So, I've been very quiet about healthcare for a while. That seemed only reasonable, since the Democrats have been very quiet about healthcare for a while too.
I think it's important to bear that silence in mind when reading this. We should also note that whatever else he is, Harry Reid is a deeply cautious Majority Leader. It seems close to unbelievable that he would say this without the necessary senate votes, especially after how angry he reportedly was after being punked by Lieberman. It's certainly possible that he's doing this to embarrass recalcitrant Senators into doing the right thing, but I'd say that was a pretty risky move for anyone, and far more risky by what seems to be Reid's standards.
So I'm far more optimistic today than I have been since Coakley managed to screw the entire country with her disinterested, whiny petulance ("Me? A politician? Canvass support by talking to peasants in snowstorms?"). In fact, more confident than I was before the Massachusetts debacle, since I never believed the process of combining the House and Senate bills would go even remotely smoothly once it became clear that we would have to deal with Stupak, Lieberman and Nelson being pricks all at the same time. 
In other words, I think there's a case to be made that persuading 50 Senators to use reconciliation after Masachusetts might actually be easier than persuading 60 of them to just not be dicks all the time. How Pelosi is swinging this in the House, though, and how it all slots in with reports that the White House is releasing its own bill, I have no idea.
I guess we're about to find out.
 Yes, I've added Nelson to the prick file. I was willing to grant him some slack on the grounds that I could understand his objections to abortion even if I don't agree with him. Then I remembered how transparent the bribe he was given to vote yes was, though, and realised it's pretty hard to respect a man who claims abortion is murder but is willing to put up with it so long as his state gets more money. You can claim that reducing abortion is more important than saving lives and just be wrong. You can't claim reducing arbortion is more important than saving lives but less important than your state getting tax exemptions for its insurance companies.
(Incidentally, I think that article is worth reading in full. I don't know whether Publius is right or not that the bill is the most corrupt in history, but I can believe it. The problem with Publius's outrage is that in America's political landscape, any legislation above the level of fine-tuning will be either corrupt or DOA. And Citizens United means it's only going to get worse.)