[robcohen]

Technically correct, the democrats were in power a few weeks before Sen. Kennedy, the vote that gave dems a supermajority, got brain cancer and thus dems no longer had a supermajority. I believe they were in power a total of 11 legislative days.

So technically yes, I guess we can blame the Dems for not fixing healthcare in 11 days.

Note: Republicans later won that seat - https://www.cp24.com/democrats-scramble-after-republican-tak...

[ckw]

A supermajority is not required to pass a bill. If the democrats really wanted to fix healthcare they could vote to lower the Medicare age to zero tomorrow.

[t-writescode]

Could you expound on how? It's my understanding that the super majority is because the republicans are expected to filibuster (almost) literally anything the democrats put on the table.

[ckw]

The filibuster is not in the constitution. Currently, the senate has adopted a rule by which debate may be closed with 60 votes. So if one side has 41 votes they may, by convention, ‘filibuster’ (which entails nothing but saying ‘we filibuster’) and the bill fails. The majority doesn’t have to accept this though, and can force the other side to literally filibuster, by ‘debating’ continuously, so as to prevent a vote. It is unlikely that this could be maintained forever, especially when the issue to be voted on enjoyed popular support. As a famous example, see Strom Thurmond’s filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond_filibuster_of...

[ckw]

I did some research and it’s more egregious than I thought: Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority, and unlimited debate is just a rule— prior to 1806 there was limited debate. So the democrats could just completely eliminate the filibuster, in any form, and pass what they choose, so long as they have 51 votes, or 50 and the Vice President.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

My preferred solution is to abolish the Senate.