How does Scott brown's election in MA effect the healthcare reform?

It only takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a law. However, it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. Filibusters were designed to be only used rarely throughout history. But since the Democrats got a majority in congress and even more under Obama, the Republicans have abused the filibuster.

Brown's elections took the Democratic seats in the Senate from 60 to 59.

Now, the problem with this kind of abuse of the filibuster can easily be seen right now. Obama won his presidency by a good margin. The people also voted that they want Democrats to prevail in the House and Senate. Sick of the Republicans, they voted for change. But with the filibuster, one man (ex: Lieberman) can stop 150 Americans from getting what they voted for. So all those millions of Americans that worked to get Obama into office don't get what they want.

The Republicans know this is not right, and that is why a few years ago they (rightly so) threatened the "nuclear option" -- which was to take away the filibuster. The Democrats should do that now. Then when the people vote in a Dem or a Repub, they get what they voted for, not continual obstruction. The people should get what they vote for, don't you think? And a tiny handful of men should not be allowed to decide for the whole country. Read more about the filibuster here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#United_Sta...

As far as how Brown's election will affect it, the Dems have the choice to nuke the filibuster, which they should take. But instead, Obama is chosing to insist on a bipartisan decision. He has requested that a new bill be constructed, consisting of things on which both parties agree.

Conservatives like to call the Democrats "weak" when this happens, but I think it's because other than unions (which Republicans have weakened steadily since Reagan), the Dems get their campaign budget from the same source as the Repubs do. They get some of their money from unions, so they need to toss a bone to the unions (workers) from time to time, but they owe more of their allegiance to the international banksters and corporations that buy them. In contrast, Repubs owe all their allegiance to those factions.

And... We the People take it in the shorts.

##

The two bills must go through a conference committee and that bill will be voted on again in the house and senate. Without 60 votes the senate can not pass the conference bill. So the only bill that can go through is for the house to take the original senate bill totally unchanged and unaltered.

It didn't effect it much because it was a dead bill anyway. Democrats were starting to back away from the bill because of all dealing with unions and special interests that were being courted. So, I don't think Scott Brown had much to do with the bill's demise.

However, Scott Brown will get to vote on a new version if congress decides to take up the issue again. Obama did state he will get a healthcare bill passed. He vowed not to walk awway from the people he promised on the campaign trail.

Technically the top result might want to be that votes of 60 Senators are needed to end the debates and to proceed to fairly vote on the bill. In absence of the sixtieth vote the Republicans might want to easily stand on the Senate floor and communicate all varieties of nonsense, for days and days 24/7, merely to lead away from the bill from vote casting. that is called filibuster. In practice the top result will be that multiple liberals contained in the homestead will abandon the sinking deliver of ObamaCare like rats, becuase all 450 of them face reealection in November.

It means the Democrats will now have to include the Republicans into talks over this healthcare bill; The bill isn't dead, as many in of Brown's constituents want this health-care bill to pass (kind've like Joseph Cao in New Orleans, a Republican who votes according to his constituent's wishes) so it is stilI on the table...I just don't think they'll be as big a focus on the role government plays in the bill.

But, like Joseph Anh Cao, he occupies a very democratic district, so his vote will depend on his reelection prospects.

It's pretty much dead ( Thank God )

Keep in mind a conservative won a seat held in a very liberal state for over 40 years!

It was a pure rejection of Obama policy and any Democrat up for reelection this fall has taken note.

Not sure he is a political unknown at the present time.

It depends on how he votes, and he's already said the Republicants can't count on his vote every time.