Hurtful GOP health plan deserves to fail

We will find out today if the self-styled great dealmaker can indeed sway a bunch of lawmakers balking about the proposed replacement for Obamacare.

We will also find out if House Republicans are any closer to a promise they made more than seven years ago to repeal and replace the health care law, which though flawed, has also helped 20 million people obtain health insurance.

And we’ll get a glimpse of the legacy of Speaker Paul Ryan, whose proposed bill addresses today’s many criticisms about taxes, mandates and unintended consequences. But Ryan’s bill also will cause millions of people — including most of the 1.7 million Floridians covered by Obamacare — to lose insurance and with it, access to health care.

At the same time, we’ll find out if President Trump has the muscle to sway lawmakers to achieve his campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. We’ll also learn if the president was serious when he promised better health care, for more people, for less. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” he told the Washington Post in an interview after his inauguration.

Unfortunately, the proposed bill doesn’t come close to fulfilling Trump’s promise. But today is less about people struggling to afford insurance and more about Trump trying to secure a legislative victory that will set the stage for his administration. For if the president cannot get this controversial bill passed, his other priorities are placed at risk.

Americans deserve better than a political calculation on this life-and-death issue. Instead of voting this week, the House should hold off for a more thorough debate and a clearer understanding of what the promised revisions would do. Members were elected to help struggling Americans. This bill does the opposite.

As of this moment, thankfully, things aren’t looking good in the walk-up to the vote, which is scheduled for tonight. At least 19 Republicans are reportedly against the bill, with another handful undecided or leaning against it. If 22 Republicans and all Democrats vote no, the bill will fail, as it should.

All week Trump has been trying to pressure wavering House members — in particular the far-right Freedom Caucus — to vote for the bill, even though it faces almost certain defeat in the Senate. Tweaks were made earlier this week to address the call to give states more flexibility in administering Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor. They include a work requirement for Medicaid recipients and larger tax credits for older Americans. But the changes do nothing to address the 24 million people — including people in a lot of states that vote Republican — likely to lose access to health care.

At his Wednesday press briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said more changes could be coming before a vote.

“The more and more members meet with the president, the more they understand how important this is to the overall agenda,” Spicer said.

Indeed, promising a replacement for Obamacare was a big reason Trump got into the White House.

But three days after his election, Trump made another promise. He told Lesley Stahl of CBS News “60 Minutes”: “It’ll be better health care, much better, for less money. We’re going to have insurance for everybody.”

Sorry, but the new proposal doesn’t come close.

If the vote takes place tonight, South Floridians will be looking at how three moderate Republicans from Miami-Dade vote.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has already said she will vote against the bill because many of her constituents would be left uninsured. Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Mario Diaz-Balart are still considered non-committal.

Trump insisted Wednesday that he will continue trying to close the deal with House members.

Trump would be better off telling House Republicans to give him a bill that closes the deal he promised Americans, reforms that “expand choice, increase access, lower costs and, at the same time, provide better health care.”

Now that would be some deal.

Instead of voting this week, the House should hold off for a more thorough debate and a clearer understanding of what the promised revisions would do.