Can the GOP do a full ACA repeal under reconciliation?

[ImpeachTheGOP]

I don't believe they can. They can repeal the tax part under it as that was also how it was passed but the full law was passed in standard fashion, with sixty votes. It would take sixty to repeal the law in full.

Am I correct on this? I've asked in other threads but received no answers.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Good question. I am sure McConnell knows how to get around any barriers though.

[Gothmog]

2. It is my understanding that you can not use reconciliation for a full repeal

[still_one]

3. The Byrd Rule requires reconcilliation bills to deal with strictly budget matters.

It is complicated.

If the Senate tried to pass the AHCA and repeal of the ACA it would be challenged in the court, since the Byrd Rule specifically requires reconciliation bills to deal strictly with budget matters.

The AHCA could be passed on a simple majority vote. A filibuster could not be used.

[ImpeachTheGOP]

4. That's what I thought.

They can only do the tax cuts and the like, they can't do a full repeal without sixty votes unless they go nuclear.

[still_one]

5. I think because it reduces the deficiet they don't need to go nuclear. The unknown is

how would the courts rule?

[DanTex]

7. I'm not sure the courts would have a say.

It's a matter of Senate procedure, not law, and the Senate is allowed to make its own procedures. I think that it is up to the Senate parliamentarian to determine whether a certain bill can be passed through reconciliation. And I think I remember reading that the only way to appeal the decision of the parliamentarian is through the Senate itself, which would require only a simple majority.

[still_one]

8. I don't know. To do that they would overrule the Senate parliamentarian who is a republican

and I do not know if they can over-ride the Byrd Rule, when the Senate parliamentarian I believe has already said it must pass the Byrd Rule, without going to the courts.

What begs the question is if it could be done through reconciliation, why aren't they doing it by now?

Here is an article addressing the points you bring up Dan:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/blame-the-senate-rules

"To solve this conundrum, Freedom Caucus member and current holdout on the bill Rep. David Brat (R-VA) told reporters Thursday that the Senate should blow up its 60-vote rule and push the bill through with 51 votes—overruling the Senate parliamentarian. Brat described it as “going nuclear,” a term which in recent political history has meant blowing up the Senate filibuster. This is a different scenario, but the upshot would be similar: avoiding a Senate filibuster.

Holding court with reporters in the ornate House Speakers’ Lounge after a vote on Thursday, Brat complained that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has urged Republicans to be mindful of the Senate’s rules, which limit what policies they can include in their bill.

“He wants to be respectful of the Senate rules. I do not,” Brat said. “We’re getting information that everything we want is being blocked in the Senate—insurance regs stuff especially. But I don’t buy that. Whoever is sitting in the chair can rewrite the rules.”

Here is additional information, and it is complicated as I mentioned before:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15629974/senate-byrd-rule-obamacare-repeal

[DanTex]

6. That's a good question. From what I've read, it looks like they can repeal most of it.

More than just the tax parts. I think that whatever they pass with 51 votes needs to somehow be related to the budget, but that they can try to argue that some other parts of repeal are integrally related to the budget even though they don't directly deal with raising or spending money.

The other thing I've read is that, even though the Senate parliamentarian is the person who decides whether a bill can pass under reconciliation, I think the GOP has the ability to overrule the parliamentarian with a simple majority. In effect, this would be a one-off "nuclear option", though really this would mean the end of the filibuster because once the precedent to overrule the parliamentarian is set, it would be done again and again. So for that reason, respect for decorum among a few GOP senators would probably prevent them from doing that.

[nikibatts]

9. They don't really care. They just want to be able to tell their base that it was repealed.

They know they can tell their base anything and they will believe it. They could tell them they repealed it and keep it just the same as it is.