After the Democrats worked so hard to get the Obamacare bill passed, why would they run any risk whatsoever that the repeal bill would actually pass? Under the current rules of both the House and Senate, I think I'd say the same thing even if the positions were reversed between the Democrats and Republicans.

At one point I looked up how many bills passed by the House never see the light of day in either conference committee or in an up-or-down vote in the Senate. My recollection is that it's an amazingly high percentage, about 40% of all bills passed by the House, as I recall.

On one hand, I sometimes think I'd like to see up-or-down votes in either the House or Senate on everything--with very limited debate, of course, otherwise nothing would ever get done. But I think the framers of the Constitution did have some "slow down" in mind in authorities granted the Senate. It's just that it seems the over the years the Senate has expanded their rules to the point that a majority doesn't mean the same thing as we think it does. As an example, when did "majority" begin to mean 60 votes out of 100 instead of 51?

I guess I'd have to give it a lot more study to determine in my own mind whether all those arcane Senate rules are good or bad. They're maddening at times for sure. For those favoring repeal of Obamacare, this is one of those times when the Senate rules are maddening. But the rules are the rules, and the politicians will definitely use them to their own advantage.