And, should the Democrats succeed: the result will enjoy no political legitimacy.

And you didn’t come up with an example which would rise to that level. You mentioned CHIP, but ignored the fact that I had already mentioned CHIP myself (from Hatch’s article) as an example of reconciliation being used when a bill enjoys broad, bi-partisan support.

Nice job on the smoke and bluster, though.

From WSJ:

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion.

http://tinyurl.com/ygemkxk

This is simply pathetic desperation to pass what Americans don’t want.

Actually all health care reform has been done through reconciliation and several controversial measures have been as well. I’m not saying he isn’t a hypocrite but its stupid to point fingers at Democrats for doing it when Republicans have done it before. Everyone does it, there is no moral high ground on the issue. I am personally sick of each side trying to act like a victim in the fight.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985

NPR did a story on the issue and found several times when reconciliation had been used for health care like with passing COBRA, CHIP and few other changes.

WRONG.

Health care costs for all citizens are not part of the government budget. The ONLY things that even remotely qualify in that regard are Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, which apply only to a certain subset of citizens. Health care costs in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases are borne by private businesses and private citizens.

Chad just gave away the point of ObamaCare — it is to put ALL health care costs in this country under the purvey of the government. The delusional Obama Party is coming at this from the standpoint that the government is the only entity that should own or control health care in this country — and therefore reconciliation would be meaningful.

The rest of the things in this bill — price controls, punishment of insurance companies, forcing insurance companies to do the government’s bidding — have nothing to do with health care costs for the government. They have everything to do with nationalizing health care and putting everything involved at the government’s control.

I figured you’d run away forever, after the drubbing you got here.

This article sums up the issues with reconcilliation. I know you never read the original post in your previous comments, nor the links provided, but please try to follow along here.

the problem, as i see it, isn’t the reconciliation process itself. rather the problem is that the conditions under which it’s used are too ambiguous. assuming that ILC is right, and reconciliation cannot be used to make non-budget changes, what kind of guidance does that provide to the legislature? health care costs are government expenditures, i.e. part of the government’s budget. the standard for using reconciliation is just too ambiguous.

rather than complaining, and pointing fingers across the aisle, maybe it’s time to clarify the rules on how reconciliation is used.

In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.

… at a times when the deficit, courtesy of Bush, was under $400 billion. My laugh of the day.

And Republicans had no problem using it when they were the majority in power

DER – Are you claiming that Republicans had no problem using reconciliation to ram through sweeping (non-budget) changes that were terribly unpopular with both the Senate minority and the American people, over the objections of Robert Byrd who helped invent the process?

If so, kindly provide us with an example. Orrin Hatch couldn’t find one the other day, so if you pull it off, you will be smarter than him.

On the (few) occasions when the Republican leadership pushed the boundaries, let’s say, of reconciliation, let’s say, it was on measures that had bipartisan support, i.e. broad support from the Senate minority. Or as Hatch puts it:

For example, Congress used reconciliation to carry welfare reform in 1996, which ultimately passed with 78 votes. And when reconciliation was used to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program that I authored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 1997, the program got 85 votes…

So please substantiate your suggestion or implication that the Republicans did anything comparable to what the Democrats are now planning.

I honestly think its unfair to say He is anymore hypocritical than any other Senator or Politician has played both sides of the fence of the issue.