’ll be moving at lightning speed to get things into final form,” she said.

Rules that are finalized can also be undone, though that takes much longer and will likely result in numerous lawsuits.

4. Be very ‘flexible’

The secretary of HHS is in charge of ultimately certifying whether states are enforcing provisions of the law or whether the federal government needs to use its backup enforcement powers.

That means that a Romney HHS secretary could let states and employers get away with things an Obama secretary likely wouldn’t. That could include certifying state-based exchanges that don’t meet many of the law's requirements, or giving broader latitude to companies that don’t want to update their insurance plans to meet the letter of the law.

“The secretary of HHS in the law has incredible discretionary authority,” said Capretta.

But Cato’s Cannon warns that this tactic could actually make the law harder to repeal in the long run, because it could make the Affordable Care Act less objectionable.

“Most of the things that opponents of Obamacare wanted to do [administratively] would actually make Obamacare less offensive,” Cannon said.

5. Do nothing

If Romney’s really determined to block the law, he might not actually need to do anything too clever — he could do a lot by simply doing nothing at all.

He could stop the writing of the remaining rules to implement the law, stop Medicare from moving ahead with programs to find new ways to pay providers, stop the IRS from enforcing the individual mandate and even stop Medicaid officials from facilitating the expansion of the program in the states that want it.

This would land the Romney administration in court, of course. There are laws on the books requiring a president to spend money for a duly passed law, and the Affordable Care Act also created new entitlements to health insurance coverage that individuals may be able to go to court to enforce.

But the process of forcing the president to implement a law through the courts is a long one, especially if it requires separate lawsuits to enforce different pieces of the law. If public opposition to the Affordable Care Act remains strong, Romney may pay little price from choosing to fight these cases.

For that reason, National Association of Insurance Commissioners consumer representative Tim Jost says that the fate of the law remains largely in the hands of the voters, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said.

“I’m just assuming that if Obama isn’t reelected, the law will stay on the books but nothing really happens,” Jost said.

Donger
07-10-2012, 12:09 PM
Excellent, thanks Direckshun. I'd rather see if repealed by a GOP-led congress and Romney, but the above works too.

Chief Faithful
07-10-2012, 01:49 PM
The irony, Obamacare is going to ensure everyone has health insurance, but so many doctors are going to quit or not take Medicaid patents that health care will be harder to get than before the legislation passed.

The worst hit will be black patients. Statistically, most black doctors are sought out by black clients. Black doctors typically come out of school higher in dept. This means young black doctors will not be able to accept Medicaid patients. Guess who is going to be most affected? You got it, poor blacks.

Chief Faithful
07-10-2012, 01:51 PM
Romney might be able to do it himself...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78174.html

4. Be very ‘flexible’

The secretary of HHS is in charge of ultimately certifying whether states are enforcing provisions of the law or whether the federal government needs to use its backup enforcement powers.

That means that a Romney HHS secretary could let states and employers get away with things an Obama secretary likely wouldn’t. That could include certifying state-based exchanges that don’t meet many of the law's requirements, or giving broader latitude to companies that don’t want to update their insurance plans to meet the letter of the law.

“The secretary of HHS in the law has incredible discretionary authority,” said Capretta.

But Cato’s Cannon warns that this tactic could actually make the law harder to repeal in the long run, because it could make the Affordable Care Act less objectionable.

“Most of the things that opponents of Obamacare wanted to do [administratively] would actually make Obamacare less offensive,” Cannon said.



Eliminate the HHS and you start to get my positive attention.