It’s more than a little reminiscent of one of the final climactic scenes in 1996’s “Independence Day” as Randy Quaid’s more-than-a-little-demented character, Russell Casse, prepares to save the world by inserting himself and his fighter jet up the, um, “tail” of the alien space craft where it is going to hurt the most.

With a manic look on his face, he intones his final words on the way to heroic self-immolation: “Hello boys, I’m ba-ack!”

I speak, of course, of the latest last-ditch effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Cassidy-Graham Bill.

What is it with Republican lawmakers and health care? Do they all have investments in funeral home chains?

After multiple attempts to overturn the ACA since January 20, 2017, it was just beginning to look like cooler heads would prevail. Perhaps the issue of the ACA’s future would be debated in regular order with all its trimmings just like our nation’s founders intended – with forgotten niceties such as bipartisan debate and open committee hearings working towards a repair bill that could attract a little bipartisan support.

And then, out of right field, comes this kamikaze attempt to achieve by September 30 that which could not be achieved over the last seven years. The date is important, because after September 30 it will take 60 votes in the Senate rather than 51 to pass this bill during this session, and even the Republicans know 60 votes isn’t about to happen.

Given the timeline, the Congressional Budget Office says it won’t be able to “score” the bill (and project its cost and impact) before the deadline, which, as this is written, is just over a week down the road.

How convenient.

We are left with little more than speculation as to how this would all turn out, which is a lousy way to make an intelligent evaluation of the legislation.

The gimmick in this bill, and it is a gimmick, is that rather than administering health care on a national level, block grant funds will be made available to the states to “tailor” health care to the druthers of each of the 50 states.

Such a plan is very much in line with Republican cant to devolve more power to the individual states, with the unspoken goal of minimizing Congress’ responsibility for resolving problems of national scope.

There is, of course, a little detail built into the bill that has serious consequences.

The federal largess terminates in 2026.

For politicians interested in reelection, 2026 is as far away as the Rings of Saturn. For the rest of us mortals, it is no further away in the windshield than 2008 is in the rear-view mirror.

Under this bill, by 2026, health care will be enshrined as strictly a state responsibility. Only a fool could expect Congress to voluntarily reauthorize block grant funds to subsidize state health care costs for another extended term.

But as the federal money dries up, not to worry. As they scramble to find ways to fund state healthcare costs, states can take advantage of other provisions in the bill – provisions that would save them a lot of money.

The only feature of the ACA that is protected under Cassidy-Graham is the ability to keep a child on his or her parent’s insurance until age 26. Every other major provision of the ACA is either repealed outright, or heavily amended.

In practical terms, under Cassidy-Graham, states could get waivers from the feds, which is not unlikely, that could put in jeopardy the ban on refusing insurance based on pre-existing conditions. At a minimum, higher premiums for folks with pre-existing conditions would be a distinct possibility. The removal of lifetime caps on how much insurance companies will pay for any single individual is not only possible, but likely. What constitutes an “essential health benefit” could vary from state to state. Insurance companies would have the ability to charge different rates based on age alone.

And while it is only speculation, it is anticipated that more Americans would lose insurance coverage over the next few years under this plan than in any of the previous attempts of Republican lawmakers to “honor” a campaign promise they never seriously considered they would have to keep.

It is at this point I am supposed to encourage readers to contact their congressional delegation to urge defeat of this bit of chicanery, but let’s face reality.

One of our senators is newly elected. He doesn’t have to worry about his constituents for years. The other Senate seat is up for grabs, and our own U.S. Representative Todd Rokita is in a mud-slinging contest with another Republican member of Congress for his party’s nomination. The remainder of our House delegation are safely gerrymandered, and fear being primaried more than losing in a general election.

None of our folks are likely to oppose their party’s leadership on this issue

While passage of Cassidy-Graham is not a certainty, remember that the last stab at a repeal and replace was defeated by one vote only because of two persistent lady senators from Alaska and Maine, one extreme right wingnut from Kentucky, and that old maverick, John McCain.

This time around, one of the bill sponsors, Lindsey Graham, is Senator McCain’s best friend in the Senate. Moreover, McCain has said he would be guided by the position taken by the governor of his own state. The governor has come out in favor of passage.

Should the bill become law, the only realistic option available to citizens who wish the retain viable health care is to remember that whatever is done can be undone. Perhaps they should bide their time until 2018, and then issue their own life-saving Declaration of Independence: “Hello boys, we’re ba-ack!”