Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare – IOTW Report

Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare In a simple two-page document, an Alabama congressman has filed a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare.

Or, as it is stated in the bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, introduced the bill Friday.

“This Act may be cited as the ‘Obamacare Repeal Act,'” the bill states.

And the bill uses just one sentence to do it.

“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted,” the bill states.

And that’s it – one sentence.  MORE

20 Comments on Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare

  1. I guess he doesn’t have anything else to do? Quit grandstanding and do your damn job. Write a bill that has a chance to make it to Trumps desk.

  2. Rep Jim Jordan filed a bill on March 8 (the day after Ryancare was filed) which is the same as the 2015 bill passed by the House and Senate and vetoed by Obama.

    His bill, about 2 pages long, has co-sponsors but languishes in committee. Why? No media coverage AT ALL.

    Here’s the text of the bill. Even I can figure out it repeals Obamacare by removing its mandates and funding .

  3. If it is only one sentence, how come it still took two pages?


    HOWEVER, given the self-important, professional congress, by the time it reached the President’s desk, it will be so ponderously full of useless pork fat amendments, a line of hand tricks will be needed to transport it.

  5. Trump should go after it in a different way. Take apart the components that make it work.
    Fire the people who make it work.

  6. There’s nothing in any of these Bills to ban large-capacity spoons to prevent obesity. How is any of this about Healthcare?

  7. @csteventucker – The senate changes the rules when they have leaders who want to get things passed.

    Pointing to “Senate Rules” is a look-a-squirrel deflection technique.

    The filibuster was reduced from 2/3 majority vote for cloture to 60 in 1975 (when VP Rockefeller rejected the parliamentarian’s advice and it’s only advice) and that’s how Reid invoked the “nuclear option” for executive appointments in 2013.

    Reid just declared he was changing the rules and, with 51 votes, he did.

    The Constitution only calls for a majority in the Senate except in 2 specific instances where it requires 2/3: to ratify treaties and to pass amendments to the Constitution.

    The filibuster existed in the House until the House grew so large filibusters would have lasted forever. The House did away will filibusters. The Senate did not.

    Quoting Senator Byrd said in 1979 (who made A LOT of rule changes):”The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.
    . . . .
    The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a
    majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time

  8. @PageOTurner, Reid changed the rules for Presidential appointees, NOT for passage of LEGISLATION. There is a SEPARATE rule to pass legislation with a simple majority. It’s called the Byrd rule. PLEASE learn the U.S. Senate rules because if we Conservative do not LEARN them, Obamacare will NEVER be repealed. And remember we only have 52 votes which means we do not have the votes to CHANGE Senate rules which takes 67 votes. We have enough to follow the Byrd rule and use the budget reconcilation process to pass bills and that’s precisely what we were attempting to do with the American Health Care Act. You can learn about U.S. Senate rules here >

  9. I know, I know CStevenTucker.

    I can still dream; just do it putos!

  10. @CStevenTucker – I’m afraid you’re misinformed on this subject.

    It used to require 67 votes to end a filibuster. In 1975 that was reduced to 60. In 2013 Reid used the nuclear option to end filibusters on cabinet and executive appointees (including district judges) by reducing the vote to end filibusters on those appointees to 51. Reid left the requirement of 60 votes to end a filibuster on legislation in place.

    Reid pulled the nuclear option by asking for a vote. He knew he had at least 51 so his rule change passed. He did NOT need 67 votes for a rule change.

    At the time that Reid invoked the nuclear option (also called Constitutional option because the Constitution only requires a majority except for treaties and Constitutional amendments), Democrats said that if the GOP ever had the majority the GOP would invoke the nuclear option on legislative filibusters as well.

    I don’t know why you say the Senate requires 67 votes to change rules when, clearly, Reid did it with 51.

  11. It’s Okay. Congress critters don’t understand the rules either. If they did they wouldn’t be wasting precious time with these silly one sentence bills. 1 year and 9 months left to get it done. After that there may never be another chance.

  12. This Byrd Rule is more hocus pocus nonsense to prevent others from making changes to their precious bill.

    According to the Heritage Foundation the Senate’s presiding officer doesn’t have to accept the Senate Parliamentarian’s subjective interpretations & pay particular attention to #3.

    1. The Byrd Rule’s statutory language charges the Senate’s Presiding Officer with determining whether a provision violates the “merely incidental” test.
    2. Adjudicating how to enforce the Byrd Rule in a situation where its meaning is ambiguous or silent is consistent with the Senate’s rules.
    3.If successful, doing so would simply create a new precedent that provides additional guidance regarding how to define “merely incidental” in the future.

  13. CST, has it ever occurred to you that
    1) you can be correct on all the technical aspects you cite, AND
    2) still be utterly “wrong” as to the strategic aspect of rejecting (for lack of better words) RyanCare…and that perhaps Trump had his valid reasons for (wink wink) “supporting” Ryan’s bill?

    Similar thoughts related to this bill: while having no chance of passing the Senate, it shines the spotlight on the enemy, which in itself has political currency.

  14. Still waiting for someone to tell us if those earlier 60 repeal attempts were also fraught with technical hoodoo, because the Rs didn’t say a word about it if they did.

    Moral of the story: Don’t believe ANYTHING the Rs tell you about this. They do not want to repeal this, only replace and rename it. If you haven’t figured that out yet, you are a brick.

  15. Still waiting for someone to prove to me government should legitimately be involved in managing or funding heathcare. Even though we are in the throws of a multi-tentacled evil system called Obamacare, Republicans insisting on cutting off a few tentacles and renaming the monster does nothing to stop it.
    Congress RINOS and progressives have to be pressured to completely repeal Obamacare and get out of the business of healthcare management. The market must be allowed to take over.
    Sure there’s Senate rules this Senate rules that, but the American people will not tolerate anymore versions of Obamacare, no matter who modifies it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.