"Congress created reconciliation procedures to deal with precisely this sort of situation"

[FourScore]

The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE

Forging Ahead — Embracing the “Reconciliation” Option for Reform
Henry J. Aaron, Ph.D.

...The idea of using reconciliation has raised concern among some supporters of health care reform. They fear that reform opponents would consider the use of reconciliation high-handed. But in fact Congress created reconciliation procedures to deal with precisely
this sort of situation — its failure to implement provisions of the previous budget resolution. The 2009 budget resolution instructed
both houses of Congress to enact health care reform. The House and the Senate have passed similar but not identical bills. Since
both houses have acted but some work remains to be done to align the two bills, using reconciliation to implement the instructions in
the budget resolution follows established congressional procedure.

Furthermore, coming from Republicans, objections to the use of reconciliation on procedural grounds seem more than a little insincere. A Republican president and a Republican Congress used reconciliation procedures in 2001 to enact tax cuts that were supported by fewer than 60 senators. The then-majority Republicans could use reconciliation only because they misrepresented the
tax cuts as temporary although everyone understood they were intended to be permanent — but permanent cuts would have required the support of 60 senators, which they did not have. The more substantive objection to the use of reconciliation for passing health care reform derives from the fact that, according to polls, more Americans oppose than support what they think is in the reform bills. It is hardly surprising that people are nervous about health care reform. Most Americans are insured and are reasonably satisfied with
their coverage. In principle, largescale reform could upset current arrangements. If public perceptions of the intended and expected effects of the current bills were accurate, democratically elected representatives might be bound to heed the concerns. Because the perceptions are inaccurate, reform supporters have a duty to do a better job of explaining what health care reform will do. When participants in focus groups are informed about the bills’ actual provisions, their views become much more positive. The prevailing views have clearly been shaped by opponents’ misrepresentations of the reform plans, which supporters have done little to rebut. Opponents have described as a “government takeover” plans that would cause tens of millions of people to buy insurance from private companies...

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp1001616.pdf?ssource=hcrc

[bluestateguy]

1. I didn't know that Henry Aaron got a Ph.D. after his baseball career

Good for him!

[FourScore]

2. kick