Intermezzo

For a quick break from the Tales of the Delaware Water Gap, let me pose this Actual Question that I Would Love an Answer To:

We appear to be moving toward an actual vote on a health care bill, presumably based on Obama's merging of the House and Senate bills. There are many final details to be worked out, including some troubling possibilities having to do with mandates and restrictions on abortion rights, but in theory that is what committees are for. There is also a growing sense that it is a given that Congress will use the procedure of reconciliation to tie the bill to a larger budget proposal to avoid the threat of a filibuster.

SO - while I freely admit that reconciliation is a legitimate means of advancing policy, a method that's been used many times in the past, my question is this: why is (or is not) reconciliation better than bringing the final bill (whatever it turns out to be) to a vote, thus making the GOP go through the actual process of a filibuster - which is difficult, time-consuming and politically risky - rather than sitting back and letting a lazy threat do the obstructing for them?

Discuss.