If Ryan's goal were to pass the most conservative legislation he thinks could pass, he would have taken the time to work things out and not rammed through this Obamacare lite fiasco.
What is your basis for agreeing with his being reckless and trying to pass a very bad bill?
I think the timeline wasn't his, but I also think he thought this was the best bill that had a chance of passing.
What happened was that hard-line conservatives insistent on nothing less than full repeal attacked it from the right, Democrats attacked it from the left, and the real bits of gold in the bill --elimination of the business and individual mandates, and block granting of Medicaid -- were too controversial for anyone but hard-line conservatives to celebrate publicly. And they were mostly lined up against it. So without major allies, it lost the PR battle very quickly.
The basis for saying Ryan should have been able to hammer things out (again, with TIME) is HISTORY. I doubt you believe that this is the first Congress with strong egos.
Honestly, I think history supports the idea that major change (both passage of and repeal of ObamaCare) is
extraordinarily difficult. Democrats have been trying since the 70's to get some kind of National Health Insurance (as it was called back in the day) and the closest they could get -- after
40 years -- was ObamaCare in 2016. Generally, legislation is incremental, not revolutionary. So I think history backs up claims that getting everyone on board to eliminate a major entitlement program (which has never happened) is extremely difficult.
But Presidents and Speakers haven't always failed this miserably.
I'd agree that if nothing else happens with ObamaCare from now until the midterms, then it would be a failure. But if some of the folks involve reassess their positions, maybe something gets done and it won't be a failure. But it is worth nothing that we've never repealed a major entitlement program -- ever. So if we manage even to repeal just the "entitlement" portion of ObamaCare, it would be huge.