Obama Wants to Merge Mexico and US
March 29, 2010
The Daily Bell
After more than a year of campaigning, President Obama (left) finally won much-needed and long-overdue changes to our health care system. Achieving what four other presidents could not, Obama broke through the political impasse to obtain health care coverage for the vast majority of uninsured Americans. The president now needs to take this mandate and act quickly on what should be the next major item on his domestic agenda: modernizing our immigration system. Comprehensive immigration reform requires a balanced and measured approach that includes a broad legalization component, a foreign policy that promotes meaningful and equitable economic development in the region, and humane enforcement measures that strengthen, rather than divide, local communities. Any comprehensive immigration reform bill thus must hold as its centerpiece a fair and practicable legalization plan that recognizes and respects the diversity of our communities. The clearest option would be granting undocumented immigrants, including LGBT domestic partners, broad access to permanent resident status so they could work and travel freely. It is only when we remove the fear of deportation that we truly remove the burden of second-class citizenship. While the word “amnesty” is politically unpopular in some circles, its true meaning is reprieve or absolution. Amnesty does not mean a free ride, as people must still pay fines, wait their turn in line and comply with whatever new rules are developed. – SFGate.com
Dominant Social Theme: Painting the canvas of future greatness. The great uniters will unite all.
Free-Market Analysis: This article is the story of a canvas now being painted. It may even end up with a portrait of an international couple being married. But it is not a pretty picture by any means. Investors with holdings in the United States – dollars, bonds and stocks – will have to beware of what is coming. Some of the largest markets in the world could be further destabilized in the near or fairly-near future.
The problems have to do with the Obama administration’s focus on upcoming legislation. While financial reform is an interesting topic, US President Barack Obama and those behind his administration are aiming, in our estimation, at a bigger prize – immigration reform. They seem to want to introduce such legislation soon, and while it may not go anywhere after a divisive health care debate, we think that it will come back again and again, as it is important to a larger agenda. This article will concentrate on immigration reform and its eventual ramifications, financial and otherwise.
To start, one has to grant continuity between this administration and the last (a Republican one) and grant also that each party is a continuation of the other. The players behind the scenes are a power elite that continually seeks further consolidation and concentration of wealth (in its hands) at the expense of the middle class and other influential factions of a participatory democracy.
If one does grant this, the picture steadily reveals itself, even if it is not finished. What one sees, however, if one looks hard, is a potential finished work that will be one of amazing trickery and false perceptions. Yet, it is not a new effort. In fact, it’s been going on for decades, but the health care bill was doubtless a major advance. Here’s a Fox News story that reveals more of the big picture:
Immigration Reform Could KO Health Care … While Congress voted to overhaul U.S. health care and provide universal coverage, 15 percent of America’s uninsured population remains uncovered and unaddressed: illegal immigrants. Democrats are expected to introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation this spring, and when they do, health care costs will once again be front and center. Under the new law just passed, illegal immigrants are not entitled to health care. That means undocumented workers will continue to get care the way they always have, showing up at county clinics and hospitals for emergency treatment. According to cost estimates submitted by various states, that costs taxpayers and ratepayers about $4.3 billion a year.
However, according to the conservative-leaning Center for Immigration Studies, that number would spike from $10 billion to $30 billion annually under immigration reform. … But cost isn’t the only issue. Enrolling illegal immigrants into the new system will improve health outcomes. Dr. Steven Wallace of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research says including undocumented workers in the health care overhaul makes sense. “In the long term, the point is to make sure all Americans who are living here and working here have access to health care,” he says. “It is simpler and therefore more efficient if you simply say, everybody who works gets health insurance. Everybody who has a low income, we will help you and we move forward. People don’t come to the U.S. for health care, they come to work.”
Now, please follow us. It’s not really hard to see completion. The general thrust of the new legislation is that all Americans must be insured under the new health care plan or pay a fine. There are various ways that Americans can gain health care, and various subsidies as well. Bottom line, with Americans paying more and more for health care, there will be increased pressure to rein in illegal aliens and to make sure that immigrants not in the US legally are not taking advantage of US health care.
And this is impossible.
To continue reading this report, click here.
Hospital Killing Patients
March 29, 2010
Natural News
By S. L. Baker
A new study just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine shows that an alarming number of Americans are dying in the hospital from two infectious diseases: sepsis (also known as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, it causes widespread inflammation and blood clotting and can lead to organ failure and death) and pneumonia. But the victims of these health problems weren’t originally hospitalized because of these illnesses. Instead, they were in the hospital for other reasons. In fact, some were healthy and simply having an elective procedure. Yet they ended up dead.
The reason? These unfortunate patients became fatally ill from hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) caused primarily by both the rise of antibiotic resistant superbugs and downright sloppy infection control by hospital medical staff.
Researchers with Extending the Cure (a project examining antibiotic resistance based at the Washington, D.C., think-tank Resources for the Future) conducted the largest nationally representative study to date to document the human and economic toll taken by two hospital-acquired infections that should be preventable, sepsis and pneumonia. Both conditions are caused by an array of pathogens, including the dangerous superbug dubbed Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a bacterial infection that has become highly resistant to many antibiotics. The researchers found that these germs are frequently being spread by sloppy infection control in hospitals.
The infections can result in longer hospital stays, serious complications and death. What’s more, in 2006 alone they caused health care costs to soar by $8.1 billion and took the lives of 48,000 people, according to the new study.
“In many cases, these conditions could have been avoided with better infection control in hospitals,” Ramanan Laxminarayan, Ph.D., principal investigator for the study said in a press statement. “Infections that are acquired during the course of a hospital stay cost the United States a staggering amount in terms of lives lost and health care costs. Hospitals and other health care providers must act now to protect patients from this growing menace.”
Dr. Laxminarayan and his research team investigated 69 million discharge records from hospitals in 40 states and identified infections that developed after hospitalization. They scrutinized infections that are often preventable, including sepsis caused by a lapse in sterile technique during surgery. Not only do people who develop sepsis after surgery end up hospitalized an additional 11 days on average at an extra cost per person of about $33,000 for treatment, nearly 20 percent of them die as a result of the infection.
HAI pneumonia develops if a disease-causing microbe gets into the lungs — such as when a dirty, germ-laden ventilator tube is used. The researchers found that people who come down with pneumonia after surgery remain in the hospital an extra two weeks at an additional cost of $46,000 per person for treatment. Moreover, in 11 percent of the cases, the patients die as a result of the HAI pneumonia infection.
“That’s the tragedy of such cases. In some cases, relatively healthy people check into the hospital for routine surgery. They develop sepsis because of a lapse in infection control — and they can die,” Anup Malani, Ph.D., a study co-author, investigator at Extending the Cure, and professor at the University of Chicago, noted in a statement to the media.
According to the researchers, HAIs can be especially dangerous because they are often caused by bacteria that defy treatment with commonly used antibiotics. “These superbugs are increasingly difficult to treat and, in some cases, trigger infections that ultimately cause the body’s organs to shut down,” said Dr. Malani. “The nation urgently needs a comprehensive approach to reduce the risk posed by these deadly infections. Improving infection control is a clear way to both improve patient outcomes and lower health care costs.”
Click here for the full report.
Controversial Vaccines in Schools?
March 29, 2010
Natural News
By Jeffry John Aufderheide
The golden calf of public health was smashed in this recent flu season as many in the United States outright rejected the H1N1 vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are now holding the bag, as millions of doses of the vaccine are rotting on shelves or being discarded as hazardous waste. Or are they? The manufacturer may find it more cost effective to dump them into the arms of our public school systems.
Parents would revolt if they knew that the pharmaceutical industry, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control have allocated millions of dollars in funding to establish vaccine clinics in the public schools. Pumping children with experimental vaccines in public school is about to be pursued as a matter of policy.
Denver Public Schools the Target
Recently, a news article (http://www.denverpost.com/commented…) in the Denver Post highlighted two grants issued by the Centers for Disease Control totaling $1.6 million dollars to vaccinate students attending Denver Public Schools (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an…).
One grant (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an…) funds an effort to establish a sustainable school-based vaccination program utilizing the yearly influenza and experimental H1N1 vaccine. The hope is to create a partnership between public health (Denver Health), school personnel (Denver Public Schools), and an entity (Kaiser Permanente) that would bill third party payers.
The second grant (http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/I…) provides cash for vaccinating children with the newly approved diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4), and human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV). The new vaccines for adolescents are among the most expensive vaccines (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program…) recommended today for any age group.
Lead investigator of Denver In-School Immunization Project, Dr. Judith Shlay, of Denver Health, readily admits that if all goes well, plans are in place to implement school-base vaccine clinics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHji… ) nation-wide (a high level overview of this plan (http://www.nasbhc.org/site/c.jsJPKW…) was presented to the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care by Dr. Shlay).
School Based Health Clinics As the Conduit
The Denver In-School Immunization Project (http://denverhealth.org/portal/Serv…) has long been in the works. It was paved in the late 1970s and early 1980s by incrementally creating School-Based Health Clinics (SCHC). In 1978, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a non-profit organization funded by the Pharmaceutical Company, Johnson and Johnson (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d…), contributed $2.3 million dollars to the state of Colorado, (http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/032…) making SBHCs a reality.
Illnesses such as ADD/ADHD, Cervical Cancer, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and learning disabilities were of little consequence in the ’70s. However, these disabling syndromes and the medications aimed at treating them have all reached epidemic proportions and astronomically profitable sales.
In the past, parents have discovered challenging a school-based medical model can be extremely dangerous. In September, 2000, Ms. Patti Johnson, a former Colorado State education board member, testified before Federal Congress (http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/ps…) concerning Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). In the 1990s, the much-hyped drug, Ritalin, was maneuvered into public schools to address the growing epidemic of hyperactivity. Mrs. Johnson testimony was prophetic and foreshadowed a future scenario where parents could be charged with medical neglect if they refused to medicate their child per the school’s request.
To continue reading this report, click here.
UK Killing Old Patients with Medicine
March 29, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Concern is growing that the United Kingdom’s Liverpool Care Pathway, intended to ease the comfort of patients whose death is inevitable, is being misused to railroad elderly patients onto a path toward early death.
“While we’ve been preoccupied with the moral pluses and minuses of living wills, assisted suicide and euthanasia, legalized execution of some of society’s most vulnerable has become available, most probably at a hospital near you,” writes Telegraph columnist Liz Hunt. “How did we let this happen?”
The Liverpool Care Pathway, which has been endorsed by the British government and adopted by 900 different hospitals and nursing homes across the country, allows a patient’s care staff to remove invasive or uncomfortable medications or devices from a patient they have unanimously judged to be close to death, with no hope of recovery. Controversially, this allows medical staff to deprive patients of food or water or to sedate them continuously until they die. Recently, a group of British medical experts objected that these procedures can mask signs that a patient is actually recovering.
“We’ve long accepted the practice of easing terminally ill patients towards death, by upping the dose of morphine so that pain and consciousness are blunted until respiration is suppressed completely,” Hunt writes. “Sensible people view it as the most compassionate of acts. But being ‘made comfortable’ is no longer the reassuring euphemism it once was.”
Hunt recounts a story of a friend who was awakened at 4 a.m. by a phone call from the nursing home where her grandmother is a resident. Her grandmother was experiencing trouble breathing, and the facility staff wanted to know if they should bother calling an ambulance or if they should just “make her comfortable.” When the friend instructed them to call an ambulance, they asked if she was “sure.”
In other recent cases, an 80-year-old pneumonia patient was recently put on the pathway and deprived of food and water until her daughter successfully fought for her to be removed. She recovered. A 76-year-old pneumonia patient, however, was allowed to die due to doctors’ judgment that his cancer was spreading too fast.
Click here for the full report.
USA and Russia Agree to Arms Deal
March 29, 2010
BBC News
US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have agreed a new nuclear arms reduction treaty after months of negotiations.
The treaty limits both sides to 1,550 warheads, about 30% less than currently allowed, the White House said.
The deal replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The leaders will sign the pact in Prague on 8 April.
President Obama hailed the treaty as the most comprehensive weapons control agreement in nearly two decades.
“With this agreement, the United States and Russia – the two largest nuclear powers in the world – also send a clear signal that we intend to lead,” he said at the White House.
“By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities,” he said.
In Russia, President Medvedev’s spokeswoman told the Interfax news agency: “This treaty reflects the balance of interests of both nations.”
The treaty must be ratified by the US Senate and the Russian Duma.
New limits
In a speech in Prague last April, Mr Obama set out his vision of moving towards a world without nuclear weapons.
Both sides agreed to cut their arsenals last year, but disagreements on verification have held up a deal.
The US is said to have more than 2,000 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, while Russia is believed to have more than 2,500.
The new agreement – which came in a phone call between the two leaders – limits the US and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads each.
The cuts are substantial – well over 30% for the Russians and around 25% for the Americans, whose current arsenal is smaller, says BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.
Both sides would have seven years after the treaty’s ratification to carry out the reduction in long-range nuclear warheads.
The agreement also calls for cutting by about half the missiles and bombers that carry the weapons to their targets.
It limits missile delivery vehicles to 800 deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons.
The cap on deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched missiles is set at 700, the White House said.
The agreement includes a new verification mechanism that will ensure the “irreversibility, verifiability and transparency” of the reduction process, Russia’s Itar-Tass news agency said.
Moral high ground
The pact establishes a “legally-binding” linkage between offensive weapons and missile defence systems, the Kremlin said in a statement, and “will demand the deployment of all strategic offensive weapons exclusively on national territories”.
Moscow has strongly opposed US plans to set up missile defences in Europe, and has insisted on explicit recognition of the link between offensive and defensive systems in any new strategic arms reduction pact.
The timing and symbolism of the deal are crucial, enabling both countries to claim some moral high ground going into next month’s Washington Summit on nuclear security, and the critical talks in May aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, our correspondent says.
Presidents Obama and Medvedev hope the new deal will increase pressure on Iran, in particular, to abandon any ambition to develop nuclear weapons, he adds.
The agreement – called the Measures to Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms – replaces the Cold War-era Start treaty signed in 1991 and the Moscow Treaty signed in 2002.
Both US and Russian officials expressed confidence that lawmakers would ratify the treaty.
Click here for the full report.
Beef Hormones Linked to Cancer
March 29, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Beef produced in the United States contains dangerously high levels of natural and synthetic hormones, warns Dr. Samuel S. Epstein of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
According to Epstein, more than half of all beef cows slaughtered in the United States each year have been treated with either the natural hormones estrogen, progesterone or testosterone, or the synthetic hormones melengesterol, trenbolone or zeranol. Hormone-emitting pellets are implanted under each cow’s ear when it enters the feedlot, then again 50 days later. After another 50 days, the cow is slaughtered.
The hormones cause the cows to rapidly put on weight, leading to approximately $80 more profit per animal.
“Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the [FDA] and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal,” Epstein said in a press release. “Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.”
The FDA insists that hormone levels in U.S. beef are safe and normal, but does not require any testing to back up this claim.
According to Epstein, however, tests reveal that an eight-year-old boy eating two hamburgers in one day would be exposed to enough estradiol to increase his body’s levels of the hormone by 10 percent.
Exposure to external hormones is well known to increase the risk of cancer, reproductive dysfunction and other health problems.
“Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60 percent for prostate, 59 percent for testis and 10 percent for breast,” Epstein said.
Women in the United States are five times more likely to get breast cancer than women in the European Community or other countries that have banned the production or importation of hormonal beef.
Click here for the full report.
Processed Foods = Depression
March 29, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
People who eat more processed foods are significantly more likely to suffer from depression, while those who eat more fruits and vegetables are significantly less likely to be depressed, according to a study conducted by researchers from University College London and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
“This study adds to an existing body of solid research that shows the strong links between what we eat and our mental health,” said Andrew McCulloch of the Mental Health Foundation. “The U.K. population is consuming less nutritious, fresh produce and more saturated fats and sugars. We are particularly concerned about those who cannot access fresh produce easily or live in areas where there are a high number of fast food restaurants and takeaways.”
Researchers collected diet and lifestyle data on 3,500 middle-aged civil servants, then ranked them according to two different measures: how much of their diet was composed of whole foods, and how much was composed of processed foods. Whole foods included fruits and vegetables, while processed foods included high-fat dairy, processed meats, refined grains, fried food and sweetened desserts.
After adjusting for other depression risk factors such as age, education, gender, physical activity and smoking, the researchers found that those who consumed the most processed foods were 58 percent more likely to suffer from depression five years later than those who ate the least. Similarly, those who ate the most whole foods were 26 percent less likely to suffer from depression in five years than those who ate the least.
Because the study was based on correlation, the researchers could not prove that poor diet was actually a cause of depression rather than the other way around. However, the researchers found no association between a history of depression and a poor diet.
“Physical and mental health are closely related, so we should not be too surprised by these results, but we hope there will be further research which may help us to understand more fully the relationship between diet and mental health,” said Margaret Edwards of the mental health nonprofit SANE.
Click here for the full report.
Heart Surgeon Want to Ban Butter
March 29, 2010
Natural News
By E. Huff
A British heart surgeon has issued a call for a ban on butter, citing excessive consumption of saturated fats which he believes has rapidly increased the number of heart disease cases in the Great Britain. Dr. Shyam Kolvekar expressed concern that people as young as 30 years old are now getting heart bypass surgery, an issue that he believes could be remedied by switching from butter to margarine or other “healthy” spreads.
Roughly 90 percent of British children eat too much saturated fat according to a U.K. diet survey. Eighty-eight percent of adult men and 83 percent of adult women also consume too much, averaging 20 percent over the recommended maximum. Some researchers believe that saturated fat contributes to high cholesterol and artery blockage.
Dr. Kolvekar’s plea against using butter comes at the same time that other British health organizations are calling for a ban on trans-fats. Margarine, one of Dr. Kolvekar’s recommended alternatives to butter, is most often comprised of trans-fatty hydrogenated oils which are linked to the very same diseases that he believes are being caused by butter.
Nevertheless, Dr. Kolvekar believes that banning butter would reduce average daily fat intake by at least eight grams. Since buttered toast is a British breakfast staple, he is promoting the use of alternative spreads to replace butter. He also suggests avoiding foods like cheese and red meat which stay solid at room temperature.
According to Dr. Kolvekar and others, simple dietary changes can go a long way in preventing some of the serious diseases that he believes are caused by saturated fat. The Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) of saturated fat in the U.K. is 30 grams for men and 20 grams for women and exceeding these levels is relatively easy. Simple changes like drinking reduced fat milk and skipping the butter can help people to stay below these levels.
Not all studies point to saturated fat as the culprit in heart disease, however. Trans-fats are known to wreak havoc on the body, leading to high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes and other serious problems. This is why several countries including Canada and Switzerland have banned trans-fats from food.
Not all saturated fats are harmful, either: some studies indicate that certain saturated fats are necessary in order to maintain health. High rates of heart disease were not common until refined, hydrogenated oils came on the scene, indicating that these artificial food additives are to blame.
Click here for the full report.
Healthcare Reform Leads to India Outsourcing
March 29, 2010 by Andrew
Filed under Government
March 29, 2010
Yahoo News
Christian Science Monitor
By Taylor Barnes
With 22 pen strokes, President Obama signed into existence not just a historic healthcare reform law but also monumental piles of paperwork: New member registration forms. More claims. Ever-expanding databases. And on top of that, pressure to cut costs.
The bulge in administrative work may look like a nightmare to American insurance firms and government employees. But to outsourcing executives here in India, it’s heaven-sent. A number of Indian companies are already anticipating an increase in workload thanks to Obama’s healthcare law.
The addition of 32 million insured Americans is “very significant” for Indian outsourcers, says Ananda Mukerji, chief executive officer of Firstsource Solutions in Mumbai. Companies like his will see “increased opportunities” as US health insurers and hospitals scramble to reorganize to comply with the new law, he wrote in an email to the Monitor.
This extra work will include processing new enrollments, organizing bigger member databases, processing more claims, providing more support services, and managing more revenue, he says.
In particular, outsourcers can expect to benefit from insurers’ need to minimize administrative costs, Mr. Mukerji says, citing a recent Deloitte Center for Health Solutions study showing that up to 41 percent of the cost of a health plan is administrative.
The US healthcare reform offers a “natural extension” of the back-office outsourcing that Indian companies already specialize in, says Tu Packard, a senior economist with Moody’s Economy.com.
Outsourcing comes to America But some services in the US healthcare industry cannot be outsourced beyond America’s borders due to regulations. That’s one reason major Indian outsourcing firms have set up shop in the United States. In a twist, America’s outsourcers are now outsourcing back to America.
In 2008, Bangalore-based Wipro opened a development center in Atlanta that employs 500 people, mostly Americans, and runs a call center for a US healthcare client. Tata Consultancy Services has set up a similar campus with 300 employees near Cincinnati. Infosys is planning a subsidiary in Dallas that will hire locals and seek US government contracts.
Wipro, one of the world’s biggest information technology firms with nearly 100,000 employees worldwide, says the new healthcare law dovetails with two of its focus areas: servicing governments and servicing the healthcare industry. “The healthcare reform should translate to more demand,” says Rajiv Shah, Wipro’s senior vice president for healthcare.
Wipro plans to double its workforce at the Atlanta office by 2013 and open campuses in other cities, says Suraj Prakash, a vice president at the company. “There will be enough work to be done in the US.”
Click here for the full report.
Final Vote on Healthcare Bill
March 29, 2010 by Andrew
Filed under Government
March 29, 2010
BBC News
A package of amendments to the landmark US healthcare reform law, which extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, has passed its final Congress vote.
The US House of Representatives backed amendments by 220 votes to 207. The vote was needed after a number of Republican objections.
The Senate earlier voted for the package by 56-43. Two points, which Democrats say are minor, were deleted.
President Barack Obama has already signed the main bill into law.
He will now be able to apply a final signature, which is expected within days.
The BBC’s Richard Lister in Washington says that in recent days Democrats have begun to seize back control of the healthcare argument, and opinion polls suggest that more Americans now believe this reform is a good idea.
However, he says, Republicans are threatening to reform or repeal this legislation should they gain control in the mid-term elections in November.
On Thursday, President Obama responded to that challenge, saying: “I welcome that fight.”
He was speaking during a visit to Iowa, as he embarked on a campaign to sell the new programme to the American public.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said: “Republicans… will continue to fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with commonsense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the healthcare system we have and without burying the American dream under a mountain of debt.”
‘Serious threats’
Mr Obama signed the healthcare bill into law without delay after the previous House vote on Sunday, as he did not need to wait for the Senate and House votes on Thursday.
Those votes were on amendments submitted under a process known as budget reconciliation. The amendments have to relate to budgetary rather than policy issues.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans submitted 30 amendments – which were all rejected by Democrats during a marathon overnight voting session.
However, Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin upheld two Republican challenges on points of order under budget reconciliation rules, Senate Democratic aides said.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said: “After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we’re going to have to send it back to the House.”
The House vote brought an end to a process the president had labelled “a year of debate and a century of trying”.
After Sunday’s vote, some supporters of the bill had received threats and abusive messages, prompting them to call police and the FBI.
Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said more than 10 Democratic politicians had reported incidents some of which he described as “very serious”.
Republicans accused Democrats of playing politics with the threats.
“By ratcheting up the rhetoric, some will only inflame these situations to dangerous levels. Enough is enough. It has to stop,” said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.
Two Republican politicians have said they too were threatened.
Click here for the full report.
