Health Care BS

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has written an op-ed in the Washington Post reiterating that reconciliation isn’t a viable option for passing Obamacare:

I have the primary responsibility for budget-related matters in the Senate. So let me set the record straight … Reconciliation is not being considered for passing comprehensive health-care reform.

Why does he say this?

The reconciliation process was never intended for comprehensive policy changes. The Senate parliamentarian concluded that if legislation such as health-care reform were to go through the reconciliation process, it would come out looking like “Swiss cheese.” Some of the most significant portions of the legislation, such as insurance market reforms and delivery system reforms, might have to be dropped.

But what about the post-passage “fix”?

Even if implemented only as a “fixer” bill, reconciliation could still be used only for changes that are truly budget-related — meaning they affect revenue or spending.

That means the abortion problem can’t be fixed with this gimmick. After a few obligatory cheap shots at the GOP, Conrad goes on to say that MAYBE a few SMALL changes could be made after the House passes the Senate bill:

If the Senate bill can be further improved with changes made through a small “fixer” reconciliation package, we should do so.

The main problem still exists, however. The changes the House Democrats want are not “small.” Many want abortion funding to go away. And others want to add the public option and get rid of the Cadillac tax.

Reconciliation can’t be used to do those things, and thus the House will never pass the Senate bill. That means Obamacare is dead.

UPDATE:

The Washington Post has retitled the Conrad op-ed since I wrote this post. At 9:52am, the published title of the Conrad’s piece was “Reconcilation is not an option for health care reform.” Some time in the afternoon it was changed to “The role for reconciliation.” I guess the original title was too honest.