|
But the 13-10 party-line vote on the bill signaled a rift in Congress
-- including between Democrats. Some liberal-leaning Senate Democrats are eager to move forward with or without Republican support, while some moderates want to hold out for a bipartisan deal. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who presided over the health committee vote, said it was more important to get a good bill than to get GOP votes. "There is a value in achieving bipartisanship but I will not sacrifice a good bill for that. That's not the goal here," Dodd said, noting that Democrats plus two independents add up to 60 seats in the 100-member Senate
-- the number needed to advance legislation. But a core group on the Senate Finance Committee -- which, unlike the health committee, must come up with a payment mechanism for the bill
-- continued to labor toward bipartisan agreement. Because it might be difficult to secure support from all Democrats, Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., insisted after daylong meetings Wednesday that a bipartisan bill was needed. "Nothing's 100 percent but I think it's virtually impossible to get 60 votes on a partisan bill," Baucus said. He praised the health committee's work but said of their legislation, "That's a partisan bill." Obama has made clear that he wants the Finance Committee to produce legislation by week's end but Baucus couldn't say whether that would happen. Finance Committee members are considering a new proposal from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that would raise $100 billion over 10 years by imposing new fees on health insurance companies.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor