John Feehery: Speaking Engagements


Mitch Dworkin: Obamacare Should Be Repealed & Replaced Now

Posted on December 10, 2013
I thought of what could possibly be a realistic way of how to get a two-thirds bipartisan consensus in Congress to override any Obama vetoes in order to repeal Obamacare and then replace it with what it was originally intended to be. I base that premise on there is nothing more I can think of that Republicans (especially the Tea Party) want to do more than repeal Obamacare, I am very sure that most Democrats running in 2014 and 2016 do not want Obamacare (sold as a lie and badly mismanaged) to be hung around them like a ship's anchor, I think the odds are Obamacare is more than likely to fail as a system (even if there are just "losers" in it which I have heard Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other advocates of it admit because it was sold as nobody was supposed to lose), and I think it would be the right thing to do for the country in addition to being realistic for both parties. My idea is based on Mike Huckabee's excellent question that he asked Rick Santorum:

From 4:04 to 4:26, Mike Huckabee asked Rick Santorum this excellent question about Obamacare: This whole thing was supposed to fix health care for 15% of the people who did not have it. Why didn't we just carve that 15% out and create a program where we have an expanded medicaid like program where they would have access but it would not have disrupted the 85% of the people who have health care?

View the Mike Huckabee interview with former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

Why cannot serious players in Congress on both sides work out a deal for the repeal of Obamacare but with the understanding that the good parts of it stay (such as pre-existing conditions), where we "just carve that 15% out and create a program where we have an expanded medicaid like program," which will not disrupt "the 85% of the people who have health care?" Some Republicans (like Santorum in the video) may not like this because it involves a government program but they should view a thing like that which Mike Huckabee suggested as being small pocket change when compared to the huge bank account of Obamacare being repealed (as opposed to it continuing on and being mismanaged by Obama with little transparency). Some Democrats may not like doing this to Obama but they should realize that this is not about Obama, it is about doing what is right for the country (which also conveniently fits in with their own political interests for survival). Without full transparency such as anything Obamacare related being done on C-SPAN or being witnessed by a bipartisan oversight group who are free to openly report whatever they want to, I do not trust Obama with anything regarding Obamacare after so many broken promises and after hearing top advocates of it admit that there will be losers who will have to pay more to see their own doctors who they like (which is not how Obamacare was sold)!

Obama in my opinion is already a lame duck (many respected commentators believe that). The best thing I think the country can do now is to go forward and repair as much damage as possible. I think that two-thirds of Congress would probably go for what I suggested because it would be in the best political interest of both parties as I explained above (if nothing more than that)! If Harry Reid will not allow a vote in the Senate, then six Democrats can threaten him to become Independents and caucus with the Republicans on a temporary basis in order to force him out as Majority Leader so this Senate vote can happen. Maybe if Obama and Reid see this coming and realize that they cannot not stop it, then maybe they would willingly cooperate and what Mike Huckabee suggested for the 15% who need insurance can happen without the rest of the insurance industry being affected. The bottom line is that I think it is realistically possible for Obama to be made irrelevant now by two-thirds of Congress so these very serious problems can be fixed by responsible adults and it is also realistic because each party would be getting more of what they want than what they would be giving if this deal happened.


Mitch Dworkin is an Independent political consultant who lives in Dallas, Texas. He has worked on many campaigns and he specializes in research, analysis, writing, and rapid response. What makes Mitch different from some other political analysts is that he always calls things right down the middle as he honestly sees them and he will always tell people the truth as he sees it and as how he can document it even if it is not popular.  Mitch is also for bipartisanship and compromise while opposing extremism in both parties.

Mitch graduated from Rhode Island College in 1988 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science and from Bridgewater State College in 1992 with a Masters Degree in Education.  You can follow him on Facebook and reach him by email at, or by phone at 469-556-7026. Credible documentation for all of the claims in this post is available on request. Mitch never makes any claims that he cannot tangibly prove.  Please feel free to contact Mitch if you would like to receive any documentation.

The views expressed on are Mitch’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of

Subscribe to the Feehery Theory Newsletter, exclusively on Substack.
Learn More