Some ideas posted here would be a lot more credible with a list of 50 conceivable Senate votes.

Yes, 50 isn't enough for things that would get cut out of reconciliation (such as mandates and pre-existing condition coverage). But some people post requirements and/or "lines in the sand" that wouldn't even get 50 votes, let alone the 60 that might be required. I sometimes feel that out of frustration with our current political reality some people are trying to act as if we are in an alternate one.

DU is anything but objectively practical or even rationale

.... that the President support single payer, I'm gonna scream.

Reps and Senators, that's a different matter.

And a pox on anyone whining here about any of this who hasn't also taken some action beyond the whining.

A pox, I say!

(but nothing too damaging)

And demand single payer.

I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

:dem:

-Laelth

If we don't pass a healthcare bill, we will lose control of the house and possibly the Senate.

Seriously, this post is today's quintessential post living in the alternate reality that I was talking about.

They have the cable haters, but no one believes what they say.

The political climate is really very different now than it was then. In 1994, the Republican Party's approval ratings were not in the toilet. The ghost of Ronald Reagan was much more powerful then. Whereas Clinton followed Bush I, Obama follows one of the least popular politicians in American history, Bush II. Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. Obama was elected with well over 50% of the popular vote. The religious right had not completely taken over the Republican Party then. Now, Republican politicians are generally insane, reflecting their rabid base.

I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

:dem:

-Laelth

and that they have a lot of power over policy, provided that the administration has the political will use it.

Congress need not be involved- and indeed, can't do one damn thing about it without a veto proof majority.

claim that any healthcare bill currently under consideration contains "death panels."

and that other agencies could re-regulate the financial industry- or prosecute those who violate federal laws with impunity.

The FDA could effectively remove disease mongering drug ads from TV. Etc.

In addition, they can use the THREAT of doing all of this and more as a sword of Damocles to push public policy forward.

...I'd say the vast majority -- of Americans get their TV over cable, there's now very little the FCC can do about content if the channel doesn't go out over the air.

The 'in the public interest' licensure requirement applies only to broadcast. You'll notice that Fox News is only available on cable -- for a reason. Only the technical quality of their satellite uplink transmitters is under FCC purview.

as well as print media that could (and should and once were) covered by cross ownership rules... among other things.

Moreover, media ethics (and as we've seen, the lack thereof) are contagious. Put it back in one area, and it "infiltrates" the others.

What you can do without without appropriating any additional money is limited. There are dinks and dunks with things like Medicaid regulations, but to cover presently uninsured bodies in meaningful numbers, you need money. Ridiculous amounts of money, and that means Congress.

Despite some pretty egregious rulemaking. As a practical matter- it ain't gonna happen.

...on someone else's idea, that you don't much like, with people you don't much like, on behalf of people who won't notice, and when they finally notice, complain that it's too little, too late, and too expensive.

It's a miracle anyone runs for office, and not surprising that many who do are a little....odd.

Just challenge the Republicans to engage in a real on the Senate floor filibuster against a bill with a strong public option.

A filibuster won't last very long. Perhaps a few days, maybe a bit longer. If they want to tie up the Senate much longer let them accept the public wrath for being obstructionists!

All filibusters end.

And I don't think any Democrats or all Republicans will participate in and prolong a genuine filibuster.

So far the Republicans haven't even threatened a filibuster!

They don't want their bluff called or understand that if forced to engage in a real Senate filibuster it will run out of gas, sooner rather than later.

After 60 Senators vote to end a real Republican filibuster you don't think President Obama can round up 50 votes to pass a real halthcare reform bill?

If that's true, having elected a Democratic President and a huge majority in the House and Senate in 2008 didn't really mean that much in terms of changing government policies.

Single payer is a perfect example. There are not 50 Senators who even want Single Payer, let alone who will vote for it.

A perpetually-subsidized public option (that won't have to break even) is another bill that will not even get 50 votes even if we could put it up for a vote that way.

A public option that has to break even and won't be able to use Medicare rates is about the limit that will get 50 votes. That might be able to squeak by on 50 votes + Biden, or maybe 51 or 52. There are several Democrats who won't even vote for that, but that might not be enough to cause it to fail on a majority vote.

Your description of how easy it is to break a fillibuster is not accurate, and I have pointed this out several times to you. But even if (for the sake of argument) we assume that the filibuster doesn't exist, much of what people on DU think they are going to get won't even pass with a majority.

With a properly executed campaign and a mass movement behind it we could win a single payer system. In fact, with competent and effective leadership from the White House and congressional leaders (and a mass movement behind it) I think it would be easier to win single payer than a public option.

It's simple, clear, makes sense and would target the money hungry insurance industry and drug cartel.

Part of the reason I do not agree is that we have had 60 years and close to 30 Congresses that have not even passed a single payer bill through a single committee. There is a reason for that.

I agree that at a certain point, it may very well be possible to ELECT enough congresspeople to support such a bill. I'm not saying that is impossible. I just think the current slate of congresspersons would not even come close to support single payer (or a perpetually-subsidized public option).

This is something pretty new and the single payer movement will continue to grow, with or without a weak public option signed into law.