US Healthcare Bill.

[Don]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/he...alth.html?_r=1

The Ny Times (13 Dec 2009) reported that Sen. Lieberman has told Majority Leader Reid that he will not vote for the bill as long as it expands Medicare and and contains any new government insurance plan.

Additionally Sen. Ben Nelson (D. NE) will not vote for it as long as it provides for abortion.

"In interviews on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Nelson said the bill did not have the 60 votes it would need in the Senate."

[Rick Maxwell]

America is by no means ready for the level of socialism that exists within Europe. Religion and tradition is strangely more prevelent within the United States. I feel sorry for the millions perishing due to the short mindedness of the middle class. But with health the Middle Class (who get insurance through there work in most cases) feel the level of health care would dip with any government intervening. They are just not ready! Relitively speaking the US is in its infancy, maybe one day but i do not see congress or the house of rep swollowing this pill. its the middle class that sways the votes. Trade Unions comparitively do not have much say, as they do within this country. And for our social reform the trade unions headed the majority (Outside the early work from the Liberals of course).

[Tantal]

America is by no means ready for the level of socialism that exists within Europe.

Thankfully, you're right. Hopefully, our people will never accept the bondage that the Europeans have sold themselves into.

Religion and tradition is strangely more prevelent within the United States.

Yes it is. Let's hope it stays that way.

I feel sorry for the millions perishing due to the short mindedness of the middle class.

Millions perishing? Your data is extremely flawed.

But with health the Middle Class (who get insurance through there work in most cases) feel the level of health care would dip with any government intervening.

And they're right. The government screws up almost everything it touches.

Relitively speaking the US is in its infancy

You are correct here as well, but we're also in decline. Our citizens have realized that they can vote themselves greater and greater benefits from the public treasury, which will be the downfall of our republic. We'll probably be a dictatorship within the next 50 years.

maybe one day but i do not see congress or the house of rep swollowing this pill.

Let's hope you're right. May all Senators and Representatives who vote for this abomination be punished mightily at the ballot box in November.

[Rick Maxwell]

You are obviously displaying a sterong view againstover governance of the us. Which is with such a large country with such diverse people (and the traditions they have) a difficult policy to implement. However the europeans live longer than the yanks. France has one of the best health services in the world. Britain does not. I think the us could do with a bit of government intervention.

[Tantal]

I think the us could do with a bit of government intervention.

Every time the government intervenes it screws things up. Besides, life expectancy isn't the sole criteria used to determine quality of life, or the quality of a health care system for that matter. Our life expectancy is shorter because we work more, leaving us less time for exercise, we eat like crap, smoke, drink, and use illicit drugs too much. No health care system can overcome that. Further, I'd rather kick off at 75 as a free man than to linger on until 78 as a slave to the government. I've accepted the fact that this body that I currently inhabit is going to crap-out eventually. I don't demand that my fellow citizens have their hard-earned wealth confiscated at gunpoint to keep it going any longer.

[Rick Maxwell]

i seriously do not think that the americans drink nor smoke more than the french, or have a higher quality of life. Paying higher taxes for the assurance that you are going to be taken care of from the craddle to the grave is a price worth paying. I tell you right now, i would not swap my system for that in the US. My standard of living comparitive to my earnings or class is very high. And the people who earn alot pay alot, but they still reap the benefits for their hard work, or luck or inheritence wherever it may lie.

[Tantal]

Paying higher taxes for the assurance that you are going to be taken care of from the craddle to the grave is a price worth paying.

A slave that's well cared-for is still a slave. I want no part of it.

[Rick Maxwell]

A slave that's well cared-for is still a slave. I want no part of it.

Of cours ethe US has alot to teach us about slavery. 20% tax is worth the gains thats for sure

[Tantal]

Of cours ethe US has alot to teach us about slavery. 20% tax is worth the gains thats for sure

Slavery is just as evil now as it was then. What was once the 'master' is now the 'state', what was once the 'whip' is now the 'check'. Our government keeps its citizens in-line through economic coercion. Sure, they can tax me, but I work as hard as I possibly can to ensure that I'll never have to depend on the government for ANYTHING!

[Rick]

The vast majority of Americans don't want obozo's socialist healthcare. It's a rationing system like the NHS.

[Kiwi 1691]

The vast majority of Americans don't want obozo's socialist healthcare. It's a rationing system like the NHS.

If you actually think that, you are so brain dead that you should be Euthanized. I know I should be lenient since you are brain dead but his name is OBAMA, it really isn't that complicated.

The US health care system could only dream to be compared to the NHS, the NHS provides some of the best health care in the world. The health service in the USA is bloated, overly expensive and under performing.

If you still wish to defend one of the worst health systems in the western world rick then checkout these.









http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_...007/AR2007.pdf

[Midas]

The US health care system could only dream to be compared to the NHS, the NHS provides some of the best health care in the world. The health service in the USA is bloated, overly expensive and under performing.

Dream as in nightmare? "......bloated, overly expensive and under performing" - you mean exactly like the NHS!

[Kiwi 1691]

Dream as in nightmare? "......bloated, overly expensive and under performing" - you mean exactly like the NHS!

The numbers I have seen put health care costs per capita in the US at about twice that of countries like the UK. Plus the standard of healthcare provided in the NHS is quite good.

[Don]

I came across this excellent article from the New Yorker magazine. A good discussion of health care costs in the U.S. vs. quality of health care received. Focuses on the cost vs. quality in McAllen, TX which apparently has the highest costs in the nation. The article was also reprinted in Lapham's Quarterly issue "Medicine".

Interesting read.

“The greatest threat to America’s fiscal health is not Social Security,” President Barack Obama said in a March speech at the White House. “It’s not the investments that we’ve made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It’s not even close.”

The question we’re now frantically grappling with is how this came to be, and what can be done about it. McAllen, Texas, the most expensive town in the most expensive country for health care in the world, seemed a good place to look for some answers.

McAllen, Texas and the high cost of health care : The New Yorker

[Midas]

The numbers I have seen put health care costs per capita in the US at about twice that of countries like the UK. Plus the standard of healthcare provided in the NHS is quite good.

I've never said that the general standard of NHS care isn't good; in fact in some areas it's excellent, however the fact remains that it's not as good overall as its private equivalent, and by any standards it's expensive, way over-staffed and slow to respond to changes - like pretty much any nationalised business in fact.

[pauli007001]

The numbers I have seen put health care costs per capita in the US at about twice that of countries like the UK. Plus the standard of healthcare provided in the NHS is quite good.

That is the price of a system that works and has no government imposed rationing of care.If quite good is acceptable for you, then go with it and the waiting lists and the attitude of the staff etc etc etc......

[Kiwi 1691]

That is the price of a system that works and has no government imposed rationing of care.If quite good is acceptable for you, then go with it and the waiting lists and the attitude of the staff etc etc etc......

What about the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford Health Insurance?

Silly question, we all know Pauli hates them because the fact that they have little money means that they are extremely lazy.

Pauli, I would love to see your comments on the graphs I posted. Or are you very quiet because they make the NHS look rather good.

Also don't forget, that in the UK you have the option of good private health care or good public health care. If you don't want to wait for the NHS, and you have the money you go private.

[pauli007001]

What about the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford Health Insurance?

Silly question, we all know Pauli hates them because the fact that they have little money means that they are extremely lazy.

Pauli, I would love to see your comments on the graphs I posted. Or are you very quiet because they make the NHS look rather good.

Also don't forget, that in the UK you have the option of good private health care or good public health care. If you don't want to wait for the NHS, and you have the money you go private.

I dont hate anyone, never said i did, i just cant see how anyone can expect me (and other workers) to work themselves into an early grave so that others may enjoy a life of ease and comfort, not mentioning longevity that we will not enjoy, why is the life of a lazy irrisponsible individual worth more than a person who does the right thing?
Easy job=low pay.
Hard job= good pay
Simple!!


In the UK you do not have the option, if you want private care you have to pay extra for it, you still have to pay for the NHS, this is not acceptable.

I will look at your graphs, i think i have seen them before (if they are the UN ones) and commented, the NHS looks good because one of the criterea(availability to all) actually means RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT, in the USA the uninsured are never refused care, those who tell you that are liars.Also a medical bill cannot be applied against a credit report for potential home purchases etc.I repeatedly post this point and you rationed health care fanatics who would wish an NHS style system on the American people(who you despise, mm perhaps therin lies your reasoning) Ignore it.

I will look and laugh at your propeganda( graphs and charts) when i get a chance, in the meantime i will continue to work harder because millions on welfare depend on me.

[pauli007001]

Oh dear, guess those irritating facts got in the way of your arguments again Kiwi!!!
You must hate it when that happens and it happens often dosent it?

[Kiwi 1691]

Oh dear, guess those irritating facts got in the way of your arguments again Kiwi!!!
You must hate it when that happens and it happens often dosent it?

What rubbish are you on about now Pauli?

[pauli007001]

What rubbish are you on about now Pauli?

What rubbish am I on about?

Its obvious Kiwi, the rubbish you are spouting about Healthcare in the USA, thats the rubbish.You claim to have posted charts and graphs but none are seen here, you sidestep the facts and post more lies and distortion, then when challenged to do so you resort to insult and abuse.Typical Nulab behaviour I find.

[Don]

...You claim to have posted charts and graphs but none are seen here,

In fairness, he has posted charts/graphs below. How accurate, I don't know, but they are there.

[Kiwi 1691]

In fairness, he has posted charts/graphs below. How accurate, I don't know, but they are there.

They were created by the commonwealth fund.

The Commonwealth Fund -- Health Policy, Health Reform, and Performance Improvement


State Scorecard 2009 - The Commonwealth Fund

[pauli007001]

They were created by the commonwealth fund.

The Commonwealth Fund -- Health Policy, Health Reform, and Performance Improvement


State Scorecard 2009 - The Commonwealth Fund

Thank you I can see them now, i was not able to see them before for some reason.

They are however a politically biased set of charts and graphs, not exactly representing exact facts, more political influence......

[pauli007001]

Now in the spirit of the answers i have givem wouldnt it be a nice refreshing change if you or another totalitarian would respond to the points i have made regarding US health care.NB i will not be holding my breath!!!

[pauli007001]

Uk poverty exists as do slums in the UK.
Google Image Result for http://www.marklaurence.com/articles/pics/uk_slums.jpg

A Home in MA
http://www.luxuryhomesnetwork.com/po...10205_main.jpg

Where would you rather live??

[Kiwi 1691]

Uk poverty exists as do slums in the UK.
Google Image Result for http://www.marklaurence.com/articles/pics/uk_slums.jpg

You live in masachusis, from my knowledge masachusis is one of the more wealthy states in thte USA, couldn't that

A Home in MA
http://www.luxuryhomesnetwork.com/po...10205_main.jpg

Where would you rather live??

You live in massachusetts, from my knowledge massachusetts is one of the more wealthy states in the USA, couldn't that effect your image of the USA. If you lived in one of the poorer states would you feel the same. You say that everyone is payed well in the USA, that is incorrect there are a huge number of hugely poor people in the USA.

You have an image of a UK slum then compare it to a home from luxuaryhomesnetwork.com, though I must say the house from (MA) is rather ugly.


That's like saying NZ is better than japan because

most people would rather live in an apartment in the Viaduct Basin in Auckland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uckland_01.jpg

Instead of an apartment in Japan

http://www.spaciousplanet.com/images...270921160.jpeg


If you want to compare, keep it in context.

[pauli007001]

You live in massachusetts, from my knowledge massachusetts is one of the more wealthy states in the USA, couldn't that effect your image of the USA. If you lived in one of the poorer states would you feel the same. You say that everyone is payed well in the USA, that is incorrect there are a huge number of hugely poor people in the USA.

You have an image of a UK slum then compare it to a home from luxuaryhomesnetwork.com, though I must say the house from (MA) is rather ugly.


That's like saying NZ is better than japan because

most people would rather live in an apartment in the Viaduct Basin in Auckland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uckland_01.jpg

Instead of an apartment in Japan

http://www.spaciousplanet.com/images...270921160.jpeg


If you want to compare, keep it in context.

Exactly, keep it in context, the UK and its backward NHS system compared with the excellent private system in the USA, all of the USA.
No one is refused care in the USA( you people keep insisting that they are but it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient), treatment is free at point of care in the USA also, your insurance picks up the bill later, or you pay it yourself, if unable to pay it one of many programmes run by local, State or federal government will pick up the tab at taxpayers expense.It dosnt work the way you think, the Hospital dosnt refuse to treat you if you forget to carry your insurance card with you, they dont do a credit check to see if you can afford treatment(or to decide to give the good treatment or the bargain basement treatment) they give you the best treatment that exists, the most modern facilities the latest technology, the most comprehensive tests to assist in diagnosis.No waiting lists.

Now can you dsay the same about the UK NHS?

I can say that if i attended a UK A and E department i would report to the reception at the dept and wait in line for 20 or more mins, give my name and symptoms to the receptionist(or details of my injury) i would then be told to wait in the waiting room until called.
In the US the same exept i would go directly into triage before being sent to wait.
UK....Waiting for about an hour then be seen by a triage nurse whose tone is accusatory, its not swollen!!! How did it happen? Is this Deliberate self Harm? Were you Drinking? etc etc.Then you would return to the waiting room.

In the US after triage you would be seated in a waiting room for a short time, 20 mins at my last visit then you would be seen by a Dr in the clinical area, all required tests would be made as needed and a treatment plan formulated, treatment given, details of where to make follow up appointments are issued and you are discharged, having spent an hour to an hour and a half in the hospital.

At his point in the UK you havnt yet even seen a junior DR, you are still waiting.For an average minor injury requiring 90 mins in the hospital in the USA the UK NHS would have a patient waiting around for 6 hours and in that time would only bee seen by a Nurse with attitude and a very junior DR.Give me the US system anyday, fast efficient service from cheerfull staff and getting seen by 2 nurses a junior DR and a consultant inside that 90 min period.It is just a better system, it works, the NHS dosnt, unless you got a Status card to play.......

[pauli007001]

You live in massachusetts, from my knowledge massachusetts is one of the more wealthy states in the USA, couldn't that effect your image of the USA. If you lived in one of the poorer states would you feel the same. You say that everyone is payed well in the USA, that is incorrect there are a huge number of hugely poor people in the USA.

You have an image of a UK slum then compare it to a home from luxuaryhomesnetwork.com, though I must say the house from (MA) is rather ugly.


That's like saying NZ is better than japan because

most people would rather live in an apartment in the Viaduct Basin in Auckland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uckland_01.jpg

Instead of an apartment in Japan

http://www.spaciousplanet.com/images...270921160.jpeg


If you want to compare, keep it in context.

Context, like a rundown area of NYC, run down by the wasters who live there, compared with the little cottage in the NZ Burbs?Yup now there is context, i remember now why i chose that pic!!!Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Poverty in the USA is a choice, anyone with a little motivation can get up off their FAT lazy arse( you did say they were fat didnt you, the Americans, i agree the lazy in America are fat cos they dont work and scoff tons of free food provided by the taxpayers who pay for the lazy to get their food stamps(or footamp as the are often called by the lazy recipients of them, too lazy to even say the word properly).Like i said the road out of poverty and oppression is built on hard work, if you work hard you will not be poor, if you work hard you will be free.Its the American way each is incharge of his own destiny, relying on the government is not freedom, that is being subject to oppression, i choose freedom!!!!!!!

[pauli007001]

Context, like a rundown area of NYC, run down by the wasters who live there, compared with the little cottage in the NZ Burbs?Yup now there is context, i remember now why i chose that pic!!!Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Poverty in the USA is a choice, anyone with a little motivation can get up off their FAT lazy arse( you did say they were fat didnt you, the Americans, i agree the lazy in America are fat cos they dont work and scoff tons of free food provided by the taxpayers who pay for the lazy to get their food stamps(or footamp as the are often called by the lazy recipients of them, too lazy to even say the word properly).Like i said the road out of poverty and oppression is built on hard work, if you work hard you will not be poor, if you work hard you will be free.Its the American way each is incharge of his own destiny, relying on the government is not freedom, that is being subject to oppression, i choose freedom!!!!!!!

From your knowledge!!! You say!!!You have no knowledge, the photo you posted as typical of US residences was taken in the Bronx, one of the boroughs of NYC, the wealthiest city in the USA.Ma has its areas like that also, some far worse, yet even there many can enjoy a life of financial security and self sufficiency, in the USA poverty is a choice.

[Kiwi 1691]

Context, like a rundown area of NYC, run down by the wasters who live there, compared with the little cottage in the NZ Burbs?Yup now there is context, i remember now why i chose that pic!!!Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

I compared a very poor area of the USA, with a very poor area here, that is in context.

[pauli007001]

I compared a very poor area of the USA, with a very poor area here, that is in context.

MMM sure you did!!!
I could then compare the Boston Slum of Roxbury with the very poor town of Harmony Maine?

I Have an old army mate who moved to NZ, auckland i believe(i will confirm if you wish). He lives in a scuzzy tower block with a bunch of other folks his age, they drink and work and live on the bare minimum to survive, why they do it?
Because the insurance for Parachuting/skydiving in NZ is far less than anywhere in the world.
Kenny( thats his nickname ) says that he sees as much poverty in NZ as he did in Halifax UK, where he originally moved to NZ from, he also spent time in NYC and Detroit, he agrees with me that such urban poverty as is seen in small areas of the Bronx is also seen in NZ and australia and the UK and denmark and Holland and pretty much everywhere, you do not live in some socialist utopia Kiwi, i know you love your country and feel that any forigners are ignorant subhumans but NZ has all the same social and economic difficulties that all nations have.
Now back on subject, no waithing lists in the USA, Healthcare is delivered free at the point of care and is available to all and is not rationed like the UK NHS!!!!!!Lets stick to the topic shall we?

[Kiwi 1691]

Pauli I tried to make a point, based on stupid things you posted. Clearly it went over your head.

[pauli007001]

Pauli I tried to make a point, based on stupid things you posted. Clearly it went over your head.

Stupid things like FACTS to counter your PROPEGANDA?

So back on topic, the USA now is safe from the ravages of a socialised medcine system, quite possibly why the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown,some clearly stated that is why they voted for Scott Brown.
And now all the poor america hating forigners are bothered by it, hahaha they wont see the Hated Americans suffering under such a terrible system.

[Don]

Pauli I tried to make a point, based on stupid things you posted. Clearly it went over your head.

Kiwi, to the point that pauli makes about free health care in the US, please follow this link:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): what it is and what it means for physicians

It will explain the obligations, under US Federal Law, of hospitals receiving Medicare payments and physicians, to treat anyone who presents to a hospital emergency room/department. The article also goes into the duty of On Call physicians to respond to ER consults. It's a bit long but a good read if you are interested.

That said, the US does not have a "comprehensive, all encompassing" health care system. ER evaluation, on call physician consults, treatment and required stabilization do not constitute "comprehensive and all encompassing" health care.

[Kiwi 1691]

Kiwi, to the point that pauli makes about free health care in the US, please follow this link:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): what it is and what it means for physicians

It will explain the obligations, under US Federal Law, of hospitals receiving Medicare payments and physicians, to treat anyone who presents to a hospital emergency room/department. The article also goes into the duty of On Call physicians to respond to ER consults. It's a bit long but a good read if you are interested.

That said, the US does not have a "comprehensive, all encompassing" health care system. ER evaluation, on call physician consults, treatment and required stabilization do not constitute "comprehensive and all encompassing" health care.

It is interesting to see an intelligent person defending the US health system, thanks Don.

A young Orange County woman has died and her family says it could have been prevented. 21 year old Jessica Hurt died this weekend in a Beaumont hospital after two other Port Arthur hospitals refused to treat her. Jessica Holloway explains why the girl's medical insurance wasn't enough to save her life.


Jessica Hurt couldn't get treatment because she couldn't afford the $5,000 deductible. She developed pancreatitis and her mother says neither Christus Saint Mary nor The Medical Center of Southeast Texas would admit Jessica for day surgery, even if she paid them in installments. "If they'd have done that surgery before all this infection setup, she'd be in there borrowing my makeup, drinking milk out of the jug," said Schamber.

Teen dead after hospital refuses treatment | dead, hospital, refuses - Local News -

A point I would love to raise is Pauli says the US health system is the best in the world and yet, Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.
The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats' efforts to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.
President Barack Obama's has made the overhaul a top domestic policy priority, but his plan has been besieged by critics and slowed by intense political battles in Congress, with the insurance and healthcare industries fighting some parts of the plan.
The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.

Continues at Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Reuters

[Don]

It is interesting to see an intelligent person defending the US health system, thanks Don.

You're welcome. Actually I wasn't defending the system, only pointing out and trying to clarify how the system is supposed to work. I know it needs fixing, the question is how to do it without breaking the bank.

Teen dead after hospital refuses treatment | dead, hospital, refuses - Local News -

I went to the WEB sites of both hospitals and both appear to be private as opposed to publicly owned hospitals. If the girl had presented to a publicly owned hospital, she would have been admitted. Whether or not a surgeon would have been required to treat her is another question and I don't have the answer although I imagine a surgeon with "privileges" at a public hospital would have been required to.
I am in no way defending the actions of either hospital, they both operated in a morally wrong , manner. Unfortunately, if they are private, it's business to the ****ing bean counters.

A point I would love to raise is Pauli says the US health system is the best in the world and yet, Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found.

Continues at Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Reuters

A point I can't argue with. I would like to point out though that some 12 million (I heard that number quoted somewhere), of that 45 million, without insurance don't have it through choice. Mostly they are younger workers who, as I've pointed out elsewhere, look on insurance as a gamble they're willing to take. Unfortunately they are not yet aware of their own mortality.

[Kiwi 1691]

A point I can't argue with. I would like to point out though that some 12 million (I heard that number quoted somewhere), of that 45 million, without insurance don't have it through choice. Mostly they are younger workers who, as I've pointed out elsewhere, look on insurance as a gamble they're willing to take. Unfortunately they are not yet aware of their own mortality.

Even if 12 mill don't have it by choice, that still leaves alot of people who can't afford it. Considering the US is still the wealthiest nation in the world, it is pretty screwed it 30 millionish can't afford insurance. That's about 1 in 10 Americans isn't it?

[Don]

Even if 12 mill don't have it by choice, that still leaves alot of people who can't afford it. Considering the US is still the wealthiest nation in the world, it is pretty screwed it 30 millionish can't afford insurance. That's about 1 in 10 Americans isn't it?

Near enough. My point wasn't that it doesn't leave many, and 30 million is VERY MANY; the point was that some idiots who can afford it, don't have it by choice. They get sick enough they go to the ER, clog up that system, and may or may not pay the bill.

Another potential problem with the Senate bill is the attempt to force everyone to have insurance whether they want it or not. Problem being that most Constitutional scholars agree that it is probably in violation of the Constitution. Several states Attorneys General are poised to go to federal court if that situation comes about.

[Don]

Health care reform now faces Senate challenge

By Ed Hornick, CNN
March 22, 2010 7:50 a.m. EDT

Health care reform now faces Senate challengeWashington (CNN) -- Now that the House has passed the Senate's health care reform bill and a package meant to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills, the next step is for members of the Senate to sign off on those changes.

That won't be as easy as it sounds.

Senate Republicans have indicated they will use any and all legislative tactics in order to slow -- even stop -- the reconciliation bill from passing.

President Obama is expected to sign the health care bill Tuesday at the earliest. Only then can the Senate begin dealing with the reconciliation package.

According to Senate rules, members are allowed to offer unlimited amendments and challenges to the reconciled bill.

"There's hope that [the vote] would be done within a short period of time, like a week or so," said Tim McBride, a health economist and associate dean of public health at the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. "But the Senate is complicated and doesn't have the discipline that the House does."

Once the bill hits the Senate floor, reconciliation rules stipulate that there must be 20 hours of debate.

But that 20 hours is more of a suggestion than an indicator of what will happen, because Republicans are allowed to offer unlimited amendments and are geared up to offer many, all of which must be ruled on by the Senate parliamentarian.

"It could get all messy and could go on forever if they threw up amendment after amendment," said Cheryl Block, a law professor at Washington University's School of Law. "Theoretically, it should only take 20 hours, but it will likely take longer because Republicans have things up their sleeve."

Senate Democrats, though, do have an option to overrule the parliamentarian's decision; but they would need Republican votes to reach the necessary three-quarters majority required to do that, and that's unlikely in the highly polarized Senate.

Meanwhile, if a provision in the reconciled package is struck down, the bill would then have to go back to the House for another vote.

House Democratic leaders are hopeful they will have enough support in the Senate to stop Republicans' attempts to block the legislation. All they need is a simply majority of 51 votes. If needed, Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as president of the Senate, could cast a tie-breaking vote.

Ahead of Sunday's vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was confident the reconciled bill would receive the Senate's backing.

She said that when her members go to vote, they will have "all of the assurance they need" that the reconciliation package will be passed in the Senate.
"When we bring the bill to the floor, we will have a significant victory for the American people," Pelosi added.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, however, argued Friday that the vote was "pretty tight."

Boehner had said the revised health care bill was worse than the original legislation, adding that the "American people are going to hear about every payoff, every kickback and every sweetheart deal that comes out."

[at946]

I don't know what all the fuss is about .We have had Medicare in Australia for years, before that Medibank, started in the early 1970's .
I had an infected finger in Australia 2000 and the Doctor fixed it. Total bill A$14 .Same infection 5 months later in Hawaii, different finger same treatment ,total bill A$952. Mine was subsidised in Australia by every worker, including me and my wife, paying a levy on their wages of a certain percentage.The more you earned the more you paid

[Barry]

Thanks Don, the British press are reporting this as if Obama has it all done and dusted.
But then, the British press are Obama worshippers, so they would, wouldn't they?

[Kiwi 1691]

Well lets hope that enough senators realise that 30 million Americans unable to get health insurance is a BIG issue.

[Don]

The 'fuss', as you put it, is that this is not Australia. We have a different system in the US that polls still show most people favor over a taxpayer funded system. The 'fuss' is about choice, not something being forced on you by big government, about not being fined if you choose not to have insurance. The 'fuss' is about the fact that we, meaning the citizens of the U.S., still have some sense of independence and the main 'fuss' as far as I am concerned is Constitutional. If it does not conform to the Constitution of the United States, then it is illegal. Constitutionality is determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, not by Congress, and most certainly not by the President.

I am not as hardhearted as that may seem, it's just that my oath and duty is to the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land and on which order depends. If it is ruled unconstitutional, then the means exists to amend the Constitution, which must first be done. It isn't an easy process.

[Don]

Well lets hope that enough senators realise that 30 million Americans unable to get health insurance is a BIG issue.

Agreed that not being able to get health care is of major concern. Also of concern are the some 12 to 16 million who choose not to avail themselves of health care plans. Of primary concern though is that enough Senators have a good enough understanding of the U.S. Constitution to make the right decision, no matter what that may be.

[Opinionated]

ooh ooh curiouser and curiouser said Alice - how is it unconstitutional? I realise only SC can rule it such but what are the potential grounds for challenging it?

[Don]

ooh ooh curiouser and curiouser said Alice - how is it unconstitutional? I realise only SC can rule it such but what are the potential grounds for challenging it?

As of this morning, the Attorneys General of twelve states, and more are indicating they will join in, are preparing to sue the U.S. in Federal court over the requirement that all citizens will have to buy health care insurance or face fines and/or jail.

Here is an explanation of their proposed grounds (excerpted from a Christian Science Monitor article found here ( Attorneys general in 11 states poised to challenge healthcare bill / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Has Congress overstepped its authority?

"At the center of the controversy is the bill's inclusion of a federal mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance or face penalties. Opponents say this measure stretches Congress’s constitutional power to “regulate commerce … among the several states” beyond any meaningful limits on federal authority. They say Congress is authorized to regulate behavior to protect public safety or welfare, but federal lawmakers overstep the constitutional limits of their power when they begin ordering Americans to purchase certain products.


“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”

The Virginia attorney general added: “Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the US Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do.”

Virginia has also passed a state law that prohibits the Federal Government requiring it's citizens to be forced to buy insurance. They will sue on the grounds that state law takes precedence because the federal law is unconstitutional.

Per the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia:

"Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.”

Note that the Congress has used the interstate commerce clause before to impose laws that have been struck down as being "too much of a stretch". Most notably in my memory was the occasion a few years ago when they tried to prohibit firearms from within, I believe, 500 feet of a school. Congress used as rational for the law, the interstate commerce clause, stating that any student killed by a firearm could adversely affect interstate commerce in the future. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional on those grounds, as it should have, no matter your beliefs/opinions on firearms and/or schools. It was a very slippery slope as we like to say or the thin end of the wedge, if you prefer.

[Tantal]

ooh ooh curiouser and curiouser said Alice - how is it unconstitutional? I realise only SC can rule it such but what are the potential grounds for challenging it?

The second Constitutional angle is that the bill pushes about 16 million people into Medicaid, a joint venture between the State and Federal governments. The bill basically ORDERS the states to pay more in Medicaid costs........money that the states simply do not have. The Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to ORDER a state to provide a service to its citizens.

[Opinionated]

The second Constitutional angle is that the bill pushes about 16 million into Medicaid, a joint venture between the State and Federal governments. The bill basically ORDERS the states to pay more in Medicaid costs........money that the states simply do not have. The Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to ORDER a state to provide a service to its citizens.

Can't they just call it a "tax"? Wouldn't it the be covered by Article1? Oooh look at me exhausting my knowledge of constitutional law!

[Don]

Can't they just call it a "tax"? Wouldn't it the be covered by Article1? Oooh look at me exhausting my knowledge of constitutional law!

Article One - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Everyone doesn't qualify for Medicare and those who do could hardly pay the tax. Additionally, I sincerely doubt that a tax increase would fly right now, seeing as how the President 'promised' the health care reform would pay for itself, i.e. no new taxes