Reconciliation: resolution without resolution

It seems that after numerous statements by Republicans that they aren't going to support any real effort at health care reform, Democrats are slowly coming to the idea that Republicans aren't going to support any real effort at health care reform. See? All it takes are 60-70 well placed kicks to the gut and groin area before the Democratic leadership realizes it has a problem in the gut/groin area. Who said they weren't perceptive? It even turns out they're starting to formulate a plan around this opposition and, surprisingly enough, it doesn't involve taking the fetal position, shrieking like a wounded animal, and hoping the GOP either takes pity or walks away in disgust.

Senate Democrats said Sunday that they were fleshing out plans to pass health legislation, particularly the option of a new government-run insurance program, with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes that would ordinarily be needed to overcome a filibuster.

After consulting experts in Senate rules and procedure, the Democrats said they were increasingly confident that they could legislate creation of a public plan in a way that would withstand challenges expected from Republicans.
...
In the last week, Democrats have begun to talk openly of using a procedure known as budget reconciliation to pass a health bill in the Senate with a simple majority, assuming no Republican support.

Ahh the reconciliation process, in which a problem is deemed a budgetary matter and thus rendered unfilibusterable. But there's a hitch: a Senate parliamentarian will have to look over the bill and will have the ability to throw out provisions and policies that aren't deemed strictly budgetary matters. That is, unless the Senate Democrats appoint a crooked parliamentarian who allows them to put whatever they want into the bill under some loose definition of the word "budgetary". But as doing this would fit under the definition of "devious", "cunning", "underhanded", and, worst of all, "beneficial to the American people", they will probably not attempt this type of GOP-esque maneuver.

So the question remains: what would a reconciliation type health care bill look like? Ezra Klein of the Washington Post looked at the possibility and came to a few conclusions. Namely that it won't work for comprehensive health care reform, but that it will result in the removal of Health Insurance Exchanges, insurance market reforms, and prevention and wellness, modernization, delivery system reforms, not to mention no public plan. What you do get is the ability to get more people into government programs that already exist, like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and the ability to levy taxes to pay for it. In other words: another way to make a minor or negligible step forward. Just remember to thank Democrats for their ability to not even get their caucus to stick together on the general idea of "not filibustering something". At the end of the day, it'll be the single biggest reason nothing substantial gets done.