The Word of Bowers You don't have to agree with me, just accept I'm probably right.

Much ado about nothing

Health care reform is the hot topic in the news right now, and it has been for many months.  Both Democrats and Republicans agree (for the most part) that the current system is broken, but they can't agree on how to fix it.  Nowadays, the big issue is whether or not we're going to see a public health insurance option.

A good number of Democrats, including the high-profile ones (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) support a public health care option.  Some more-conservative Democrats and all the Republicans oppose it.  It's unlikely that Democrats in the Senate will be able to get the "magic 60" votes needed to end debate and vote on a bill containing a public option.  Well that ends that.

Not so fast, my friends.  That's where the term "reconciliation" comes into play. 

Here's a quick primer on reconciliation, courtesy of Keith Hennessey:

1. It only is meant for bills dealing with the budget-related items and germane amendments.  Senator Reid instructed two committees last spring to create a bill that reduces the federal deficit by $1 billion over the next five years.  (Which, as we've learned over the last year, is a drop in the bucket for the federal government.)  A carefully-worded health care bill could achieve this, even if some don't agree with the method for reducing said deficit. 
2. Only amendments "germane" to the bill may be included.  In other words, a health care bill using this procedure cannot include unrelated amendments.  (An example of a non-germane amendment would be the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act being inserted into the defense spending bill.)
3. Debate is limited to 20 hours. This is the big one.  When a bill is introduced normally, debate can continue until 60 senators vote to end it.  Unless all the Democrats are in unison on a health care bill (which  they won't be), it can be filibustered until it's dead.  This means you only need a majority (51 votes) to pass the bill, which is more-feasible.

It's a good idea if you really need to pass something without 60 votes.  It's a bad idea if you're trying to promote bi-partisanship.  Arlen Specter threw around the idea several months ago, and he's recently said he would only support it as a last resort to pass a bill with a public option.  Republicans, as you can imagine, are already threatening a revolt if that happens.  Take Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R., Tenn.) comments, for example:

"They either don't know how to operate in a bipartisan way or don't want to operate in a bipartisan way," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). He warned that if Democrats use a parliamentary tactic called reconciliation to push through a bill by a majority vote in the Senate, "there'll be a minor revolution in this country." 

Here's my thought on this: so what?

If you're a Democrat, and if you're absolutely sure that a bill with a public option is best for America and the only way to really reform health care, why not pass a bill through reconciliation.  Then, when everyone's happy and insured, you can say, "We took a big risk to get this for you.  My opponent did not have your best interests at heart.  Vote for me." 

And if you're a Republican, it can work the same way.  If you're so sure that a public option is going to fail, let the Dems pass it through reconciliation.  Then you can say, "My opponent and his/her party did not have your best interests at heart, they didn't improve health care, and they sacrificed bipartisanship to do it.  Vote for me."  Then you get elected/re-elected, you probably get a majority, and then you can fix health care the way you think it should be fixed. 

I have some thoughts on health care, but I'll save them for the jump; this post is getting long enough already.  Click on if you want to read them.