In my previous article, I discussed the GOP's need to reconsider their approach to writing the replacement bill for the Affordable Healthcare Act. They, however, chose not to listen to my and many others' advice--the health care bill presented by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is the perfect example of them ignoring their constituents. Since the bill's introduction in the House of Representatives, many problems have arisen and many continue to do so as a result of the current course of action taken by many GOP members.

The first red flag came with the Congressional Budget Office's bad rating of the bill. Under the review projected by the CBO, by the year 2026, 24 million more people would lose health insurance in the market. Also, another important note from the report is that by 2020, nearly 9 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage--that figure rising to 14 million by 2026. By the CBO's projected numbers, it is likely that the elderly and even younger adults would be affected by the GOP's new healthcare plan. The impact on these demographics could negatively affect how the bill is challenged and passed in Congress. But to further understand this effect, we need to first take a closer look at the legislative process.

According to the LA Times, the proposed House bill would worsen the current opioid crisis. States that have received Medicaid funding would see a cut by 25% or nearly $880 billion in the next ten years. That type of cut would underfund many of the programs relying on Medicaid expansion. As a result, even many GOP Senators (12 to be exact) have criticized the bill. This level of criticism could be problematic when the bill is passed in the House and needs Senatorial approval.

According to the Senate's Byrd rule, certain types of bills must pass certain tests or must go through the process of getting three-fifths of the Senate's majority vote. The provision of “do not produce a change in outlays or revenues” is just one example of how the current proposed bill fails that rule. In other words, for the bill to pass with only 50 votes, it cannot change the amount of money spent or received. But the GOP bill fails this because, for instance, it requires that Medicaid be cut, reducing the amount of money spent on the program.

Remember how I previously, said that 12 GOP Senators criticized the current bill for its radical cuts in spending? Well, if the bill does go into the Senate and the requirement is 60 votes, the legislation would need Democratic votes to be passed. But with the current bill backing partisan politics, to get the Democratic vote House Republicanswould need to compromise. But when their own party does not agree with the current bill, compromise may become difficult. So why is Paul Ryan pushing for legislation that could possibly not be passed in the Senate?

This goes back to President Trump’s initial campaign promise of asking Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare on day one. By his comments, he has forced Paul Ryan into a corner, pushing for a rushed and harmful policy. This has created a paradox in Congress in which not having legislation in the works early on may impact electors during the midterm elections. But the GOP Senators in states that are expected to be largely hit by the bill will have to fight it because it may hurt them as well during the midterm elections. So what could this mean in terms of the nation's current politics?

The GOP seems to have lost sight of what's important in order to hold onto their power, making current struggles we are seeing with repealing Obamacare a struggle of how to make a campaign promise real.The norm of elections follows the idea that politicians are constrained by their constituents. If they fail, the promise of “repeal and replace” many of those in power would lose support and thus lose their next upcoming elections. So my advice to the GOP members who are currently supporting this bill is to look at the numbers and slow down and reconsider what their real goal is.