The Democrats should agree to a repeal of the medical device tax

[pnwmom]

which isn't critical to the ACA, in exchange for a fix in the language of the ACA that makes clear everyone on the Federal exchange is eligible for subsidies (rendering moot any decision by SCOTUS on the case against the subsidies that it has just agreed to take).

Yes, we could instead choose to stand on our principles and take a chance on this Supreme Court. Or we could do some horse-trading.

What do you think?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Camel's nose, meet tent. nt

[steve2470]

3. +1 nt

[geek tragedy]

2. Why would Boehner make that deal?

SCOTUS is going to kill the ACA. Last thing he wants to do is stop that.

Our enemies are soulless sociopaths.

[pnwmom]

5. Maybe he wouldn't. But he is going to want to prove that he can actually

accomplish something -- i.e. pass some bills that don't get vetoed. A compromise bill accepted by both sides wouldn't get vetoed.

[geek tragedy]

7. That is small potatoes compared to killing health care

reform for the next 30 years.

Nope. Only real option is to pressure states to take over exchanges.

[shenmue]

4. No.

[Demit]

6. Everything's supposed to be revenue-neutral. Where would the $ come from?

How would you propose making up for the lost tax income? Medicare benefits?

[pnwmom]

14. They're already saving more than they expected so they don't need the small amount from this. n/t

[Demit]

15. I looked it up. The IRS reported getting $913.4 mil in 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2013.

You seem very cavalier about what is a small amount, and what's not needed. It's a 2.3% tax, not exactly breaking anybody's back, there. Whose ox is being gored by it?

[tritsofme]

8. They'd never take that deal. They'll get the medical device repeal for almost nothing.

Enough Democrats support it that it is not really a big bargaining chip.

I don't know what the demands would be, but they will seek a much higher ransom in the event of a SCOTUS ruling that cripples subsidies.

[joshcryer]

9. Elizabeth Warren would agree.

[Moondog]

10. There is no chance

the right would go for that deal. None.

[MineralMan]

11. They should "Never Give a Inch."

To quote a movie most people never saw.

[kentuck]

12. I thought this was how they were funding the program?

Is that not correct?

[pnwmom]

13. The main funding comes from the savings they get from not having to pay

hospitals and other providers for uninsured indigent patients. This is not a critical funding source and there have always been some Dems willing to forgo it.

[msongs]

16. OP presumes repubs will honor any deals they make. good luck with that nt