I'm for reconciliation.

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:
if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues; (it does)
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions; (it does)
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure; (the bill has yet to be submitted)
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision; (it does)
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, (it definitely does) and
if it recommends changes in Social Security. (it will)

Reconciliation is a majority rule vote in the House and Senate. In the case of Obamacare, I'm against it. Why? Because when the entire healthcare system of our country is being socialized and one sixth of our economy affected, there should be SOME bipartisan support for legislation of this magnitude. There is none and for good reason. It's seriously flawed.

So why am I for it? Because once the Democrats use the "nuclear option" to pass Obamacare, a lot of them will lose their jobs. Then the Republicans will be in the majority and may very well need the "nuclear option" to roll back this fiasco.

Just a thought.