Question about overturning Obamacare [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Question about overturning Obamacare


IndyGunFreak
10-14-2012, 03:24
I'm curious, if Romney wins the election, can he do away with Obamacare by executive order, or will a bill eliminating it have to pass through Congress?

Ruble Noon
10-14-2012, 08:32
I'm curious, if Romney wins the election, can he do away with Obamacare by executive order, or will a bill eliminating it have to pass through Congress?

No, but he can issue states waivers....starting in 2017.

Hyksos
10-14-2012, 09:23
Well, he could do what Obama did with immigration laws and just tell the federal government not to enforce Obamacare.

Bruce H
10-14-2012, 10:01
Since the Supreme Court ruled it was a tax congress will have to pass a repeal of said tax for Romney to sign.

JBnTX
10-14-2012, 10:03
Anybody who thinks Obama care will be repealed, well I've got some swamp land that I'll sell you cheap.

Barcroft
10-14-2012, 12:04
Since the Supreme Court ruled it was a tax congress will have to pass a repeal of said tax for Romney to sign.

As it is a revenue measure, Romney can simply point out that arose in the Senate, not the House, and is therefore invalid.
If the SC disagrees, it can enforce Obamacare on it's own.

Brucev
10-14-2012, 17:14
He can always follow the lead of Andrew Jackson. When told by little man marshall that he couldn't follow through with his planned relocation of the indians, his response was that marshall had made his decision. And marshall would have to enforce it. Since the sc has no power to do anything except pontificate, Jackson went right ahead and did exactly as he pleased. And marshall... he just sat on the court.

mj9mm
10-14-2012, 17:24
if we hold congress and gain back the senate, look out, obamacare parts and pieces all over the place:tongueout:

GAFinch
10-15-2012, 06:57
As it is a revenue measure, Romney can simply point out that arose in the Senate, not the House, and is therefore invalid.
If the SC disagrees, it can enforce Obamacare on it's own.

Looks like Pelosi and Reid got around that issue:

Not only did NFIB v. Sebelius not make Obamacare litigation go away, it may have actually done the opposite. In saving the individual-mandate tax penalty as a “tax,” Chief Justice Roberts may have opened new avenues of attack for mandate opponents. Under Article I, section 7, “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Yet the PPACA was passed by the Senate before proceeding to the House. On this basis, the Pacific Legal Foundation has filed suit alleging that Congress did not comply with the Origination Clause. As a substantive matter, PLF’s claim has merit. But the Senate, anticipating such an attack, used another, unrelated piece of tax legislation first passed by the House — H.R. 3590 — and replaced its text, in its entirety, with that of the PPACA. In this way, Congress complied with the letter, if not the spirit, of Article I, section 7 — and, believe it or not, this subterfuge is likely to survive judicial review. Federal courts are quite reluctant to second-guess whether Congress has followed relevant procedural rules, even when the rules are constitutionally mandated.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330400/obamacare-cases-keep-coming-jonathan-h-adler

aspartz
10-15-2012, 07:14
if we hold congress and gain back the senate, look out, obamacare parts and pieces all over the place:tongueout:
Romney already stated that he likes the parts that make insurance not really insurance. Forcing people to accept a person with preexisting conditions into their shared risk pool violates freedom of association. Telling insurance companies what they are required to cover at a minimum is restraint of trade. Disallowing lifetime caps will do nothing to control costs, in fact it will drive costs up.

ARS