The most succinct dissertation I have yet seen on the problem with passing Obamacare through reconciliation is at the link, and is a must read. I have no idea why Republicans haven't pointed out the trenchant fact that none other than Dem stalwart Robert Byrd argued against using reconciliation when Hillary wanted to pass her version, and was successful in convincing President Clinton not to use it.

The further unexplained thing about all this is why the Dems would ever vote for this through this technique. The theory is that once passed, it will be impossible to revoke, but given the political passions that would be inflamed once this plan is successful, I can't help but believe the Dems must see the real possibility that it will be revoked and then the Dems will spend a generation in the political wilderness. How many of them will hang from telephone poles is also an important question I would think should be asked in caucus.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html

Looking at this from a broader perspective, lets just face the raw political facts. This isn't about healthcare. This legislation is just a vehicle to create a huge new government entitlement program that will need huge numbers of government workers. Those workers will be dependent on the government for their livelihood, for their benefits, retirement, raises, etc., and will be all dependable Democratic voters, very much as public employee unions are today in bankrupt liberal hellholes like California. It is a brilliant plan. It has been proven successful in multiple states. To these people can be added a significant portion of normal everyday people who will now see government as the source of their needed healthcare, and whose votes can be reliably bought through political promises to massage their available benefits. Its all a simple, proven recipe for de facto Democratic control of government forever, or until the inevitable revolution. Looked at like this, it all makes perfect sense.