Corker On Obamacare Replacement: Why Put It Off For Three Years?

With the government shutdown entering its second week with no end in sight, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., center is questioned by reporters as he walks to join fellow Republicans at a weekly policy luncheon in the Senate... With the government shutdown entering its second week with no end in sight, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., center is questioned by reporters as he walks to join fellow Republicans at a weekly policy luncheon in the Senate, Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2013, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) seemed to be leaning toward a strategy to repeal and replace Obamacare simultaneously Tuesday, something that is being pushed by House conservatives in the Freedom Caucus.

“Why would we put off for three years doing what we know we have to do?” Corker told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

While Corker said he still wanted to hear from Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was scheduled to meet with senators shortly after Corker spoke to reporters, he openly wondered whether waiting three years to replace Obamacare could create political problems down the line.

When asked explicitly if he had any problem with the House Freedom Caucus’ call to work on repeal and replace at the same time, Corker said he didn’t. He warned the only hazard would only be “getting Republicans to agree on what the replacement is.”

“It doesn’t seem to me that it would really take that long to come up with a replacement and so that is the debate. Are we better off through reconciliation, ending it in three years and then working toward that? You know that is a long time. Momentum can get lost. Or are we better off on the front end right now just replacing it and being done with it,” Corker said, emphasizing again he was looking forward to hearing from Pence on the issue.

Pence was on Capitol Hill Tuesday to huddle with Republican senators at their weekly caucus lunch.

Over the last two weeks, it seemed that Republicans in the House and the Senate were beginning to coalesce around a strategy to repeal Obamacare immediately using the budget reconciliation process, which only required 51 votes in the Senate. Then, Republicans proposed a long three-year transition period to figure out the replacement.

The problem with that strategy is that some health care experts have warned it could disrupt and severely cripple insurance markets still involved in ACA and hurt beneficiaries still on it. The other issue is that Republicans will likely still need Democrats’ help to come up with a replacement and pass it. If Republicans start with repeal, it could poison the well down the line. Working on repeal and replace simultaneously may make Democrats more willing to get involved to fix President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

“You really do have to have 60 votes to replace and you know reconciliation can create some hangover effects as we’ve seen with the health care bill itself and with the Bush tax cuts and all of that so are you better off going ahead and attempting to put something in place that will work that does away with all the negatives that exist in ACA, but builds on some of the positives?” Corker asked. “Again, President-elect Trump mentioned, I thought wisely during the campaign, that replacement and repeal should be done simultaneously.”

Corker said he met with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the chairman of the HELP Committee, on Monday about the best steps forward.

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. why wait? let’s take this baby out and see how fast we can crash and burn!!!

  2. Republicans have spent so much time demonizing PPACA and electioneering on it to figure out what they would ever do if they actually got into a position to repeal the law. They obviously hate the law and want to get rid of it but they don’t have damned clue how to do it and not suffer politically for it because repealing it is going to kill people. I doubt that they are even all that concerned about coming up with a plan for any other reason than to avoid the political fallout that will inevitably come with it.

  3. “Why would we put off for three years?”

    That’s a great question. Other than that it would put off the carnage until after the mid-terms, I can’t think of a single reason.

  4. Get the 60 required GOP votes. Simple. Stop talking and start repealing.

  5. Avatar for dorado dorado says:

    they can’t come up with a replacement plan because the ACA is all republicans’ ideas to preserve the private insurance market against government public options, single payer. obama brilliantly stole the plan knowing that the GOP would oppose anything he did just to spite him. that’s why they couldn’t come up with an alternative in 7 years and are kicking the can down the road in hopes of returning to the way it was before. at least that way they can save face instead of giving that “n*****” credit.

Continue the discussion at

16 more replies


Avatar for system1 Avatar for george_c Avatar for butlerknights Avatar for brooklyndweller Avatar for sysprog Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for jloomis3 Avatar for inversion Avatar for drriddle Avatar for jjrothery Avatar for lastroth Avatar for dorado Avatar for neal_anderthal Avatar for jcblues Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for gajake Avatar for j_from_texas Avatar for jacksonhts Avatar for overthefall96

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: