I bet you reconciliation is still on the table (I don't care what Reid is saying)

[bluestateguy]

If this health care bill is killed by Senate liberals (Burris, Sanders, etc.) I think Reid, in spite of what he has said before will let the reconciliation genie out of the bottle: then we pivot Left, write of Loserman, the two belles from the South, that Nebraska senator who looks like the father on "The Wonder Years", and Sheets Byrd (who opposes reconciliation being used for something like this).

Rahm was reportedly saying in a little known blurb on CNN's website yesterday that he was pushing for reconciliation. Remember how badly this White House wants A BILL, even it now appears, a flawed bill. So if this bill fails because of angst on the Left, I will bet you that the WH and Reid will start the reconciliation process, such that we can pass what we can with 51 votes (really 50 + Joe Biden if need be). Separate insurance reforms that are not germane to the process could be passed in a regular bill, and would surely get +60 votes. A stand alone bill to bar pre-existing condition denials and rescissions would pass with 70+_votes, I bet.

[beyurslf]

1. I am supporting reconciliation now. I hope all the R's and all of the liberal D's vote against this.

Let the so called moderate middle fail.

[grantcart]

2. When Tweety pushed Ben Nelson on killing health care over abortion

Nelson simply said "Nah if it doesn't work the standard way they will just fold it into reconciliation - the bill is going to pass".

[cliffordu]

4. I missed that, good.

[RoyGBiv]

3. My questions about reconciliation ...

The current, preferred strategy among those who are actually espousing something other than a nihilist doomsday fantasy is that we attempt to proceed with reconciliation. Probably the most famous individual suggesting this is Dr. Dean. However, no one that I have seen, including Dr. Dean, has articulated the desired goal of reconciliation beyond a simplistic "something other than this" or the catch-all readdition of a "public option."

The large question, then, is what, precisely, is the goal?

Subordinate to this question are these non-inclusive inquiries:

If the goal is "true reform," using Dr. Dean's words, what does "true reform" mean?

Are the goals of true reform achievable within the constraints of reconciliation? If so, explain the process.

If the practical goal here is the reintroduction of a public option, as I suspect, what does that option look like?

Does any evidence exist that this would pass both houses in the context of reconciliation and what role will those play who otherwise support a public option but oppose using reconciliation to get it?

If a reconciliation bill including a public option does pass, but that option is of a form acceptable to 50 Senators and a majority of the House, then do we actually have a public option that is acceptable to the goal of true reform given the many other, necessary issues to make it viable have been stripped from the bill and will need to be considered later, independently, and subject to filibuster?

If a bill, any bill, does not pass either the House or the Senate, what is the next option? Or, similarly, if a bill comes out of reconciliation and does pass but is even more stripped of substance than what we have now, what then?

I have seen minor examinations of all these specific questions, usually by left-leaning to liberal economists, and none of have good answers.