Oh, I see. Well, yes, a constitutional amendment is required to allow the US government to enact universal healthcare. It's about time those who favor the Democrats realized you need to amend the constitution to allow for expanded powers.
Not what I said.
Due to the way the Senate is designed, passing a bill has to go through a process which delivers outsized influence to small states and rural, conservative voters. This is a SIGNIFICANT outsize influence. Changing that outsized influence would require a constitutional amendment, so until then we need to use other methods to get access to healthcare into the hands of the people that the rural conservative voters don’t think should have it. This means getting moderate voters to see what we mean by the benefits of access to healthcare, perhaps by an intermediate step that is not too painful or permanent, such as a public option. It is the opinion of most progressives that once people experience universal access to health care, they will embrace it. But because of all of the above, we have a very poor chance of just passing anything that leads immediately to a government-run Universal Health Care, and since the people who need it cannot afford to wait for us to unravel the detriments of the outsized legislative influence of rural conservative voters, then things like a public option are a viable path to help those people.
Sorry to be so confusing about that, hope this makes more sense.
