“Well, I thought we'd immediately turn attention to tax-reform, but House members approached me over the weekend with their fresh ideas as to how to bring this bill back to the floor, so I contacted Speaker Ryan because I think their proposed amendments are yuge.”

Inasmuch as all Republicans have been damaged -- acutely and chronically -- by what didn’t occur when the AHCA was crucified on a Friday, it is necessary for cooler heads to resurrect this legislation ASAP.

Instead of playing the blame game and/or awaiting the implosion of ObamaCare, it’s preferable to reformulate the latest working hypothesis and to eschew engaging in passive-aggressive behavior that arguably could satisfy short-term political goals… but could easily backfire because the forces to “fix” rather than to “replace” would potentially be nurtured.

Indeed, on Friday’s Fox News Special Report, Dr. Charles Krauthammer suggested that this defeat could yield enactment of a single-payer system within a decade, for it may never again be possible to roll back a perceived entitlement.

History must be made, therefore, by invoking the “inner statesman” residing within all those who inhabit D.C., for the libs will otherwise, predictably, feel empowered to gloat forever and passage of President Trump’s agenda will be impeded.

Before detailing a reformulation of the task at hand, it is necessary to note rock-solid areas of agreement, particularly dissolution of the mandates/taxes: “The Republican bill would have replaced the Affordable Care Act, known informally as Obamacare, which mandated that almost everyone have health insurance, with a system of age-based tax credits to purchase health insurance plans. The Republican bill would have repealed tax penalties for people who go without health insurance, rolled back federal insurance standards, reduced subsidies for the purchase of private insurance and set new limits on spending for Medicaid, the federal-state program for more than 70 million low-income people. The bill would also have repealed taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act on health insurance providers, manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices, and many high-income people. The bill would also have cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood for one year. Mr. Ryan said the bill included ‘huge conservative wins.’ But those provisions were ultimately not enough.”

Yet, overnight Thursday, Freedom Caucus members inexplicably “rejected Trump’s offer to strip a key set of mandates from the nation’s current health-care law. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon trooped up to Ryan’s office to make the case personally, warning recalcitrant conservatives that the only alternative would be to accept the ACA as the law of the land. By evening, leaders adopted the proposed change [leaders] had rebuffed earlier, eliminating the law’s ‘essential benefits’ that insurers must offer under the ACA in an effort to reduce premium costs. Those benefits include covering mental-health treatment, wellness visits, and maternity and newborn care, and states would have the option of adding them back next year.”

Indeed, an e-mail distributed by Tea Party Patriots on Friday was highly problematic: “It failed to repeal the core elements of ObamaCare, the insurance company mandates: Guaranteed Issue, Community Rating, and Essential Health Benefits.”

This was shocking because [1] -- Guaranteed-Issue wasn't a prominent discussion point for weeks (and is well-liked by the public, for it greatly simplifies eligibility), [2] -- Community Rating was collaterally damaged when Mandates were mercifully killed (with HHS Secretary Price eliminating anything residual that continues to twitch), and [3] -- Trump conceded all 10 basic benefits overnight (vide supra).”

And when, Friday  a.m., the “moderates” in the Tuesday Luncheon Group (led by Charlie Dent) rebelled, Trump provided a financial, nonprocedural sweetener that didn’t conflict with what had been ceded on a silver-platter to the Freedom Caucus: “a six-year delay in repealing a 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax on high-income Americans who earn above $200,000 if filing individually, or $250,000 if married and filing jointly. By keeping the tax in place, GOP leaders could provide an additional $15 billion to the states to help cover treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues, as well as maternity and infant care.”

Although obviously not privy to serial whip-counts, the reasonable observer would conclude that the tabulation in the (latter) 40-member conservative bloc would exceed the tabulation in the (former) 50-member liberal bloc, for Ryan would be more apt to be empowered to invoke his longitudinal personal relationships to attract “moderates” with whom he had agreed in many other contexts.

Thus, Trump correctly claimed he was up to a dozen votes short, a gap that could easily have been bridged by Reps. Meadows, Jordan, Brooks, Massie, et al, just as long as -- in the process -- they refrained from emitting toxic rhetoric en masse.

That he ostensibly targeted Dems was a cover, for he also noted problems related to “loyalty” and friction that had antedated his inauguration (referring to how the Tea Party movement felt it had been taken-for-granted by the RINO-leadership for a half-decade).

Thus, he telegraphed awareness that the primary hurdle was to provide the Freedom Caucus one last morsel of “concession” that would allow it to save face “for the good of the nation” and to flip accordingly.

How might this battleplan be implemented, recognizing the mutual-dependence that those who wish to problem-solve must now be attempting to salvage?

First, it must be recognized that the transition from being a “party of ‘no’ “to a governing legislative/executive entity necessitates appreciation of the need to pass a “replacement” bill that both “repeals” and provides a reality-based transition toward restoration of the free-market that Obama has planned -- so far successfully -- to destroy, as had been predicted by those who had warned insurer “flies” against being attracted toward the federal “spider.”

Second, it must be recognized that this can be achieved by pouring everything envisioned to be included in “Phase III” into the current “Phase I” bill, for conservatives would otherwise invoke concern that Wimpy would abscond with a hamburger “today” without providing reimbursement come “Tuesday.”

Third, it must be emphasized that empowering states to discern how to deliver optimal Medicaid coverage efficiently was contrary to the Progressive meme that one must always measure success by how much money is expended, undermining the claim that the needy would be suddenly set adrift.

In this regard, focus on 50-65-year-olds would undermine how the “fake” media have framed the challenge, for [1] -- these are not “elderly” (invoking imagery of Medicare recipients being tossed into a gulch), [2] -- accommodations could be made to ensure premiums were capped among unemployables (and perhaps made income-related), and [3] -- a growing economy is anticipated to chip away at the number of such vulnerable employables during upcoming years.

Presaging these observations is the fact that Ryan had included in his changes providing $95 billion for additional subsidies/support for lower income and or elderly, correcting an oversight in the original bill by means-testing accessibility of tax credits that would be provided to middle-income people receiving Medicaid-expansion supplements ($75K limit for individuals and $150K limit for families).

Recalling the rubric that, twice daily, a broken sweep-hand clock correctly conveys the time, the anti-Ryan discussion on Saturday’s Breitbart Radio (between Messrs. Neil McCabe and Matthew Boyle) that aired at 10:40 e.d.t. was interrupted by precise corroboration of what we wrote a week ago, namely, that [1] -- the Byrd Rule can be “swept away” by a majority senatorial vote, thereby negating reconciliation-based constraints and, therefore, [2] -- the current bill should contain all the “goodies” envisioned to be enacted subsequently (e.g., interstate competition, purchasing groups).

In fact, as part of last-minute negotiations, “Trump promised… he would support an amendment in the Senate that would repeal ObamaCare’s essential health benefits. That pledge, which also included a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), lawmakers said, was enough to bring on board a key conservative, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Conservatives have been demanding the change to these rules, which mandate what insurance plans must cover. By repealing them, conservatives say, healthcare premiums would be lowered.

Too few have recognized this prospect, despite feverishly-placed ‘phone calls placed to all offices of Freedom Caucus members this past week (who accepted input from nonconstituents) plus to leadership (who didn’t hide behind voice-mail), although it was mentioned tangentially by people such as Rep. Trent Franks (watch @ 3-minute mark).

It is inappropriate to fault Trump, for his HHS Secretary immediately had embarked on composing the AHCA after confirmation.

Contrariwise, it is tempting to diagnose “pontification” by previously principled people who placed perceived personal interest and petty politics above patriotism and the party’s priorities.

The GOP cannot punt, for its fracture -- and the angst of those who have depended upon its capacity to perform -- must be healed, no matter how it was created and promulgated, for “Let not the search for perfection become the sworn-enemy of achieving the good.”

And we must ignore strategically-released, short-term impediments such as the “17% approval” polling that served only to embolden critics at both sides of the political spectrum, despite the fact that this could have been easily overcome by noting that ultimate cost-savings existed (regarding the budgetary-effect).

This applies also to the adverse CBO report, noting that its prior projections were askew and that the whole idea of empowering private insurers is both [1] -- to reduce the number of people who depend upon government insurance, and [2] -- to allow people to decide not to buy insurance.  

One final observation is in order, if only to note how receptive Trump remains: the accuracy of the above-quoted “corrupt newspaper“ articles explains why he called both newspapers, the NY Times and the Washington Post, risking subsequent adversely-spun phraseology.

Those who claimed to have come to “praise” the AHCA instead of trying to “bury” it, they must be reminded that the Ides of March have passed… and that Trump isn’t role-playing Caesar.

For a crucial component of deal-making is walking away temporarily... while not burning bridges.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., is a political activist and Richard A. Baehr is the Chief Political Correspondent of the American Thinker.