Waking, Ignorant Speculation on Health Care's final 2010 Vote

Pre-Script (March 26):

Since I wrote of my speculation (below), revisions to the new health-care-reform law await the president's signature to become part of this new law-of-the-land. The question I raise in my speculation can now be amplified by two more questions:
 

Did the Republicans blunder in the Senate when they voted "No" on revisions which remove from the health-care-reform law "favors" that citizens across the political spectrum found objectionable?

If they did blunder, then they blundered again when, by parliamentary maneuver, they forced their House colleagues to vote "No" a second time on these revisions. If they were once correct in their assumption that opposing health-care legislation gave them political advantage: 

Did they blow to the four winds whatever advantage they might have claimed by trying to defeat improvements rather than attempt to take credit for causing them?

=======================================

My March 22-23 Speculation

After watching late into Sunday night the House of Representatives pass the Senate's health-care-reform bill (to send to the President) and then pass the House's own proposed changes (to be sent back to the Senate), I awoke yesterday morning to a speculation. Perhaps there are pundits out there already voicing the same thoughts. I suppose I could posit my speculation as an argument, but I doubt my own I.Q. with regard to the mentality of the body politic as well as for the tactics of politics. Instead I share the speculation in form of question.

Ignoring for the span of this post and my morning wake-up the possibility that Senate debate on reconciliation of the health-care bill will bog down with proposed amendments and points of order, 
I speculate on a straight vote for the package as it comes from the House. I describe the speculation most easily by stating it as a question. 

Do not Senate Republicans have more reason to vote for reconciliation than Democrats? 

As I write, the once-Senate bill has become law-of-the-land. The Senate will not vote on whether there will be health-care reform, only on its revision. If reconciliation fails to pass in the Senate, health-care reform remains in place in the form intended by a 60-percent majority of the Senate and ratified by a majority of the House. This is in perfect conformance with the constitution and the traditions of the Senate.

Thus, a "No" vote will appear to reaffirm the new law which includes the  "Cornhusker this," the "Gatorade that," the "Bismark this," the "Vermont that," and perhaps other "bad" things that Republicans have condemned and House Democrats hope to remove. 

Each senator who votes "No" will abandon credibility in coming months and elections when attempting to criticize these items which are among the easiest for voters to understand. 

To vote "Yes" is to seize this last opportunity to remove such items from the law before it is implemented. 

If this quandary takes hold among up-for-election Republican and Democratic Senators I wonder if House Republicans will ask themselves whether, on Sunday night, they should have followed their resounding "No!" to the Senate bill with a thunderingly reluctant "Yes" on the changes proposed for reconciliation. 

Might Senate Democrats be savoring the the thought of a solid "No" on reconciliation from the Republicans as House Democrats quietly savor the reality of Sunday's doubly solid "No-No"?

Post-Script (March 26):

... now a triply solid "No, No, No."

1