Despite Judge McConnell's concerns, which are textually well founded, there is a way that "deem and pass" could be done constitutionally. There have to be two separate bills signed by the President: the first one is the original Senate bill, and the second one is the reconciliation bill. The House must pass the Senate bill and it must also pass the reconciliation bill. The House may do this on a single vote if the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill says that by passing the reconciliation bill the House agrees to pass the same text of the same bill that the Senate has passed. That is to say, the language of the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill must make the House take political responsibility for passing the same language as the Senate bill. The House must say that the House has consented to accept the text of the Senate bill as its own political act. At that point the President can sign the two bills, and it does not matter that the House has passed both through a special rule. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House can determine its own rules for passing legislation. There are plenty of precedents for passing legislation by reference through a special rule.

I have not looked at the text of the reconciliation bill, so I don't know if the current language is sufficient to meet the test described above, but this is what would have to happen.

The structural constitutional reason for this requirement is that members of the House must not able to avoid political accountability for passing the same bill as the Senate. The point of bicameralism and presentment is that all three actors (House, Senate and President) must agree to the legislation, warts and all, so that all three can be held politically accountable for it. They cannot point fingers at the other actors and deny responsibility for the policy choices made. The House cannot say, "oh we didn't pass X; that was the Senate's decision." If the House doesn't accept the same language as its own, even if that language is then immediately changed in an accompanying bill, there is no law.

Speaker Pelosi is trying to give House members a way of saying they did not vote for the Senate bill, but my point is that however much she and they may be trying to do this rhetorically, she and they can't really do this politically and constitutionally. They have to take responsibility for what they are doing and the language of the bill has to say that they are taking responsibility. This is the point of Article I, section 7.

This is a stealth attempt to create a secret ballot and hoodwink the public.

It's Obama & Co. uber alles. Alles meaning Pelosi who is protecting Obama and her House Reps who are for or agin' and she is limiting transparency by permitting a pass at open voting.  After all she wants those or agin' to get elected?  With these tactics.

Stop talking about proceedure. No one is interested. It's the net result of political thuggery and for a bill of this magnitude deeming it is insulting and rancid.

There will be a price to pay for this dirty dirty business.

The convoluted proceedural rules of congress are being pressed out of the administrations desperation. Obama announced early on that he stakes his presidency on this bill. Really?

Obama sold us out with big Pharma, with private Insurance, and with limiting women's right to choose. Obama's behavior has been evasive and he's  lied about his positions.   Actually he's struck deals to the contrary early on. This is sneaky, evil, and wrong from every point of view.

This proceedural trickery and secret balloting is just one more low point of cowardice and  fear Obama & Co have elicited from Democrats.