|
... as, technically, reconciliation is a different procedure than Conference Committe/Conference Report voting to create a uniform bill for both the Senate and the House to pass.
Reconciliation is a budgetary vote special rule, apparently. It can only be used for passing budgetary legislation (the technical details of what constitutes budgetary legislation vs. generic legislation I leave to your imagination... as I'm getting too tired to produce a florid guess just now). Since Medicare is an already established program... apparently extending it to everyone, rather than solely providing it as an option to those 65+, would be a budgetary matter. As such, reconciliation could be used... and would only require 51 votes, with no filibuster option available to the "minority".
On the other hand... the Senate bill, in its current form, or in a form that includes a Public Option, or even the form that included a Medicare buy in to go with recission regulations, etc. ... is not budgetary in nature, and so can not be passed under the rules of Reconciliation. Thus, the filibuster is very much an option. And, even should the Senate pass a huge steaming pile of Lieberman shit bill, and then try to "fix it" in the process of the Conference Committee's production of a Conference Report... wherein they try to produce a "hybrid" bill between the House and the Senate versions... the problem is that the Senate can then filibuster the Conference Report, just like they are currently filibustering the Senate bill... and as there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do this if the Conference Committe produced a Conference Report version of the bill that didn't conform to the Steaming Pile of Lieberman Shit that eventually might pass the Senate... the idea of the Conference Committee "fixing" the bill turns out to be a pipe-dream...
Hence, when the OP seems to mean to mention the Conference Report, but refers to it as "reconciliation"... I chose to run with the mistake and use it, technically correctly, but not in line with the meaning intended, to point out the reconciliation possibilities of just extending Medicare to all... largely in order to entertain myself... and at least to some degree because I'm a bad human being who was enjoying taunting a BS OP...
:+
|