In the hyper partisan national environment, this is seeming more unlikely every year. Especially with the Medicaid cuts coming. And red states having 2 senators.
This isn’t the community for discussion-type questions. You have asklemmy and politics communities for that.
If the filibuster is removed, it is also possible to get through with 50+VP as tie breaker or 51. The filibuster being removed is not as unlikely as you may think since Republicans right now are getting closer and closer towards defacto removing the filibuster. There currently are narrow ways around the filibuster (reconsideration is one big one) that are supposed to have a bunch of limitations, but they are testing the waters in ignoring violations of those limitations. The senate parliamentarian is the one who makes rulings about if something violates their clauses, but their opinion can be ignored by a strict majority via the “nuclear option”
A month ago, Republicans used the nuclear option to ignore the senate parliamentarian ruling that the Congressional Review Act would not allow them to skip the filibuster to remove California’s EPA waivers (see here).
As I write this Republicans are currently trying to play another different a different trick about some of the stuff in the Big Beautiful Bill. Dems have been challenging a bunch of provisions and getting the parliamentarian to most of the time rule they are in violation of the Byrd rule. But they are also trying to challenge the whole bill as violating the Byrd rule’s limit that a bill passed via reconsecration cannot increase the deficit over a ten-year period. Republicans are playing an accounting trick to claim it doesn’t. They know the parliamentarian is unlikely to agree with them, so they are currently trying to prevent dems from even being able to ask the parliamentarian about it
Only if you get a constitutional amendment that the benefits senators get is shared by the population. I.E. if the senators get healthcare the public gets the same healthcare, if the public doesn’t get healthcare then neither does the Senate.
At this point I think we’re trending closer to a universal ban on healthcare, de facto if not de jure.
Country fuckin disintegrates before we get universal Healthcare
Doubtful. Even states that have free healthcare care limit to people who are extremely under a poverty guideline of that state. Here in Wisconsin to get free healthcare you need to make like $14,000 a year or less and live on your own (somehow) or have a child with the father paying child support, then you automatically get it.
What really sucks is we all pay for it with taxes, I don’t mind if people need it, it’s kind of awesome to contribute to it. But I’d much rather pay a little more and have everyone in the state have access to it. It is THE best healthcare plan you have in this state. Everything is free. Prescription drugs are free or usually no more than $20.
I pay $800 a month for insurance (from my employer as well) and my wife’s medication went from free to $120 a month. It’s fucking stupid
No. Next question.
What you’d ideally want is a constitutional amendment to have a right to free health care, which would be even more ludicrously hard to accomplish, but would completely end this bullshit once and for all.
You still need eternal vigilance to actually defend and enforce it. See for example: Birthright Citizenship being under attack.
If birthright citizenship can be “blocked” by an executive order and now thanks to SCOTUS, there can’t be a national injunction, the next democrat president better fucking executive order gun control and a whole slew of things.
Nah fuck “Gun Control”. Red states and rural towns are just gonna ignore that and hand out guns to the far right. The time for the gun debate was 1787, now its too late, cats out of the bag. The far right already has them, the left should have them too. Hopefully the “liberals” also get armed and join the pro-freedom left side of the fight
Eventually. I’d say in 2050-2070. If the US doesn’t fall apart by then.
But if actual leftists get into congress, they could just change the senate rules and/or ignore/fire the senate parliamentarian. So only 50 seats is needed.
Or blue states can join together and create a Socialized Universal Healthcare System that all residents of those states get the benefit.
That’s a lot of work when we could just get 60 senators to stop being pricks
Again, you don’t actually need 60 senators, just 50 is enough. Rule changes to the filibuster can pass with 50 votes.
But you’re forgetting the 218 seats need in the house, and obviously also the presidency.
And they can’t just be a “Democrat”, but also have to be a "Progressive Democrat. I mean, its an uphill battle.
And of course, anything passed by the normal legislative processes can just as easily be repealed that way.
Lasting change is going to require constitutional amendment(s) to harden the democracy against bad actors.
Not as long as people keep voting for republicans and moderate democrats.
