Repeal of Obamacare can not be filibustered? True?

It has just been pointed out to me the declaration of Obamacare’s individual mandate’s teeth (the tax) is not subject to filibuster but can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate because is a tax.  Taxes are subject to the reconciliation process which require only a majority vote.  Hmmmm.  Is Robert’s a genius?

Please let me know if anyone knows if this is true or not.  If so, GOP winning the Senate races in FL., ND, WI, MO, MT, and VA are more than enough to give Romney the votes to over-turn Obamacare.  I was thinking we’d have to get to 55 GOP Senators and either draw five Dem’s up for re-election in 2014 or wait until after that election.  Maybe brighter times are coming.

32 Replies to “Repeal of Obamacare can not be filibustered? True?”

  1. Anonymous

    Unbeleivable a week ago , it was turning over obama care slam dunk.This president is going to be harder to vote out than you think.He only needs a couple of states to win.Mitt on the other hand could have sewed it up but the latinos see through him watch out florida, may put Obama back in.

  2. [Insert Name Here]

    I want the law overturned as much as the next Republican, but people need to stop the ridiculous call for “nullification.” I apologize for getting off topic, Mr. Jones, but I find this idea completely offensive. For those who do not know the term, this link provides a pretty good summary of the concept of “nullification”:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification
    The last time that states tried to “nullify” a law, this Nation was torn apart by a horrifying war. I know that healthcare is not as controversial as slavery, but I should think the mere association would be enough to give people pause. Unfortunately, you have a rather vocal group of people calling for something that has never been proven valid. Nullification, plain and simple, is not contained anywhere in our Constitution. Those who claim to hallow our Constitution above all else should not simultaneously be calling for its violation. To allow nullification of federal law at the state level would abrogate over 200 years of American law (both statutory and judicial). I, for one, am not willing to do that.
    My Republican comrades – you need to turn out in full force in November and work through the proper channels to fill Congress with Republicans and make a change in the White House.

  3. Anonymous

    many who write do so to make themselves feel good, they have no facts, no legal ability, and the list goes on of things they find incorrect to the way they think. Most likely they have a lot of self hate so they must hate others……….

  4. Anonymous

    I’ve heard this also Troy. Can’t remember which article I read it in – I believe the WSJ.

    Personally I prefer that Roberts would have struck down the entire law.

    Now that this is not the case I guess 51 is the next best thing.

  5. Anonymous

    We need more republicans on the bench they evidently see the poor not be covered whats you say JOHN tHUNE.

    1. Leftwinger

      What ! I am too dense, please explain what you just wrote.

      I didn’t understand it either. Troy

  6. PNR

    The law was passed in the Senate using the reconciliation process in order to avoid the GOP filibuster.

    It is reasonable to assume that it can be repealed via the same path.

    That does not require Roberts’ upholding of the law nor does it mitigate the utter disaster that this ruling is. Regardless of whether this particular monstrosity is repealed by the political branches, the precedent is set in law and jurisprudence. Congress has been given the power to compel ANYTHING via the tax code – buying tutus, Chevy Volts, insurance, Solyndra…. The space in which we are truly free to act or not act without fear of gov’t coercion was shrunk to nothing on 28 June 2012.

    Unless this is overturned, July 4th will be nothing but a memorial celebration of freedom we once had, not a celebration of liberty we still enjoy.

    My assessment exactly.

    1. Job Creator

      Hey, I’m wondering what your version of the “utter disaster” is?

      Could you give us four or five points of this law that destroy our freedoms?

      1. Katzy

        Freedom to choose our own doctor, freedom to choose the treatment we prefer, freedom to keep our own insurance policy if we like it, doctors’ freedom to treat as they deem necessary (not some overseeing board), freedom from the excess taxes that are in Obamacare, And no, I’m not talking about the mandate/tax; I’m talking about the other hidden taxes. A little rundown here for those of you unaware.
        3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income
        0.9% Medicare payroll tax hike

        And Obama lied when he said no one making under $250,000 a year would pay one penny in extra tax; following are the taxes that DO hit the under $250,000 crowd:
        -Individual mandate excise tax
        – Flexible spending accounts no longer able to use that money for OTC meds, with the exception of insulin
        – Cap of $2500 on on pre-tax flexible healthcare spending accounts
        – Less allowance for medical care deductions
        – Higher penalty for withdrawal of money from flexible healthcare accounts for non-medical reasons
        – Tax on medical devices
        – Tax on tanning salons
        – New 40% excise tax on “cadillac” insurance plans
        – Excise tax on charitable hospitals if they fail to meet new Obamacare rules
        – IRS has power to disallow legal tax deductions at their discretion
        – Tax increase on a type of biofuel
        -Tax on innovator drug companies
        – Employer reporting insurance on W2 to count as income
        – Tax on health insurers

        http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996

        You wonder how this destroys our freedoms. Any power that the govt grabs and which is not in its constitutional realm of authority lessens our freedoms. And irrespective of Justice Roberts deeming this a tax for whatever reason he did it, this really is not constitutional and is bad law and lessens our freedoms.

        1. Job Creator

          I see now. If you don’t mind, I’ll take the opinions of the five justices who said this was constitutional over your well-reasoned arguments, although I am sure you regard yourself as a constitutional scholar.

          It looked to me that every complaint you had was to do with taxes.

          I’m sure I don’t have to remind you about the freedoms in the Constitution, since you are the scholar, but this might help others in here.

          Speech
          Press
          Religion
          Assembly
          Petition

          Frankly, it looks like you are defining Constitutional freedoms to fit your own “Freedom To Keep More of Your Money” ideals.

          1. Katzy

            Well, if you are happy to turn over more and more of your hard earned dollars to the feds, based on their “very wise” use of said dollars, go for it. I am not. Half of this Obamacare is merely a framework with the rules to be filled in later at the discretion of the Sec of HHS. If you think that is a way to run govt, go for it. I am very well aware of the freedoms in the Constitution, thank you very much. I am simply pointing out that it is unsustainable economically, the true and actual cost of this thing was not honestly presented, and if it stands, I hope your grandkids will thank you for the debt you imposed on them based on these lies and deceptions. And now my tax dollars are being spent on TV ads promoting this without mentioning the cost. And this has more to do with freedom from an intrusive fed govt over-reaching way past its constitutional authority than it does with freedom to keep my money, as you so eloquently stated. I wil mention another freedom now – freedom to practice religion as we wish, and this is under direct attack with Obamacare via the “war on women” regarding abortion.

            1. Job Creator

              Katzy, I am already giving a LOT of money to pay for the free riders. I hope the mandate will alleviate part of that issue. Please let me try to address your wildly-ranging post.

              I estimate that the free rider, parasite, deadbeat problem created by people who choose to not have health insurance costs me well over $120,000 per year in excess health insurance premiums for me and my employees. I believe the free rider/parasite/deadbeat problem is a far larger problem than the tax that will be charged to those who choose to not have insurance.

              I’m glad we got you off that Constitutional argument. It’s not becoming for a reasoning person. The SCOTUS has declared it Constitutional. They didn’t say it was smart or good. So get your guys elected and overturn it. When you do, however, please remember small employers like me who are getting hosed every month by the free riders/parasites/deadbeats.

              And as far as the war on women goes, I did not see Obama trying to limit their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. It’s your side that is constantly trying to control their uterus. Plain and simple. So please don’t bring that shrill crap up in what should be a reasonable and respectable argument.

              Finally, I think you are right about saddling our children and grandchildren with debt. But I bet you’re strongly for the forty-year mistake we made in Iraq, the who-knows-how-long mistake we are making in Afghanistan, the idiotic Medicare Part D that W left us – again not paid for, the tax cuts we gave people like me with money borrowed from China – and on and on and on.

              This is not an Obama-only problem. And I think it is foolish to think of it in that context.

              Please, could we keep our future conversations limited to the subject matter. It is impossible to have a reasonable, intelligent conversation with you when five or six more topics are drug into it. I’d be happy to visit with you on each and every point. Let’s just try and focus in the future, OK?

              1. Katzy

                I am focusing on the future. So the tax hikes coming to you thru Obamacare when fully implemented are going to be less than the deadbeats are causing you? I don’t believe it. Many of the deadbeats you are talking about are those now on Medicaid, and that program is going to expand with Obamacare, not shrink, and you will still be paying for these deadbeats same as now. I personally do not believe that many young people are going without health insurance at this time as we are led to believe; these are the very people who probably work at jobs already providing health insurance. OK, one point made.

                1. Job Creator

                  No, I’m not talking about Medicaid. I pay income taxes to pay for that. Well, actually the government borrows the money from China and lumps it into the other, unfunded programs like paying for the wars, Medicare Part D and the tax cuts they gave me and my buddies.

                  The deadbeats I’m talking about are those people who can get insurance but choose not to.

              2. Troy Jones Post author

                The “deadbeat” problem as you call it is a huge issue. I am convinced that the mandate tax will not induce them to buy insurance, if they are truly ‘deadbeats.” They will pay the $700 fine, get insurance from the govt. that you pay for vs paying thousands in premiums, etc. In the meantime, you will see the cost of your insurance go up as well as the deficit.

                The “intention” might be good but the math doesn’t add up.

                1. Job Creator

                  I agree with you Troy – I don’t think the government has enough discipline to fix that problem.

                  What is the GOP idea to ease my pain. I remember a few years ago when they were all in on the Personal Responsibility idea. Do you know what they plan to do about that once they get Obamacare repealed?

  7. Anonymous

    PNR whatever your smoking I want some of that.Very doubtful it gets overturned are you one of those who said it was a slam dunk.

    1. PNR

      No, I never said it was a slam dunk. Note that I do not either say that this is certain.

      To be sure, the constitutional point IS obvious, but apparently too obvious for legal scholars who have had all sense and proportion educated out of them and now sit on the Supreme Court, or to Democrats who think the ends justify the means and the elimination of freedom is a worthwhile price to pay for government health care.

      But where human beings are concerned, nothing is ever a slam dunk. Folly trumps wisdom far too often, even among the wise.

      1. Les

        PNR, you are a wise person.

        If this affordable care act was only about health care. Obama care to affordable care like global warming to climate change. We are all guilty of allowing both parties to shovel this manure without reasonable explanation.

  8. Anonymous

    If this is overturned by 51 votes (and I pray it is) does that mean we will reach some odd conclusion that everytime or cycle the dems get 51 votes they will enact Obamacare? and everytime we get 51 votes we will repeal it?

    This is a circus.

  9. Katzy

    If this can be overturned by 51 votes, by the time the Dems get control again, we will hopefully have a sensible approach to address problems in health care, with the true aim to address health care costs instead of to expand govt control.

    1. Anonymous

      I’m just wondering where in the sam heck you’re gonna find the sensible Katz? Both parties have had multiple opps to run health care acts and I don’t see our party limiting gov now days either.

  10. Katzy

    My preference for the GOP candidate didn’t make it. I think there were two candidates who would have been stronger on actually getting the gov’t back to where it should be, but unfortunately I don’t think either would have won in the general. Our only hope now is that Romney is conservative enough to get things done and that his ideas attract enough voters with common sense and fiscal sense to beat Obama and his giveaways, voter bribes (amnesty), lies, and empty promises.

  11. Anonymous

    ANY THING CAN BE CHANGED IF THE PEOPLE IN POWER REALLY WANT TO. IT IS CALL DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE NOT WHAT IS BEST TO GET A FEW MORE VOTES OR TO PAY DEBT TO THOSE THAT GAVE ME VERY LARGE SUMS OF $$$$$$.

    THE ONLY REAL SOLUTION IS FOR 535 PEOPLE IN DC TO STEP UP AND SAY I WILL VOTE FOR A SOLUTION EVEN IF I DO NOT GET ELECTED AGAIN. EVERY DAY THE PEOPLE STEP FORWARD AND DO THE BEST THEY CAN AS THEY ARE FULLY AWARE THEY WILL LOSE THE JOB THEY HAVE.

    WHERE IS THE COMMITMENT TO DO THE BEST JOB NOT THE JOB THE BIG $$$$$$ PEOPLE TELL ME TO DO………

  12. Duh

    When I heard about the USSC’s ruling I was pretty upset with Roberts. Now looking at the rammifications of his vote, I think he knows more than we give him credit for and the 180 turn around of the libs from demonizing Roberts to hailing him as a brilliant justice will bite them on and in their holes.

    Roberts’ vote, just energized and solidified the right and Oblabla is in much more trouble than if Oblablacare would have been shot down. Oblabla and the hag Pelosi are still claiming that it’s a penalty. What rubes.