I just looked at this article on  Budgetary Reconciliation  and it seems to have nothing to do with making up. I'm not certain I completely understand it, but it seems messy. and Earlchip, you are being annoyingly -but not necessarily unreasonably- cynical. 

"Hope for the Best. Expect the worst. Life is a play. We're unrehearsed." --  Mel Brooks
 Even if the worst was to be expected, there's nothing wrong in hoping for the best. I bet even you did.

“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope.”

own

The Supreme Court determined in US v. Ballin that the Senate could change its procedural rules with a simple majority. They can hypothetically change the rules such that they are able to invoke cloture with less than the 60-seat supermajority. That would be your option 4.

As a fiscal pragmatist, the idea of a public option actually intrigues me. Normally, I'm conservative when it comes to financial issues because I often find that the private sector provides services more effectively and efficiently than public services do. I sort of resent the fact that the police department, fire department, and education system in my area are taking huge budgetary hits for the sake of paying for the mindless pet projects our state representatives like to cultivate. Not that I'm willing to cut EDUCATION away from our budget and throw it to the so-called "free market," but the point is that there are some heavy downsides to giving the government more power, and as a result, each of its services becomes less effective.

As it pertains to the public option though, it seems pretty legitimate to me to let the federal government establish a competing insurance system. With a public option you solve for all the problems inherent to private companies...which turn people down for pre-existing conditions and have exorbitant middle-man fees. I'm even alright with being forced to purchase health insurance -- I recognize the dangers of not having insurance, as well as the logistic needs of having to maintain a system like this.

The bigger question though, is how we provide a basic health care system for the uninsured. I'll have to admit, and this is pretty much a suicide thing to do at GW, but I'm a bit hazy on the ethics of forcing people to pay for health care for that select group of people. As a foreword, I'm not at all disputing the idea that "I am my brother's keeper," which is the founding idea of the Democratic point of view (the irony is its cross-application to the 'religious' Republican). It's obvious that we are responsible for our fellow Americans to a certain extent, one of the biggest examples of this being education -- you might not have kids, but you're paying education taxes because it's THAT important to us and our nation as a whole (eg democracy kinda depends on it). But going back to providing free services to the uninsured, it seems to me that it promotes rigid classism because it provides incentive for people not to rise up out of that financial position. Case in point -- my mom makes 26K a year, but because of the extra costs and taxes that come with the bigger paycheck, she is very careful not to make too much money. We can lose our government-subsidized apartment, which forces us to pay *twice* as much for rent as a result, and will really put the family in the financial crapper (back to eating rice, grits, and Kraft Mac-n-snot). Going back to the main point, these sorts of things actually -do- have an effect on social class, and it's not because people are lazy, as many opponents of welfare systems stupidly think. It's about economic feasibility and whether it's a good idea to rise up in the ranks. I don't think it's morally permissible to entice the lower class with goods aimed to keep them from rising up in the world. And yes, to pre-empt your response, I am willing to trade those goodies for continued financial hardship. Why? Because I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be poor, so I'm used to it. I also know that the best way to serve the poorest people is to provide them with a 'world class' education. Sure, not very many people will be able to get the managerial jobs that a good education calls for, assuming that everyone actually gets this education...but I am one to believe that life is a pursuit, and while the goal of it is to get someplace, the value lies in the journey. Never should you provide incentive for anyone to remain stuck, as providing health care to the uninsured does. You would be depriving them of one of the unassailable human rights that once founded this country -- the right to the pursuit of happiness. 

This entire argument of course is a broad generalization dependent on the kind of health care provided (what constitutes 'basic' health care?), whether ascending the steps of the social ladder can be made more bearable wallet-wise, and whether it will actually cost much more to provide this care to the uninsured. I don't profess to say that I can crunch the numbers and come out with an answer for you guys, and I highly doubt you could definitively do so either. So let's open the floodgates to broad speculation and ad hominem attack!

(I know you too well, GW. P.S, I'm not actually back from my pronounced GW hiatus -- I'm actually procrastinating on some homework. FUCK EDUCATION!)

*explains the value of human life using potential profits*