Senator in Bipartisan Talks Considers Dem-Only Health Bill

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Health Care

5192102One of the few Democrats working at a bipartisan compromise for health care reform said this week that he would support potential Democratic efforts to bypass Republican dissent through parliamentary maneuvering, according to reports.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said at a town hall Monday, the New Mexico Independent first reported, that he would support passing health care reform through reconciliation -- a voting procedure for budget-related items that only requires a simple majority.

Bingaman is one of six senators from the Senate Finance Committee working on creating a health care bill that could win some Republican support. Their prospects of achieving bipartisan reform have become increasingly bleak, with one Republican in the bipartisan negotiations abandoning the efforts and another telling crowds "you have every right to fear" President Obama's health care plans.

"We made a provision in the budget resolution [earlier this year] that it [the reconciliation bill] could be used to try to enact health care provisions related to health care reform," Bingaman reportedly said at the town hall. "There are restrictions to what you can include in that… but I would support it if that's the only way."

There is some debate as to whether major components of health care reform could be passed through the reconciliation process, since the Byrd Rule dictates that only budgetary items may be considered through reconciliation.

Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote the "Byrd Rule," said in a statement today that people should "stop the shouting and name calling" surrounding the health care reform debate in honor of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Now Byrd's Democratic colleagues may actually try to sidestep the angry debate through reconciliation -- which Byrd has said is inappropriate.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

57 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 57 Comments


by earlysaid August 28, 2009 12:11 AM EDT: Yes, Democrats should go on without republican obstructionists and get Health Care Reform done. The GOP wants more than anything for President Obama to fail when trying to help Americans. Democrats have been the only ones who wanted to do anything worthwhile for Americans. Democrats were the ones who made sure we now have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many, many more programs that benefit Americans of all ages. I am just so tired of hateful republicans who did nothing but enable everything Bush and Cheney did for their corporate bosses, for their wealthy cohorts and against the best interests of America.; Reply to this comment


by pasmalltown August 27, 2009 3:15 PM EDT: TO endurorob August 27, 2009 2:12 PM EDT
Come on Bob,
Let's start telling the truth, you said:

"I am just stating a fact that if the dems use it for something this big and contentious they set a precidence."

Here's your precedent:

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

"The 1981 reconciliation bill, ....in response to savings instructions mandated by the Senate, produced a legislative result that would have been impossible to achieve if each committee had reported an individual bill on subject matter solely within its own jurisdiction. By using a procedure that permitted packaging of the savings, Congress was able to consider President Reagan?s economic program as a whole, resistant to the type of special interest pressures that would have scuttled the savings if they had been proposed in piecemeal fashion."
- Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr., then Senate Majority Leader (Winter, 1983)

"..President Reagan?s economic program as a whole..." Now if that's not what you consider "big and contentious" What is?

Oh and also "The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" Signed into law by President George W. Bush on 7 June 2001.

There are other examples of how "reconciliation" has been used by the "repub" majority prior to 2008. You can research the others.; Reply to this comment


by endurorob August 27, 2009 2:12 PM EDT: pasmalltown August 27, 2009 2:00 PM EDT

This is what you said at August 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT:
"I already said i don't want it used."

The key part of your earlier post is:
"...leaves the door wide open for the repubs to use it as they see fit when they return to power."

Now I am assuming "it" is reconciliation, if I'm wrong then I mis-understand your use of the English language. It seems to me that you are implying that the "repubs", after regaining control of Congress, will use "it" as they see fit. At the very least you are implying a "*** for tat" kind of thing. So in this sense you're saying you don't want the Democrats to use it now, but if they do then it's O.K. if the "repubs" use to push their agenda through Congress when they have a majority. Sorry but that's having it both ways.......

Yes I did say that if the dems use it for something this contentious it leaves the door wide open for the repubs to use it when they regain power. That does not mean I condone it. I am just stating a fact that if the dems use it for something this big and contentious they set a precidence.; Reply to this comment


by pasmalltown August 27, 2009 2:00 PM EDT: TO endurorob August 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT - This is what you said earlier:
"I don't want it both ways. I want it not to be used. And if the dems use it on something so contentious as this version of health care reform that is unwanted by the majority of people then that leaves the door wide open for the repubs to use it as they see fit whent they return to power."

This is what you said at August 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT:
"I already said i don't want it used."

The key part of your earlier post is:
"...leaves the door wide open for the repubs to use it as they see fit when they return to power."

Now I am assuming "it" is reconciliation, if I'm wrong then I mis-understand your use of the English language. It seems to me that you are implying that the "repubs", after regaining control of Congress, will use "it" as they see fit. At the very least you are implying a "*** for tat" kind of thing. So in this sense you're saying you don't want the Democrats to use it now, but if they do then it's O.K. if the "repubs" use to push their agenda through Congress when they have a majority. Sorry but that's having it both ways.......; Reply to this comment


by endurorob August 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT: pasmalltown August 27, 2009 1:11 PM EDT

New flash - the "repubs", as you refer to them, HAVE ALREADY USED TO FIT THEIR AGENDA - as early as 1981, again in 2001, 2003 & 2005. My point is if you don't want the Democrats to use it now(for anything, including healthcare) then the idea of reconciling any piece of legislation should be taken out as a tool to getting things accomplished in Wash.,D.C. - period - neither party should use it, even as a threat to move things through the legislative process...

I already said i don't want it used.; Reply to this comment


by pasmalltown August 27, 2009 1:14 PM EDT: by mattcat25 August 27, 2009 9:46 AM EDT
"If it were up to Republicans we would be driving on dirt roads."
___________________________

I'm afraid the "bumps" in the road would be too hard on my suspension.........; Reply to this comment


by endurorob August 27, 2009 10:38 AM EDT: the74blaster August 27, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
Perhaps its time to hunt down the lobbyists and ask for our share of the money. If they do not give it to us, we simply run them out of town!

The lobbyists work in the White House.; Reply to this comment


by endurorob August 27, 2009 10:35 AM EDT: abbe91 August 27, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
"Once again,

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
.
United States: $7290
.
Switzerland: $4417
.
France: $3601
.
United Kingdom: $2992
.
Average of OECD developed nations: $2964
.
Italy: $2686
.
Japan: $2581

We are getting ripped off and it's hurting America economically."

And for that cost, an infant mortality rate worse than Cuba.

And how much of that includes all the research and development that is done in this country and is not done in the social medicine countries. And think of this. Of those countries listed, the mortality rate of breast cancer victims is less thatn 20% in only one of these countries, the U.S., as a matter of fact the U.S. is the only one where it is less than 25%. There is a good reason why our costs are higher. We, as usual, are taking up the slack for the rest of the world.; Reply to this comment

by endurorob August 27, 2009 10:21 AM EDT

mattcat25 August 27, 2009 10:13 AM EDT
We probably could if the Conservative Agenda had not wrecked our economy. HealthCare Costs have increased and will continue to increase adding to the already loss of business that we've seen.

If the HealthCare Insurance Comanies and the Oil Companies are taking all the money then, there is nothing left for Working Class Americans to be able to purchase hence, RECESSION!

There are many un insured out there that can afford their own health insurance but choose not to because they would rather spend their money on more important things like new gagdets.

Reply to this comment


by pasmalltown August 27, 2009 2:05 PM EDT: Yeah, on which planet?


by endurorob August 27, 2009 10:20 AM EDT: mattcat25 August 27, 2009 9:56 AM EDT
Let's TAX the OIL COMPANIES and Christian/Morman Churches to help pay for Healthcare.

If you are going to list Mormon why not list all the other forms of the Christian religion.; Reply to this comment