IN the end, I don’t understand how the “slaughter rule” helps them. Voting for the rule will be a vote for the Senate bill. It will be reported that way, voters will treat it that way, advertising that says they voted for the bill will be deemed to be factual.
And for those with morals, they will KNOW they voted for the Senate bill, even if it isn’t a role call vote on the Senate bill.
They gain nothing.
I still don’t know how adopting a rule can, all by itself, also count as voting on legislation — in the case I’ve seen it explained, the initial rule simply established the underlying legislation as the starting point, they still voted on final legislation.
The problem then is that the Senate bill wouldn’t be “deemed passed” until the reconcilation passed the house, but the house can’t consider reconciliation until the Senate bill is signed into law.
“but the house can’t consider reconciliation until the Senate bill is signed into law”
There is no reconciliation in the house. What they are doing is putting together a bill that can be reconciled in the senate. They will pass this bill and deem Obamacare approved (slaughter solution). This is their cover. The senate may or may not get the reconciliation done but Obamacare will be signed into law.