UHC, the Public Insurance Option and Threat of Using the Budget Reconcilliation Process

[Fern]

Lately, there's been a lot of talk about the Dems utilizing the Budget Reconcilliation Process (the s0called nuclear option) to get UHC with the public option passed. But I've heard at least twocommentators on MSNBC express doubts about this. Apparently the rules are complicated, but the BRP is supposed to only be used for spending measures (taxes and appropriations).

Seems if the BRP is used the public option cannot be implemented (at least one has said that) in spite of threats to contrary.

Here's some language I found at the a gov:

The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote.

I get a few things from the above. (1) there are limitations on it's use, what they are precisely IDK, (2) to get around any limitation in the BRP rules, like attaching the public insurance option, you're right back to needing about 60 votes.

link

Anybody here know anything about this rule (or others) in the BRP making such threats pretty much ineffective - at least as far the public insurance option?

Fern