TPMDC

Reid: We'll Pass Health Care Reform...Sometime...This Year

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) assured reporters today that health care reform will pass...sometime...this year.

At a press event this afternoon, I asked Reid whether, procedurally or politically, he could move ahead with "Plan B," and pass a 51-vote bill to make amendments to Senate health care legislation, allowing the House to seal the deal on comprehensive reform.

"This is not a one-year Congress, this is a two-year Congress and we have had a number of extensive meetings of trying to come up with a path forward," Reid said. "We are going to move forward on health care. We're going to do health care reform this year. The question at this stage is procedurally how do we need to get where we need to go."

Not really an answer. Asked whether Reid had given her any signs that Senate could act on the plan, Pelosi dodged as well. "We're in discussions," she said.

Comments (21) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 28, 2010 2:52 PM   

Not really an answer.

I'll say. But EXCELLENT question! Keep up the good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:53 PM   

Why hold a press conference if you're not going to say anything? Go back to your cave you cowards.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:55 PM   

So, let me guess.... You expected them to tell you every little detail of their strategy, just because a journalist asked a question.

Try investigative reporting, in depth analysis. Please! Something to remind me of when we had an independent press with more energy than a slug and more attention span than a gnat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:02 PM    in reply to sunnysteve

I don't see the criticism. The reporter asks the right questions. The answers are up to the pols. If more reporters just asked the right questions these pols wouldn't find it so easy to hide.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:00 PM   

Mr Reid...going forward means exactly what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:02 PM   

"This is not a one-year Congress, this is a two-year Congress

True. However, you wasted a year already, so get cracking, Harry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:04 PM   

(I should know this, but:)

If Harry Reid goes down for the count in NV, but the Dems retain the majority... who is likely to inherit the current bucket of warm spit that is the office of Democratic Majority Leader?

Due to old-boy party loyalties, I guess, this little factoid is never discussed openly. But you're certainly not gonna tell me there isn't a short list, and that somehow this will all be dealt with, as needed, when and if that bridge is crossed? Sure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:26 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

Who would want that lousy job? Look what being majority leader did to Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Tom Daschle and Harry Reid. I doubt there's a long line for Reid's successor.

Reid beat out Dodd by one vote for the job. I bet he wish he had lost. He went from winning his last election by 25 points to on the verge of losing by 15.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:54 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Very true, and if we go back farther it kicked George Mitchell's ass, IIRC. The only majority leader to get out without flaming out in recent memory seems to have been Bob Dole, and that's only because he resigned to run for Pres in 96

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:33 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

I've heard Chuck Shumer mentioned frequently as a candidate for majority leader should Reid lose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:51 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

I would think that Durbin would be in line. I have no doubt he'd be an improvement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 4:20 PM   

But how would Durbin or Schumer deal any differently with Lincoln, LIeberman, Pryor, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bayh? All of these folks have now scoffed at reconciliation. That leaves only three. Reid probably knows that he doesn't even have the 50 for this undertaking, at least not yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 4:30 PM    in reply to felix

The real reason for having Durbin or Schumer be Majority leader is not so much that they'd be more effective (but I reckon they would be, a bit), but because their seats are fairly safe, they would have the security of being able to actually try to lead without losing reelection. Ever wonder why the GOP has had its last 3 senate leaders from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky (seats that are all still held by the GOP)? Whereas we're on the brink of having our third consecutive majority leader replaced by a Republican (Mitchell-->Snowe, Daschle-->Thune, Reid-->soon to go). Our leaders need to be from blue states.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 5:08 PM    in reply to holyhandgrenaid

Mitchell didn't run for reelection in 1994 so he wasn't defeated but still . . . that's a horrible job.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 5:17 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Fair enough, fair enough- his story is closer to Lott and Frist, except his seat was taken by the other party, whereas Lott and Frist's seats went to GOPer's Wicker and Corker, in strong Dem years no less.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 4:25 PM   

Harry basically is copping to the fact that he doesn't have 50 committed Senate Dem votes to passing a sidecar reconcilliation that makes 218 House Dems happy.

In turn, Nancy has been honest that she doesn't have 218 House Dems to pass the Senate Bill without it being cleaned up.

As much as I loath Harry, I don't see him gaming this at the moment. He'd like to pass something and move on. As would the White House. But Rahm & Co. aren't able to twist 218 votes in the House for the Senate bill. Lord knows they were trying all the way back when the Senate bill passed, and "ping pong" started getting talked about. They didn't have the votes then, and it's only gotten worse since.

I also think he's being honest when he implies he doesn't have the 50 to sidecar it *yet*. Do the match and you'll grasp it pretty fact. Lying Lien, Blanche, Mary, Ben-Ben and Senator Wellpoint wouldn't even vote for cloture of the Senate bill *now*. The sure as hell aren't going to vote for a sidecar. That's an instant drop from 59 to 54. It's not hard to find quotes out there from folks like McCaskill and Webb talking about "slowing down" and a lack of enthusiasm for reconcilliation. Drop 5 more votes, and it's dead.

Harry & Co. have done the math. They don't have 50 votes for the "compromise" that was coming out of the pre-MA negotiations.

Can things clam down in the next week or so to find those 50?

It largely has to. I think there's zero chance that if it's left hanging into March that it will pass. And then healthcare will be dead for the balance of the decade. It will incorrectly eat the blame for both the defeats of 1994 and 2010, and enough Dems will think it's a toxic subject that's best left alone. In fact, they'll flip in the other direction and join the GOP's wishlist to cut back entitlements. That's what we have to look forward to if the process fails in the next month: nothing for the balance of the decade, increasing numbers of uninsured, continuing cuts to the safety net in the narrative of "budget crisis", no stomach to even pass stand alone "populist" bills such as recision because Big Health will buy off enough to get 41 votes.

14 years between the Clinton failure and the potential failure of Obama. It's rather frightening to think of how much worse things will get in the next 14 years where this won't get touched. We also need to realize that the progressive/liberal wing of the Democratic party is dying with many of our greatest advocates, with newer Dems being corporate dems. Look at the White House, frankly. The people who led the charge this time will be retired or dead & buried before it's picked up again, and their replacements will likely be even more wedded to a system that revolves around Big Health.

We allegedly are on the 2 yard line. What people seem not to get is that there are about 2 second left, time for one play because the clock management have been piss poor on this process with no sense of urgency until it was too late. Part of that was gaming the system in the hopes of forcing the House into eating a Senate bill that was half what the one that the Obama Admin negotiated with Big Health and half what the Baucus Caucus negotiated with Big Health. They hoped by running the clock down, the House (progressives) would blink. The fatal flaw in all of it was that they didn't factor in MA, or just how big of assholes some folks like Ben-Ben and Lying Lieb would be. So you have Blue Dogs running for the hills, and Progressives who are worn out from effectively being date raped through the whole process with more ahead (such as financial reform, global warming, immigration reform). At a point they see no value in dating the Senate and the Admin anymore. :/

John

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 9:21 PM    in reply to toshiaki

Damn fine post. By my count 6 Senate Dems have already publicly said they either oppose reconciliation or don't want to do it. Those 6 are Bayh,Lieberman,Nelson,Lincoln,Landrieu and Webb. I think Baucus and McCaskill are doubtful too. That's 8 out of 59. My guess is that Reid himself doesn't want to do it and some other Senate Dems have privately voiced their opposition to reconciliation to Reid. House Dems are right not to trust the Senate. I don't trust 'em either anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 4:53 PM   

Pelosi is taking advantage of Reid's weakened position to demand a reconciliation simple majority fix. She is using this issue to force institutional reform down the throat of the US Senate. While I agree with her view of the Senate, I do not think it is right to use this issue to play out a political drama. HCR is too important to millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans and to the Democratic Party's survival itself. Pelosi has it within her power

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 5:29 PM    in reply to Khyber900

Pelosi has it in her power to what? Pass the Senate bill as is in the House?

She's good, but not that good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 6:20 PM    in reply to Khyber900

Someone needs to force the senate to do something. The club for continual reelection has no desire to do anything real this year. Frankly this is the biggest problem in congress, everyone votes to get reelected thus why real reform never survives. Be nice to see some real leadership and do what is right and not politically expedient.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 6:16 PM   

Is this before or after Reid finally pulls his head out of a very dark place. Frankly I hope he loses this november, then maybe the dems will find a real leader. But then again, maybe not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on