Virtually everyone who supports health care reform, and I think Washington conventional wisdom in general, now blames Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Max Baucus, and the Democratic Party in general for taking too long to finish it off last year.   I don't think that's entirely wrong, but I do think it's massively overstated.  For example, Marc Ambinder says that part of what he considers a "perfect storm" that prevented health care reform from passing to date was "an elongated process [and] weak leadership from the White House."

There are really three issues here.  First, how long would a quick process take?  Second, was the Gang of Six a pointless delay, or a successful tactic?  Third, when did the Democrats have 60 votes?

On the first part, I think it's just wishful thinking to believe that the Democrats could have put a bill on the floor of the Senate before August recess.  The House, which had no supermajority rules constraints, wasn't ready before August recess. The final House committee reported the bill out just before the break.  Realistically, it would take a minimum (barring emergency conditions, which do not apply here) of three weeks for the House to merge the bills, get a CBO score, get a rule, and complete floor action.  The Senate would take longer.  While people did note that the president's original schedule had slipped by then, I'm aware of no reporting that attributed the delay to anything other than how long it took for Democrats themselves to reach a deal.  So let's say that, without the Gang of Six, both House and Senate might have been ready to act immediately after the August recess (had they finished all committee work before the recess and then used August to merge the bills and ready them for floor action).