The American Action Network PAC aired a bunch of ads on basketball games tonight congratulating Republican members of Congress for voting to repeal Obamacare. Here's my artist's conception of Obama's response.

Pete Souza/The White House via ZUMA

Meanwhile, Rep. Joe Barton (R–TX) earns quote-of-the-day honors for this explanation of why, after Republicans had unanimously voted to repeal Obamacare repeatedly over the past six years, they couldn't get it done this time:

Sometimes you’re playing Fantasy Football and sometimes you’re in the real game. We knew the president, if we could get a repeal bill to his desk, would almost certainly veto it. This time we knew if it got to the president’s desk it would be signed.

LOLOLOLOLOL. And Trump himself comes in a close second:

I’m a team player....It’s very hard when you need almost 100 percent of the votes and we have no votes, zero, from the Democrats. It’s unheard of.

Unheard of! LOLOLOLOLOL.

If you want to know why Trumpcare failed so disastrously, here's a big part of the answer:

The process toward passing Obamacare began on March 5, 2009, when President Obama convened a "health summit" with various players in the health care industry. It finished 383 days later, on March 23, 2010, when he signed it into law.

Trumpcare began life on February 16, 2017, when Paul Ryan released an outline of what a Republican bill would look like. It was abandoned 36 days later, on March 24, 2017.

And this doesn't even count the fact that Democrats had been seriously debating and designing health care policy for decades before Obamacare was born. Republicans had never gone much beyond the debating point stage. But policy matters: detailed, messy, real-life policy that makes compromises in order to produce something that works and has the support of all the stakeholders. The problem is that Trump isn't used to that kind of thing. Ezra Klein points out today that, in fact, Trump isn't a very good dealmaker. That's true, and it's something I've written about frequently. But he also says this:

In Trump’s past jobs, he could simply move on from failed deals and find new partners, and new markets, and new sectors. But that’s not how the presidency works, and it’s not clear he realizes that.

"Take it or leave it" works only if you really are willing to leave it. Trump often is, because he can always turn around and do a different deal with someone else. But there's only one Congress. If Trump gets bored after a whole month of negotiations and gives up, there's no other Congress he can turn to. That's why Trumpcare is dead.

It's laughable watching President Trump whine endlessly this afternoon about how his health care bill didn't get any Democratic votes. Not one! The Democrats just wouldn't work with him to craft a bill! Boy, that sure makes things tough.

Needless to say, neither Trump nor Paul Ryan ever tried to bring Democrats into this bill. It was purely a Republican plan from the start, and neither of them wanted any Democratic input. That's just the opposite of Obamacare, where Democrats tried mightily to get Republican buy-in, and still ended up getting no Republican votes in the end. Not one!

Anyway, Trump's plan now is to wait for Obamacare to implode and then Democrats will have to do a deal. I guess it hasn't occurred to him that he could do a deal with Democrats right now if he were really serious about fixing health care. But no. Trump says he intends to move on to tax reform, because that's something he actually cares about.

In the meantime, it's very unclear what will happen to Obamacare. With so much uncertainty surrounding it, it's hard to say how insurance companies will respond. They might give up and pull out. Or they might stick it out and wait. It's pretty close to a profitable business now, so there's probably no urgency one way or the other for most of them. And anyway, somewhere there's an equilibrium. Having only one insurer in a particular county might be bad for residents of that county, but it's great for the insurer: they can raise their prices with no worries. There are no competitors to steal their business, and the federal subsidies mean that customers on the exchanges won't see much of a change even if prices go up. In places where they have these mini-monopolies, Obamacare should be a nice money spinner.

April will be a key month, as insurers begin to announce their plans for 2018. We'll see what happens.

POSTSCRIPT: It was also amusing to hear Trump say that he learned a lot during this process about "arcane" procedures in the House and Senate. Like what? Filibusters? Having to persuade people to vote for your bill? The fact that the opposition party isn't going to give you any votes for a bill that destroys one of their signature achievements? Reconciliation and the Byrd rule? I believe him when he says this was all new to him, which means he never had the slightest clue what was in this bill or how it was going to pass.

Well, that's it. Obamacare repeal has failed. The House will not vote on the Republican health care bill.

So what's next? The first thing, of course, is for Trump to insist that he bears no blame for this. Possible candidates for being thrown under the bus include Paul Ryan, the Freedom Caucus, Democrats, Obama, and illegal immigration.

But what's next after that? This is the depressing part. From a partisan perspective, I imagine the best bet is to sabotage Obamacare as much as possible and wait for it to fail. Then Trump can say that he was right all along (isn't he always?) and now we really have to do something.

But there's also the perspective of what's best for the country. If Obamacare repeal can't pass, the best bet is to work on making Obamacare better. This could be done fairly easily, since it's mostly tweaks that are needed. There are even deals to be made here. Democrats would probably be willing to give Republicans some things they want (tort reform, expanded HSAs, etc.) in return for modest changes that would make Obamacare more stable (higher penalties, tweaks to the subsidies, funding the risk corridors, etc.).

But that's a fantasy. There's little chance of anyone in Congress these days working across the aisle to do what's best for the country.

UPDATE: And the winner is...Democrats!

ZOMG! If Hopper is even closer than this, HOW CLOSE IS SHE???

So here's where we are. Apparently things are getting worse, not better, for the Republican health care bill. More and more members of the House are publicly saying they'll vote No, and it's threatening to turn into a bandwagon. Who wants to vote in favor of a terrible bill that's going down to defeat anyway?

Paul Ryan and the rest of the House leadership is considering pulling the bill rather than suffering through an embarrassing loss, and Ryan has told President Trump he doesn't have the votes to pass it. Trump still wants a vote, though, so he can take down the names of the No voters and swear eternal vengeance on them. He's already declared war on the Freedom Caucus.

Anyway, the vote is only about an hour away (3:30 pm Eastern), and it hasn't been officially postponed yet. Sean Spicer just told the press corps that it was still going forward. Paul Ryan may know when to beat a tactical retreat, but Trump is not really a tactical retreat kind of guy. Most likely, he's going to insist on a vote no matter what. And the bill will go down.

From the New York Times:

Republican senators moved Thursday to dismantle landmark internet privacy protections for consumers in the first decisive strike against telecommunications and technology regulations created during the Obama administration, and a harbinger of further deregulation.

The measure passed in a 50-to-48 vote largely along party lines. The House is expected to mirror the Senate’s action next week, followed by a signature from President Trump.

The move means Verizon, Comcast or AT&T can continue tracking and sharing people’s browsing and app activity without permission, and it alarmed consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers. They warned that broadband providers have the widest look into Americans’ online habits, and that without the rules, the companies would have more power to collect data on people and sell sensitive information.

This kind of thing genuinely puzzles me. It's not unexpected, but I still can't figure out why Republicans are so hellbent on doing this. There's nothing particularly conservative about allowing telecom companies to collect personal information without permission. Neither the general public nor the tea party base is clamoring to repeal this rule. And there's no special reason Republicans should favor telecoms in their endless fight against content providers (Google, Facebook, etc.).

But Republicans seem to prefer a privacy free-for-all. Is this just blind opposition to something Democrats like? Part of a general attitude that big corporations should be able to do anything they want? Or perhaps it's just a realistic appraisal of the fact that Americans seemingly don't care much about their personal information:

Personally, I favor very strong privacy protections. But even a more moderate view should understand that certain industries operate core infrastructure we all have to interact with: banks, credit card companies, doctors, phone companies, internet providers, and so forth. This puts them in a unique position to collect a lot of information.

But being in that position shouldn't mean they get to do anything they want with all this information. Quite the contrary. The fact that we have essentially no choice in dealing with these folks means that privacy regulations should be especially tight on them. They shouldn't be able to share their information with anyone else except under very specific conditions (for example, blinded scientific studies), and they should even be limited in what they can do with this information internally—especially since "internally" can mean a huge number of subsidiaries and sister corporations these days.

But for now, that's off the table. Big telecoms will be allowed to do anything they want and only a few privacy nuts seem to care. Still, you can put me down among the 8 percent who aren't thrilled about large corporations all having access to information about everything I buy. It's a lonely 8 percent, but at least there are still a few of us around.

Behold Parker Center, former home of the LA Police Department and star of many a Dragnet episode:

From the collection of the Los Angeles Public Library

You can see a more recent picture here. Parker Center was built in 1955 but has been empty for years. It's also, as you might expect, the focus of yet another tedious battle from preservationists who seemingly want to save any gigantic box ever built by a notable architect:

The building was designed by Welton Becket, the prolific architect behind the Capitol Records building, the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, the Cinerama Dome and the jet-age Theme Building at Los Angeles International Airport.

Los Angeles city engineers contend that the mid-century building, which now sits empty, is seismically unsafe....The Los Angeles Conservancy disputes the city’s analysis and accuses officials of using inaccurate estimates to justify Parker Center’s demolition — something the city denies.

The battle over the building, which was named for former Police Chief William Parker, comes as city leaders push for a dramatic remake of the Civic Center, roughly 10 square blocks of government buildings surrounded by Little Tokyo, the Historic Core and Chinatown.

Who cares if it's seismically unsafe? If the city wants to build something more useful on the site, they should go ahead and do it. It's one thing to preserve houses and smallish buildings here and there, but multi-acre structures in the heart of a city should be preserved only if they're truly unique, historical treasures. The Parker Center, like the Ambassador Hotel, just doesn't qualify. It's a typical mid-century design, nicely executed, but nothing more. This kind of acreage can't be set in amber without a helluva good reason.

I wish preservationists would back off from this kind of stuff and put their energy into truly important fights. The center of a city is a living thing, and it needs to change to accommodate the needs of its residents. That's hard to do if giant swaths are declared off limits. Buildings that aren't truly iconic need to make room for the new when their time is up.

At the LA Times, David Lazarus writes about the latest in robocall scamology:

It’s the most cunning robocall scam I’ve encountered — and the fact that I’ve fallen for it more than once tells you how successful it can be. The phone rings. You pick it up and say “hello.” There’s a brief silence and then a woman’s voice says, “Oh, hi there!” She offers an embarrassed laugh. “I’m sorry, I was having a little trouble with my headset!”

....This is a new and highly sophisticated racket known as the “can you hear me” scam, which involves tricking people into saying yes and using that affirmation to sign people up for stuff they didn’t order.

Take my advice: never interact in any way with telemarketers, silicon or otherwise. Don't say "I'm not interested." Don't say anything. Just hang up. Period.

It looks like we have a final health care bill. As expected, it eliminates all of Obamacare's essential health benefits. Say hello to health care insurance that doesn't cover hospitalization! The repeal is set for 2018, so states that want to set up their own lists of essential benefits had better get cracking.

In a vain attempt to avoid headlines about how Republicans are being mean to women, the final version of the bill also adds $15 billion to the "stability" fund for maternity care and a few other things. It pays for all these changes by delaying the repeal of the Medicare surcharge on the rich. Oddly, though, this $15 billion appears to be only for the year 2020. Is this a typo? Or what?