Democrats have just had a great idea. Healthcare reform is so precariously poised that reasonable people can’t even agree whether it’s a coin flip at this point or a long shot. It’s a complicated, messy situation, fragile in the extreme.

So, hey, why not just go ahead and complicate it further?

Democratic leaders said Thursday that they were increasingly inclined to release a final health-care bill that could accomplish two of President Obama‘s top domestic priorities: guaranteeing coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans and vastly expanding federal aid for college students.

Both proposals, stuck in Congress for nearly a year, are gaining new momentum as Democrats contemplate facing voters in November without having delivered on any of Obama’s major policy objectives.

Key Senate Democrats initially balked at combining the health-reform bill with a measure that overhauls the nation’s student-loan program, but on Thursday they had warmed to the idea.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) had been one of the chief opponents because he feared the education proposal — which would free up billions in federal subsidies to private lenders as it increases funds for Pell Grants — would provoke procedural challenges from Republicans. But Conrad said the Senate parliamentarian suggested in a preliminary ruling that combining the bills could work, provided that the right balance on cost was found. “I’d say yes, we’re leaning toward it,” Conrad said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who supports pairing the measures, said Thursday night that lawmakers had made “a lot of decisions” but were still addressing several concerns related to the education bill. “We’re getting close,” Emanuel said after meeting at the Capitol with Democratic leaders.

The easy part is to understand why they’re thinking about combing the two measures. There can only be one reconciliation package per budget resolution. If reconciliation is used for healthcare alone, it can’t be used for the student-loan program (or not till a new budget resolution is passed). And the student-loan bill, like healthcare reform, doesn’t have close to 60 votes in the Senate.

So that’s where they’re coming from. What’s discouraging is what they’re thinking of, as they consider the decision, or rather — and this seems to fit Democrats a lot better, doesn’t it? — what they’re not thinking of. Conrad is worrying about procedural challenges from Republicans. Emanuel is focused on concerns that lawmakers have about the education bill. And no one, naturally, is talking about whether adding the student-loan program into the mix might jeopardize the already fragile and unpredictable legislative prospects for healthcare reform.

Four days ago, The Hill reported that combining the two was already a done deal:

Senate Democratic leaders have decided to pair an overhaul of federal student lending with healthcare reform, according to a Democratic official familiar with negotiations.

“It’s going in,” said the Democratic source, in reference to the student lending measure.

The Washington Post article quoted above suggests that may not quite be true. But Democratic leaders saying yesterday that “they were increasingly inclined” to combine the two measures could just be their way of putting up a trial balloon for a decision that’s essentially been made.

Let’s hope not, though. Because, on Monday night, The Hill also addressed the question of whether adding the student-loan program to the reconciliation bill might affect the prospects of the combined measure passing in the Senate:

Several of the Democrats who are expected to oppose the student loan legislation are centrists who could reconsider their support for healthcare reform if the two issues are joined.
[...]
An analysis from Height Analytics, an investment research firm, projected that seven Senate Democrats would vote against the student lending bill.

“We consider Democrats with the most [Sallie Mae/Nelnet Inc.] jobs in their states to be the strongest ‘no’ votes (7 Dems from PA, IN, FL, NE, VA, DE). The student lending industry is lobbying them hard and we expect to see additional expressions of concern about the [Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act],” the company wrote in a report to investors.
[...]
Centrist Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) have signaled in recent days that they would support passing healthcare adjustments with special budget rules. A spokesman for Nelson declined to say how adding the student lending provision would affect his vote.

Other centrist Democrats who could reconsider support include Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

In fact, six Senate Democrats have already written to Harry Reid, expressing their opposition to the student-loan legislation:

But the education bill is strongly opposed by some Senate Democrats, particularly those in states where for-profit student lenders are major employers. In a letter to the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, six Democrats said they disliked the president’s proposal.

“We write to make you aware of our concern with provisions of contemplated student lending reform that could put jobs at risk,” the senators wrote. “Increase our nation’s commitment to higher education funding is a priority, but we must proceed toward this objective in a thoughtful manner that considers potential alternative legislative proposals, while still delivering an equivalent amount of savings over the next ten years.

The letter was signed by Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that all six senators would actually vote against a combined reconciliation bill. And even if they did, there might still be enough votes to pass it (50, with Vice-President Biden voting to break the tie).

But then you get to the House, where the healthcare reform math is much more fragile. And thoroughly uncertain. No one seems to be at all clear how many votes there are in the House for just the healthcare package. Without any clear idea whether there is even a safety margin, are Democratic leaders really going to risk messing things up by tossing in student-loan reform into the mix?

Put like that, it sounds like a no-brainer, right? So here’s the really depressing part—Democrats may not have any option. Enter stage left, the most murky character in American politics, arcane Senate rules:

The Senate parliamentarian notified Democratic leaders that, in order to meet the reconciliation requirements, both the Senate health and finance committees would need to produce $1 billion in deficit savings each over the next 10 years, Conrad said.

With health care alone, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would not be able to show the items within its jurisdiction save at least $1 billion. By inserting the education package, the committee would satisfy the reconciliation instructions, Conrad said.

Isn’t that just dandy? It might not even be possible to do a reconciliation bill for just healthcare reform. Democrats may have no choice but to make a healthcare and student-loan stew.

(This, apparently, is what the Washington Post story finessed when they said, in the first excerpt above, “provided that the right balance on cost was found.” I’m not sure if I find that mor e incredible or more irresponsible.)

***Update, 11:34 a.m.***

I was alerted by my friend SB that not many Democrats had opposed SAFRA when it was passed by the House in September, so that folding student loan reform into the healthcare reconciliation bill may not jeopardize its passage in the House.

In fact, it looks like only one Democrat healthcare “yea” might be turned into a “nay”:

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for SAFRA when the bill passed the House in September by a vote of 253 to 171, with just nine Democrats opposing the bill or not voting at all. But at least one of the Democrats who opposed the bill — Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania — was among the Democrats in the narrow majority of 220 who supported the House version of the health care legislation in November. In explaining his opposition to the student loan bill, Kanjorski argued that the legislation would take away jobs that Sallie Mae had created in his district. (Critics note that Kanjorski is also among the leading recipients of Sallie Mae’s campaign contributions.)

David Dayen argues in FDL that “If Kanjorski is the deciding vote on health care, and he says to toss the student loan piece out, out it goes, not to return until at least next year.”

It may not be quite so simple, though.

By all accounts, House Democrats are having a devil of a time figuring out how many votes they actually have in the House for the current healthcare reform proposal. It may turn out that they do not have a very accurate count at the point when the decision has to be made whether to fold student loan reform into the healthcare reconciliation bill, or not.

In that case, would they gamble that Kanjorski isn’t the deciding vote on health care, only to find later that unfortunately he is? Or would they play safe and not fold it in? In which case, what happens to the requirement that the HELP Committee needs to show that items within its jurisdiction save at least $1 billion?