Didn't they in the last budget put 600 billion in there for health care??
If so, why can't they just say that the parts they need are for the money already set aside
Not sure one way or the other about the first part but it only takes 1 objection to the parliamentarian to have non-budgetary items stripped from budget bills. For the most part senators don't go around doing that to each other to avoid setting off a earmark nuking shitstorm (would that someone set off a shitstorm and we could watch them nuke each others earmarks).
However, as the OP stated, "It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn’t score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill."
Without things like the mandates the costs suddenly explode far beyond the paltry $2.4 trillion now projected.
Even then all budget provisions sunset after 5 years.