Daniel Henninger had some thoughts in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal on this group’s first 100 days; read the whole thing. I’m interested in one aspect of the No-ers’ first 100 days that Henninger was too polite to say out loud. Henninger pointed out
Back in 2016, Speaker Paul Ryan and the House leadership held public hearings, conducted negotiations inside the House conference, and published texts of the proposed legislation to repeal and reform ObamaCare. The American Health Care Act that emerged from this process had both a political and policy purpose.
Its political purpose was to create a bill that could survive the House, survive the Senate, survive a conference and make it to Mr Trump’s desk to fulfill one of his and the party’s biggest political promises.
The policy purpose was to lay a foundation on which Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and his SWAT team of reformers, such as Indiana Medicaid specialist Seema Verma, could help Congress clean up the rest of ObamaCare over the next two years—moving away from the 2010 law’s 2,000 pages of legal babel and toward a market-based system.
But no (to coin a phrase).
The Freedom Caucus rose to say none of these pieces of the president’s legislative agenda could move forward until it got what it wanted: elimination of ObamaCare’s 10 essential health benefits.
The No-ers didn’t hold out for this sort of thing during those prior negotiations. No, they waited until the American Health Care Act was before the public, hoping to extort concessions from President Trump and/or from their supposed fellow Republicans in the House.
The No-ers, with their behavior, have betrayed their own constituents by sticking them with continued Obamacare, a steaming swamp these persons have been pretending to want to get rid of.
If the Freedom Caucus of No welched on their 2016 agreement regarding health care, how can they be trusted with anything today?