The following editorial appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Tuesday :

Congress should, if public service and integrity have any meaning, approve health care reform. The inequities in the system are legend. It is shameful that so many have no insurance.

But the effort ought to be genuinely bipartisan.

Passing a bill using reconciliation -- in which a simple majority would suffice in the Senate -- would be the opposite of that.

Yes, we know bipartisanship presumes two sides willing to negotiate in good faith, glaringly absent in this debate. And it would be comical were it not so hypocritical that a Medicare system that Republicans had long planted a bull's-eye on is now, in GOP talking points, a virtuous service falsely portrayed as being in imminent danger of demise because of reform.

That's politics, practiced crassly and cynically -- obstruction for the sake of obstruction, the public good deemed an acceptable casualty.

But we also know that many of these differences reflect genuine and heartfelt divides about the role of government.

Using the reconciliation process to pass health care reform would be just as crass and cynical as obstruction for obstruction's sake. Just as it was when Republicans employed it to pass tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush.

The Senate passed a health care measure with 60 votes in December, accomplished before the Massachusetts election whittled the Democratic majority by one vote. The House is now considering the Senate bill. If changes are made, the thought is that Senate amendments would be approved through the parliamentary process known as reconciliation, requiring 51 votes rather than 60.

We have favored changes to Senate rules that would make obstruction more difficult.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has proposed a rule change that would decrease the number of votes required to end debate, allowing a vote . He proposes that 60 votes be required at the outset, decreasing to 57 after two weeks, 54 two weeks later and on to simple majority if filibuster is still occurring. We favor that kind of diminishment as inducement for the two sides to negotiate. But we do not favor diminishing it to simple majority.

By all means, change the Senate rules so that both sides see the value in compromise. But reconciliation should be used sparingly -- and not in this case.