Is the reconciliation threat all a ruse?

[crazed_hoosier1]

Sen. Gregg (R-NH) seems to think so. (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84955-gregg-suggests-obama-may-renege-on-fixing-senate-health-bill) And he's not exactly the most radical, conspiratorial member of the Senate Republican Conference.
"They're using reconciliation to pass the great big bill," Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. "Once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House didn't care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?"
Now, this may just be Gregg stirring the pot in the House -- where a number of Democrats have expressed reticence about trusting the Senate to follow through.

But, honestly, I've never given much thought to the prospect of Senate Democrats just putting this on the backburner until some, undetermined future date. After all, going through one reconciliation fight after another only promises to continue the rancor and division....while the calendar keeps moving closer and closer to November.

For instance, some 35 Senate Democrats have already pledged to try to resurrect the public option by way of reconciliation. Well, assuming they'd even be able to do that (which I doubt), think of the potential fireworks of that deal....whether it passes or doesn't pass.

At least one of the 60 votes they got to stop debate on the healthcare reform act (Joe Lieberman's) was predicated on the insistence that the public option was dropped.

And fierce supporters of the public option will be royally pissed if reconciliation is used to amend the law, but Senate Democrats fail to put in through that way.

I think Gregg might be right: all this talk about reconciliation is just a feint to convince those House Democrats who want the Senate bill changed to pass it.

[Rolo Tomassi]

I think you are correct, Crazed. My understanding of how this will work is that the House will pass the Senate bill as is, word for word. At that point, there's no need to send it back to the Senate, and it will go directly to the President, at which point it becomes law.

Pelosi will try to overcome the fears of some House Dems by assuring them that once the bill becomes law, then the Senate will begin reconciliation and correct the problems that certain House Dems are concerned about. Therefore, members of the House will be simply taking the word of Pelosi and Reid that there will be reconciliation.

It's being reported that Senate Democrats have assured House Democrats that they will come out with a binding assurance next week guaranteeing that the Senate will follow through with reconciliation.

[crazed_hoosier1]

It's being reported that Senate Democrats have assured House Democrats that they will come out with a binding assurance next week guaranteeing that the Senate will follow through with reconciliation.

How could they make an assurance that's actually binding? What if the Senate didn't follow through on the pledge? What recourse would these House members have? Take the Senate to court?

And what exactly does "follow through with reconciliation" mean, anyway? Seems to me that could take any number of forms....up to and including "We tried, but we just couldn't make it happen....thanks for passing our bill."

Don't get me wrong: they may actually mean what they're saying right now...I just think it's easy to imagine the importance and urgency of keeping this politically-costly theater (approaching its one-year anniversary) going after both chambers have passed the bill falling off sharply.

[Rolo Tomassi]

It's being reported that Senate Democrats have assured House Democrats that they will come out with a binding assurance next week guaranteeing that the Senate will follow through with reconciliation.

How could they make an assurance that's actually binding? What if the Senate didn't follow through on the pledge? What recourse would these House members have? Take the Senate to court?

And what exactly does "follow through with reconciliation" mean, anyway? Seems to me that could take any number of forms....up to and including "We tried, but we just couldn't make it happen....thanks for passing our bill."

Don't get me wrong: they may actually mean what they're saying right now...I just think it's easy to imagine the importance and urgency of keeping this politically-costly theater (approaching its one-year anniversary) going after both chambers have passed the bill falling off sharply.

I think you are absolutely correct. Many, if not most, of the House Dems would be betting their careers on the Senate Democrats keeping their word.

And fwiw, Representative Bart Stupak (D, Mich.) said yesterday that he has 12 Dems lined up who voted for the House bill last time who have pledged that they will NOT vote for the Senate bill if presented to them as is.