During a news conference today regarding Republican obstruction of a Veterans bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters that he's confident he will be able to bring his health care bill to the Senate floor next week, after Congress returns from a brief Veterans Day recess, and then pass the bill by Christmas. But the number two man in the caucus, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) was far more cautious, suggesting that debate on the bill may have to wait until after Thanksgiving.
A reporter asked Reid whether he believes his hoped-for time line to begin and end debate on the bill is reasonable. Reid responded, "yes, and yes."
Earlier today, Reid met with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)--a key holdout on the bill, who says he'll filibuster it if it includes a public option. Reid says he's "confident [he and Lieberman] work something out."
Durbin shares that confidence, but isn't so certain about the time line.
"We do have a Thanksgiving recess, and we're hoping that the bill will be ready for all members to carefully review it during that period of time, and then when we return we can meet together and work out our differences," Durbin told reporters after the event.
That's somewhat out of sync with Reid's confidence that the bill might be on the floor next week. Durbin thinks it's possible the bill might move to the floor before Thanksgiving, but even that would be a lucky turn of events.
"Boy that would be a terrific outcome, if we could get to the motion to proceed to that vote before we leave," Durbin said.
And what about the 60 votes?
"We feel like we [have them]," Durbin said, "but until it actually happens, as the whip, I don't take anything for granted."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

dswx
November 10, 2009 12:26 PM
"Earlier today, Reid met with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)--a key holdouts on the bill, who says he'll filibuster it if it includes a public option. Reid says he's "confident we'll work something out.""
If only Reid would read Lieberman the riot act.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 10, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to dswx
How do you know he hasn't? I think Reid knows Lieberman pretty well. He certainly seems to understand that a public response only serves to put more of a spotlight on Lieberman, which is exactly what he craves. This is better worked out behind the scenes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 10, 2009 12:36 PM
I'm confident they'll work something out, too.
I'm not at all confident that what will be worked out, however, will be worth it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
November 10, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to CT Voter
me too
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 12:41 PM
I wish we knew what reid's public option was.
I mean, if it is comparable to what the House passed, and it'll do nothing to rein in premiums/costs, and limited to only a small percent of people and will be more expensive etc.
Or be farmed out to be adminstered by private insurance, or opt in, -basically -if it's gonna be a weak-good for nothing-PO, then why all the wrangling?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 10, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Why all the wrangling?
a weak-good for nothing-PO is STILL SOCIALISM!!!!!
Geez.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 10, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
MOre seriously, though. Is it possible that certain Senators offered a guarantee to certain industry folks that no public option of any sort would ever be included in the Senate version, and now said Senators are scrambling and wrangling to maintain their influence with that industry?
Sort of similar to Eric Cantor's "Not a single Republican will EVER vote for this" statement before the vote. Maybe an analgous statement was made before Reid announced that a form of public option will be included.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to CT Voter
Yes. I understand why they oppose it.
I don't understand why Reid doesn't simply drop it. If it isn't gonna effect anything, nor appease liberals and progressives, why wrangle?
I guess some will just hear Public Option and get warm fuzzies (like they do with the House bill), but my guess is those people will get warm fuzzies regardless of what is actually passed.
I tell you what, it gives me some hope that we might get better legislation out of the Senate than the house. Maybe. It could happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 10, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I guess we just have to wait to see what it is. A couple things to watch out for: (1)A poorly designed public option might satiate progressive hunger for significant change (progressives will think they won one when they didn't and forget about it); and (2) once the po turns into an uncompetitive dumping ground for the sick (with lax or ill-enforced risk adjustment mechanisms to spread risk), the right will point to it as an example of how a single payer system would work...
Someone at FDL points out the mandate, normally a good thing, spreading risk and lowering cost, is designed in this bill as a regressive tax to subsidize demand with no price caps...with the resulting profits going straight to insurers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 2:18 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
thanks. I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mc mark
November 10, 2009 1:16 PM in reply to CT Voter
good lord this is a tired strawman
you guys need to come up with some new material
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to mc mark
what are you talking about? Offer an argument. I'm going by the CBO score.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to mc mark
Oh you were talking to the good CTVoter.
There are many good arguments against this legislation. Odd that the republicans offer none of them.
Simply put, the GOP are the anti-govt party. They don't believe in it and want to kill it. If someone is anti-govt, it bewilders me why someone would elect them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 10, 2009 2:00 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I wouldn't say they're anti-government, exactly. They're just anti-any government that they don't control and that does anything that doesn't directly benefit them.
They were perfectly OK with a government that started unnecessary wars and spied on its citizens, but were completely disinterested in helping hurricane victims.
They were perfectly OK with a government that handed out billions of dollars in bailouts but couldn't countenance similar billions of dollars to create jobs for ordinary people.
They were perfectly OK with government intrusion into individual religious freedoms, sexual preferences and lifestyle choices, but don't even discuss limits on buying and selling guns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 2:16 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I'm speaking more to Reagan's often quoted:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
and the overall anti-govt sentiment of the GOP and libertarians(Govt is corrupt, the push for privatization, deregualtion).
Concerning all you mentinoned, Stealing from, and Bankrupting the govt is part of that effort.
But you're probably correct, it's about control as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 2:18 PM in reply to Indie Pro
oh, or Grover Norquist's quote about conservatives intend to starve government until they can finally drown it in a bathtub
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 10, 2009 1:27 PM in reply to mc mark
Which comment are you referring to? The socialism one?
If so, get your snarkmeter adjusted. It's not working. Obviously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to CT Voter
oh wait. Maybe mine is off too. Crap!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
November 10, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to Indie Pro
My guess is that it will be worse than the House one if it exists at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
November 10, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to Indie Pro
my guess is that it will be worse than the House one if it exists at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btbradley86
November 10, 2009 12:53 PM
Anybody else feeling fatigued by the whole damned thing?! We havent even made it to conference yet...ohhhh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
November 10, 2009 4:39 PM
The sense of urgency is underwhelming to say the least.
But what can you expect from career politicians, with inflated egos, that already have great healthcare?
As "The People", we're probably lucky they've given HCR a sideways look at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 10, 2009 8:41 PM
What if Clinton had abandon his "perfect or nothing bill" in 94 and passed something like this bill. Would it be possible that we would be making improvements to health care rather than starting from scratch?
I think history has shown that few things are really set in stone and that our laws are frequently changing and being modified. To form a more perfect union. While this may not be the perfect bill, it is the beginning. That may be one thing supporters and opponents can agree upon.
I also think that it could be the final warning to insurers to shape up or you will be thrown out. They could get just enough rope to hang themselves. If they continue to bully the people, then the single-payer hand will be forced. Maybe I'm just seeing the glass half-full.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
November 10, 2009 10:04 PM
I don't know how it wouldn't go Harry Reid's way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?