“they don’t have law, even when the Senate bill is signed by Obama.”
Huh? Once Obama signs the House-passed Senate version of the bill, it is LAW!!!!
True, they want to “fix” it through a reconciliation bill that amends selected parts of the new law, but there is no guarantee they will be successful, in which case the Senate bill—warts and all (cornhusker kickback,Louisiana purchase etc.)—is the law of the land. This is exactly what makes some House members very nervous. They don’t want to be on record as voting for a turkey that will enrage their constituents. If they could be ASSURED the Senate would pass reconciliation—which allegedly strips out the objectionable provisions—then there would be no need for Slaughter solution.
Well that is the issue. As we endeavored to explain, obviously not clearly enough for you, the House action doesn't operate to pass the Senate bill under the Constitution which has a fairly precise description of what Congress must do in order to make law by passing bills. The Slaughter rule doesn't make it.
The point of what they are proposing to do in the House with the Slaughter rule is to get enough of a fake to make it past the Senate Parliamentarian as a Reconciliation Bill.
The only way that would leave an issue would be if the Senate doesn't pass the House bill; or if the Senate amends the House bill and the House does not concur and adopt the amendments--in short if they don't ultimately get both houses on a yes vote on the same bill.
In that case, all they have is this rule that says they assume they passed the Senate bill and that doesn't meet the Constitutional test of what it takes to make law and thus in my opinion the courts would likely throw out the Health Care law as not having been effectively adopted. Obviously, that's only an opinion and the Judge may not agree although I think in this case, the answer is pretty clear.