The silver lining to last night's Republican failure on ObamaCare repeal - the latest one - appeared to be that the Senate would move instead to a straight repeal-but-no-replace bill. A lot of conservatives have wanted it all along. I've always believed, and still do, that you have to enact a lot of other legislation to solve not only the problems created by ObamaCare, but also the problems that should have been solved before ObamaCare, which ObamaCare only made worse.
Even so, a straight repeal with a two-year implementation window would at least ensure ObamaCare's fate, and the repeal-and-don't-replace people would be thrilled.
But it turns out that's not the plan:
In other words, McConnell wants the Senate to pass the AHCA, the bill the House passed back in May, but with an amendment that delays effect for two years. That would mean the AHCA becomes the default replacement unless Congress can agree on a different replacement before 2019. The Senate vote would not simply repeal ObamaCare and put nothing in the queue to replace it.
There are two reasons McConnell has to do it this way, one procedural and one political.
The procedural reason is that, according to the current reading of the Senate's rules, a straight repeal would not qualify for reconciliation, so Democrats could filibuster it unless McConnell could find 60 votes for cloture - which he could not. If you want to pass the bill with a simple majority, it has to qualify for reconciliation. The AHCA was intentionally written to ensure it would qualify.
The political reason is that Republican moderates, many of whom don't seem to mind if ObamaCare survives, will use the lack of a replacement as an excuse to call a straight repeal bill reckless or irresponsible or whatever. You're not going to get 50 votes for straight repeal. If you put in the AHCA as a default replacement, maybe those who don't like the AHCA could still be brought along on the promise that there's time to work on a replacement for it in the next two years.
All of this should not be so complicated, and as frustrated as I get with some conservatives who insist on a perfect bill or nothing at all, the real problem here is the moderates - people like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Dean Heller, Lindsey Graham, Bill Cassidy and John McCain. They're the ones who have bought into the liberal definition of success in health care - more people "covered" by government sponsored insurance - and are too distrustful of the free market to back a real, meaningful reform.
Politics being what it is, you have to do some compromising to get a bill that can pass. I understand that. But that doesn't excuse the people who refuse to support good policy and make that compromise necessary. If ObamaCare survives, it's a Republican failure all around, but it begins with these people.
