And in other breaking news, Sen. Schumer announces that water is wet! Film at 11!

In the Nordic countries, every party likes and supports the healthcare system -- including conservatives. Indeed, the healthcare systems are so good, they are used to justify national pride. Success in implementing a national healthcare system, would be a huge plus for the party that achieves it, but it won't be too long until both parties claim it was their idea. Next week we may be hearing that Jon Kyl won't vote for the bill unless it has a stronger public option.

How does any of this makes any sense?

Schumer believes that there are 60 votes to pass healthcare.
But, Schumer believes bi-partisan solution is unlikely.
And so, Schumer believes Dems are ready to use reconciliation.

Hello? Which 60 votes?? It seems to me what he was trying to say was this:

We should in theory have 60 votes to pass healthcare, but - because we don't, we need to rely on bi-partisan solutions. Absent that, we'll go for the phyrric victory of getting "some" parts in. Because erm, Yes, We Can!

Single payer. Punish the Republicans and punish the insurance companies for overplaying their hand. Nothing would set a better tone for the rest of the Obama Administration than saying, "If you don't come to the table ready to deal, you and your backers get nothing. NOTHING."

Besides, everybody knows that is the most cost-effective way of providing health insurance. Plus, Medicare is only in trouble because all it has are the oldest, sickest people in the country. Widen the base of that and charge everyone a small premium and problem solved.

At the same time, with one stroke of the pen, American industry can become much, much more competitive, since all those legacy health care costs can go bye-bye. At the moment, all of our competitors give their companies what is effectively a subsidy by paying for their workers health insurance. WHY THE FUCK DOES NO ONE MAKE THIS CONNECTION!!!!

Anyone else read Schumer's book, "Positively American"?

He's a pretty smart pol and would make a great majority leader.

One fallacy that permeates this whole topic is the notion that since 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and shut down a real filibuster, then this same 60 votes in required to pass a bill in the Senate.

Nonsense. There are a number of defects in this viewpoint.

First, just because a Blue Dog does not feel that he wants to vote for a bill does not mean that he will support a filibuster against it. These are very different political decisions.

Second, bills were passed despite actual filibusters with some regularity in days gone by. James Carville argues that the Democrats should simply let the Republicans filibuster, if they can, and he is right. The filibuster is simply a delaying tactic for the loser in a political dispute. Eventually the filibuster will collapse, or the 60 votes will finally surface to shut it down. Either way, it is a big win for the Democrats.