Ten Miles Square


October 13, 2011 12:32 PM Could a Republican President Repeal Health Care Reform Via Reconciliation?

By Jonathan Zasloff

Mitt Romney claims that he could. In the GOP President debate earlier this week, Romney said that because the Affordable Care Act was enacted via budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered, it can be repealed that way.

Now, in typical Romney fashion, this is out-and-out false, because of course the Affordable Care Act was not passed via reconciliation. It required 60 votes, because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that several of its aspects — “community rating” for health plans, the antidiscrimination provisions, allowing 18-to-26 year-olds to remain on their parents’ health plans — were not related to budget matters. Thus, the ACA was passed with 60 votes, and then various budgetary cleanup provisions were passed with a simple majority through reconciliation.

This is why Kevin Drum, among others, is confident that repealing the Affordable Care Act will not be so simple. And he might be right.

But I would be willing to bet that if Romney does get elected, and the Senate turns Republican, the ACA will be repealed by reconciliation.

The current Republican Party does not believe in rules. It will subvert rules to get what it wants, and have little compunction in doing so. So this is what will happen:

1) The Republicans will put a complete repeal of the ACA into their reconciliation bill.

2) Senate Democrats will challenge it.

3) The Senate parliamentarian will rule in their favor. AND THEN:

4) Either Vice President Rubio (or Haley or whomever) will simply ignore the recommendation and rule in the GOP’s favor; OR

5) Majority Leader McConnell will have his caucus overturn the parliamentarian’s ruling; OR

6) McConnell will fire the parliametarian (as Trent Lott did a few years ago on a similar issue) and find one who will pliably rule the way the GOP wants. Maybe Hans van Spakovsky is available.

And that will be that. Republicans may not respect rules, but they do respect power — particularly when they have it. And all those Democrats who tut-tutted that one couldn’t pass health care reform through reconciliation, and that you need 60 votes, and that’s why we have to turn over the process to “Steaming Heap of Senator” Kent Conrad, will sputter about how that’s not supposed to happen. But that will be the new reality. And while the Democrats are studying that reality—judiciously, as they will—the Republicans will act again, creating other new realities, which the Democrats can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.

[Cross-posted at The Reality-Based Community]

Back to Home page

Jonathan Zasloff is a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles.


  • ghgjhk on October 17, 2011 7:59 PM:

    Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
    Welcome to http://www.proxy4biz.com
    Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
    UGG BOOT $50
    Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
    Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35
    T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16
    Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
    Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
    New era cap $16
    Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

  • Stephen on October 18, 2011 7:37 AM:

    Ah, but if the GOP uses the nuclear option to blow up the ACA, the Democrats can then be free to implement a single-payer system when they get back into power (either directly or letting the states pass it one-by-one). Now the beauty of this is that once a single-payer system is in effect, it would be practically impossible to go back because of a simple fact: no more health insurance industry.

    Of course, health care in America is so broken that without the gradual reforms of the ACA, a single-payer system is probably inevitable anyways.

  • oakparkhiker on October 24, 2011 3:28 PM:

    The good professor speaks as if the Democrats never have bent or broken Senate rules.

    Clearly, as written ACA cannot be implemented. We can see this in the 100s of waivers granted and the death of CLASS. Money spent on its implementation is throwing good money after bad. It must be replaced.