Couldn't the Senate use the "Nuclear Option" to pass health care?

[BigBearJohn]

The Senate has a process in place for amending rules; this process requires a two-thirds <67> vote. According to Congressional Quarterly, from 1919-1971, there were nine filibusters relating to Rule 22; in each case, there were insufficient votes to invoke cloture.

In 2005, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to end Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees by something called the "nuclear option." It is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules: (cite)

1. The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
2. At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
3. The Senate Majority Leader raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
4. The Vice President -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.
5. A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
6. A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
7. This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
8. With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the issue at hand; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.

SOURCE: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

[LiberalPC]

1. You could do it for the nominees and for issues re reconciliation in the grey area

[BigBearJohn]

2. .

[EvolveOrConvolve]

3. It's a slippery slope that would have to be navigated with care

I think in this instance, that slippery slope may very well be worth it. I consider health care reform the most important piece of legislation since FDR and the New Deal. But, some Democrats may not be able to stomach the thought that pulling the pin on the nuclear option may give the Republicans impetus to do the same thing in future years should they regain control of the Senate.

[BigBearJohn]

4. Good points