The Graham-Cassidy bill is a disaster, unless your only goal is to take money away from states that worked hard to implement health care reform and give it to the states that didn’t bother.

We haven’t discussed this but can I tell you that I’ve always disliked Lindsey Graham? He’s one of those Senators Who Can Talk to Reporters, but that doesn’t make him any less terrible.

Bret: We are never going to agree on Senators: I love Graham like I loved Joe Lieberman. He’s easily one of the best legislators in Congress today, and by far the best senator South Carolina has ever produced (admittedly a low bar). His foreign policy views are basically my own, and I think he’s always approached his work with integrity and a sense of humor.

Plus, I like what I’ve read about Graham-Cassidy. Retain a lot of the Obamacare subsidies, but return money and authority to the states to spend it according to their own health care needs and political predilections. I was really struck by a terrific Op-Ed in our pages by Philip Klein, the managing editor of The Washington Examiner.

Key line: “Any national health care system that assumes one party will control Washington for all eternity is doomed to fail. New Yorkers would have much less to fear about a Trump presidency if the president didn’t control agencies that set policies for the entire country.”

I bet that by the time this presidency is over, your favorite amendment is going to be the 10th.

Gail: Actually I brought Graham up so we could have a fight. Now that you’re down on Paul Ryan, we need somebody to squabble over.

I’m very cynical about states’ rights arguments. Everybody — my side included — uses it whenever the federal government does something they don’t like and drops it whenever the federal government does something they love. And the founding fathers who got so wrapped up in local control were usually worried about protecting slavery.