By Caitlin Taylor

Mar 20, 2009 8:44am

Will Obama Bypass Senate GOP on Health Care?

ABC News’ Teddy Davis reports: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that congressional Democrats and the Obama White House are likely to employ a parliamentary procedure – the budget reconciliation process – to win passage this year of comprehensive health-care reform, according to unnamed sources familiar with conversations on this subject. This would make it possible to get significant components of health care reform through the Senate with a simple majority, which would only require Democratic votes, rather than having to win some Republican support to get to the 60 votes typically needed in the Senate. With the Minnesota Senate race still unresolved, Democrats currently control 58 votes in the Senate. The same Wall Street Journal story reports that congressional Democrats and the Obama White House are unlikely to use the budget reconciliation process to pass cap-and-trade climate change legislation, an issue which is much more divisive among Senate Democrats than health care. As we reported earlier this week, eight Democratic senators joined 25 Senate Republicans in signing a letter urging the chair and ranking Republican on the Budget Committee not to use budget reconciliation on cap and trade. When Obama budget director Peter Orszag recently appeared on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," he said that the Obama administration would prefer not to use budget reconciliation to pass major legislation while also saying that it was premature to take the option off the table. At a Tuesday lunch with reporters, he once again left the Obama administration room to maneuver while also emphasizing that the budget reconciliation process has been used more often than its detractors like to acknowledge. According to The Wall Street Journal, reconciliation was the main subject of conversation when Orszag met with Democratic leaders on Wednesday night. One Democrat to watch is venerable West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd (D) who vehemently opposed the use of reconciliation when former President Bill Clinton tried to overhaul health care in the 1990s. It will also be interesting to watch Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has been working closely with Democratic Chairman Max Baucus on health care. Asked about reconciliation on Thursday while participating in a roundtable with reporters at the Kaiser Family Foundation, Grassley made it clear that he was taking Senate Democrats at their word that "regular order" would be followed. The Washington Post has more details on this topic — reporting that Republicans will have until September to compromise on health care, or else Democrats will use this tactic to avoid a filibuster threat. That deadline may not be quite as generous as it sounds, though, considering the August congressional recess. ABC News’ Rick Klein and Jonathan Greenberger contributed to this report.

User Comments

There comes a time when the democrates have to listen to what the people who voted them want. There comes a time when you have to tell those in opposition that they are on the wrong side of the issue and therefore will be ignored. Clearly the puiblic wants something different on Health Care.

Posted by: Thinking | March 20, 2009, 9:02 am 9:02 am

It will be interesting to see what happens. If the administration and Senate Democrats do employ this tactic, it would leave Republicans free to hang all blame for any increases in costs or decreases in quality of service on the Democrats.
There are already reports that the costs for implementing the President’s proposed changes are likely twice (or more) than his current estimates. To cover that gap, either taxes (or premiums or both) will have to go up or the quality/extent of service will have to go down.
Unless, that is, the administration decides to just print more money.

Posted by: I'm With Stupid | March 20, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am

If you think that this does not concern you because you have good insurance at your employer, you are sadly mistaken. If a government program comes along, no matter how crappy it is, there is nothing stopping your employer from canceling your insurance, tossing you into the government program and pocketing the profits for themselves.

Posted by: Nubtail | March 20, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am

Giiies

Posted by: ps | March 20, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am

you will also end up paying about 60% of your paycheck whether you use it or not. For those of you who think the gov’t can run HC successfully, go back to your home planet. They can’t do anything right. Start using your head please. UHC will cost trilions of dollars and the quality will tank.

Posted by: chad | March 20, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am

Nubtail, excatly what I was thinking. Everyone says “if you already have insurance you don’t have to worry” Ha! If people don’t believe their employers will go with the government program then they deserve Obama. I was speaking with a dr. the other day and he was telling me a little about obama’s plan. He was saying the plan Obama is modeling his plan after only allows Drs. to work 48 hours a week. Seems like a fair number but he said if you’re on call for 24 hrs. that is part of your 48. People are going to have a harder time getting in to see drs. then they do now. thats just the tip of the iceburg. The quallity of health care is going to go way down. (worse then now) When you take away competition there is no reason to try to be the best. God Bless the USA

Posted by: notafan | March 20, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am

It will be interesting to see if Obama does use this procedure. It’s the same method Reagan used for his budget, so it’s certainly been done before.

Posted by: A Dose of Common Sense | March 20, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am

I think it’s funny that any time the words “health care reform” are used, people assume that by that the Dems mean “universal health care”.

Posted by: MVP | March 20, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am

Screw Grassley (that suicide-encouraging idiot!). Let’s get on with reform!!!!

Posted by: hang | March 20, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am

“Will Obama Bypass Senate GOP on Health Care?”
=———————
What stupid question! Did he say they couldn’t vote? If anything, the American people fired some of them. Didn’t we give him an almost super majority?

Posted by: D. | March 20, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am

The Republicans have so abused the filibuster, using it almost twice as much as any Congress in the history of our government since they went into the minority, that there are few other options to get the programs the majority of Americans want implemented.
Senators representing less than 12% of the US population can filibuster legislation. That’s not protection of state’s right, that a tyranny of the minority.

Posted by: jhw539 | March 20, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am

I wouldn’t call winning by only 10 million votes a super Majority or a Blow out. Since the Population of the Country is about 303 Million to assume that only 70 million represent anyone other than that 70 million is a bit Premature. And to assume that those that voted for Obama want Universal Healthcare is assuming too much. Most Voted for him to punish the Republicans, not to Punish us all.
If you want Universal Healthcare Go to Canada, I have relatives up there that come down here for treatment. But if your poor in Canada the Healthcare is Fine as long as your Healthy….if you have an emergency and can afford it you come to America.
No one goes to Medical School to make minimum Wage, they go to school to help people and become wealthy. Take away the Money..and the Good ones will go to what ever Country will pay them the best….and then we are stuck with the Minimum wage Doctors….might as well have the guy behind the McDonalds Counter do your Surgury.
Yes I would Like a #2 Hernia…Super sized…

Posted by: Patch W Adams | March 20, 2009, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm

Nubtail: yes, but right now your employer can change providers to cut costs or lay you off to cut costs and then you’re left with less coverage or no coverage.
Then there are those who say medical decisions would no longer be between patient and doctor but by some government clerk—in many cases they are presently made by some clerk working for the insurance provider. That needs to be changed.

Posted by: George | March 23, 2009, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.