What if reconciliation isn't quick?

Some critics of the modern filibuster process have expressed a “bring it on” mentality towards the prospect of filibuster-by-vote-a-rama, since it would require Republicans to be physically present during their dilatory tactics, like in an old-school Mister Smith Goes to Washington filibuster. But it would also require most Senate Democrats to be present at all times, to prevent any Republican amendments from actually passing and torpedoing the deal. So under the current precedents, the vote-a-rama will last until the opponents of the bill are physically unable to continue standing up and offering amendments. The only constraints are exhaustion and shame–either the thought that eventually the minority will tire of offering amendments (after 24 or 48 hours of back-to-back rollcall votes, a chamber of septuagenarians might cry “uncle”), or the idea that once all the substantive amendments have been offered, the minority will eventually tire of offering nickel-and-dime amendments just for the sake of slowing things down…

The bottom line is this: if the Democratic leadership decides to pursue health care through via a budget reconciliation bill, they will eventually be able to pass a bill desired by a bare majority of both chambers. But in the Senate, the process will be neither quick nor clean.