No worries, the least reliable witnesses…let’s just provide you with the facts

Key Periods of Obama’s Presidency Obama’s two terms saw varying levels of Democratic control in Congress, which directly impacted their legislative capacity. Let’s break it down by key periods, focusing on the feasibility of passing a single-payer bill. 1. First Term (2009–2013) • 2009–2010: Strong Democratic Majorities • House of Representatives: Democrats held a robust majority with 257 seats to Republicans’ 178 after the 2008 election (111th Congress). • Senate: Democrats had 57 seats, plus two independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) who caucused with them, giving a functional 59-seat majority. After Al Franken’s contested Minnesota election was resolved in July 2009 and Arlen Specter switched parties (April 2009), Democrats briefly held a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority until February 2010, when Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat. • Presidential Support: Obama campaigned on healthcare reform but prioritized a market-based approach (the ACA) over single-payer, reflecting his pragmatic governing style. He explicitly stated in 2009 that single-payer was not feasible given political and economic constraints, though he acknowledged its merits in theory. • Legislative Feasibility for Single-Payer: • Theoretical Possibility: With a 60-vote Senate majority for roughly six months (July 2009–February 2010) and a strong House majority, Democrats had a narrow window to pass major legislation without Republican votes, as demonstrated by the ACA’s passage in March 2010. A single-payer bill could have been theoretically possible during this period if the entire Democratic caucus unified behind it. • Internal Divisions: The Democratic Party was not monolithic. Moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats (e.g., Rep. Bart Stupak, Sen. Ben Nelson) and centrists like Sen. Joe Lieberman opposed single-payer, favoring incremental reforms. Lieberman, for instance, killed the ACA’s public option (a government-run insurance plan), a less ambitious proposal than single-payer. In the House, Blue Dogs (about 50 members) were wary of deficit increases and government overreach, making single-payer a tough sell. • Cost Concerns: Single-payer proposals, like those later estimated for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 plan ($32 trillion over 10 years per the Mercatus Center), faced scrutiny from moderates. The ACA, costing $1.2 trillion over 10 years (CBO estimate), was already contentious for its price tag, requiring complex budget reconciliation to pass. • Public and Industry Opposition: Polls (e.g., Gallup, 2009) showed only 40-50% public support for single-payer, with opposition from insurers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. These groups lobbied heavily against the ACA’s public option, and their influence would have been even stronger against single-payer, which would dismantle private insurance. • Outcome: Even with majorities, Democrats lacked the votes for single-payer due to internal dissent. The ACA, a compromise blending private and public elements, barely passed (219-212 in the House, 60-39 in the Senate) after months of negotiations. Single-payer would have required far greater party unity and public support, which didn’t exist.