QUESTION

[BlueDemKev]

In the past, I wouldn't expect anything so partisan and drastic such as this would ever take place, but now that the tea party controls the Republican Party, this prospect is no longer out of the realm of possibility...

If the House actually declared they would absolutely not fund any aspect of Obamacare (i.e.--not give money to set up federally-funded exchanges, no subsidies to people who can't afford private health insurance, or for regulators to confirm that insurance companies are in fact spending at least 85% of premium revenue on medical claims, etc.), what options would the Democrats have?

[steve2470]

1. unless a bill passes the Senate and is signed by PBO, the House can do as they wish

It means nothing to the ACA. The Senate, imo, would never pass that and PBO would never sign it. So, it's a moot issue. Matter of fact, the House has already voted 37 or 38 times to repeal the ACA. Boehner keeps letting the idiots have a crack at it.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. .

.

[Igel]

3. Media. 2014 elections.

Or we can be "democrats" a la egyptienne and have mass demonstrations and enough mayhem on the side to trigger having the Army remove the current "elected" government from power and install an interim appointee until the True Democrats (not those fools who are election-based ersatz democrats) can take power.

In other words, no, there's not really anything we could do. However, it would be so massively unpopular because it's so closely tied in with programs that have been running for a while and on which people have become dependent that, well, the GOTV 2014 campaign wouldn't be much of a problem.

[BlueDemKev]

4. Voter turnout in 2014 is crucial...

...had so many Democrats not stayed home in 2010, the Republicans would never have gotten control if the House, key governorships which allowed the catastrophic gerrymandering of House districts has all but guaranteed the teabaggers will control the House for years to come, and we wouldn't have lost Senate seats in WI, PA, and IL.