What is needed for health care reform: all Dem members need to oppose filibusters

The real way to get things done is that there needs to be a commitment by all members of the Democratic caucus, including it's two independent members to oppose any filibuster, even if they themselves oppose the bill under discussion.
That means that Joe Lieberman and conservative Dems like Ben Nelson would have to agree when it comes to health care. Also, Senator Kennedy would need to be ready to fly to Washington in a moments notice to vote, no matter how sick he was.

The Byrd "bath" rule prevents new policy from being included in reconciliation without 60 votes. The "public plan" would be considered new policy I believe.

that to you when they are back in the majority? Like ramming through tax cuts. Or maybe 50% think Prof. Gates should sit at the back of the bus. 50% plus 1 does not rule this country and the minority has a voice for a reason.

If so, if they can reach 60 votes (which I hope doesn't come to pass), then I am OK with them using their power, since it was given by the people of the US and would be consistent with the rules of the Senate.

Since the Dems have 60 votes now, that means that the will of the people is strongly in their favor at the moment. Progress means that sometimes a minority of the people of this country are disappointed. Lots (millions) of conservatives were very disappointed with the passage of Medicare and Social Security in years past.

Actual minority "rights" are protected by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights (and some amendments giving the right to vote to those initially denied), which prevents the creation of some types laws leading to the "tyranny of the majority." So they couldn't create hypothetical laws like the one you gave as an example "to make Professor Gates move to the back of the bus."

However, when it comes to legislation, even 60 or 70 or 80 votes means a substantial minority's viewpoint will be ignored.
The 60 vote Senate filibuster rule is completely arbitrary (it was once 2/3 which would be 67 votes) Where should the cutoff be? 100 votes to pass anything? That's not workable and nothing would happen at the Federal level.

An "up or down vote" (which the Republicans used to love so) on health care, not a procedural dodge is what America deserves.