Mass. election raises more uncertainty for health reform

A Republican win in the special Senate election to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts leaves an uncertain road for health reform. Without 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats can't stop a filibuster, which could block action on a Senate-House compromise reform bill now taking shape.

It's unclear at this point how the Democrats will proceed. One suggestion is that the House could approve the version of the health bill already passed by the Senate, thus avoiding another Senate vote, then fix problems in the Senate bill later. That's a scary prospect for us, since the Senate bill contained a number of serious flaws, including the tax on high-premium health benefits.

We don't want to see the Senate bill passed with only a vague hope of fixing its problems.

Another suggestion is that the Democrats back off, on the belief that the Massachusetts results show the public doesn't want health reform. That's not good, either, and would represent a misreading of the vote.

The winning Republican, Scott Brown, supported the health reform bill which passed several years ago in Massachusetts, and which was similar to the bill being considered in Washington. What Brown argued during the campaign is that national reform wouldn't help Massachusetts, since the state reforms already meant less than 3 percent of the population there was uninsured.

Exiting polling by Rasmussen Reports doesn't support the idea that Brown's win was a referendum on health reform. While 56% of voters told Rasmussen that health reform was the most important issue in the election, Democrat Martha Coakley won among those health voters. Brown built his margin among voters who said the most important issues were the economy, taxes and national security.

Moreover, the Massachusetts election doesn't change the facts that make health reform necessary: Escalating costs. A system that leaves all of us a layoff from being uninsured. Medical bankruptcies when people – even insured people – get sick. Insurance companies that can deny coverage to people who need it. The highest health costs in the world, without the best results. Tens of millions without coverage.

"In the wake of Mr. Brown’s victory, the decision facing Democrats is not whether to start with a blank slate and try to write a bill based on both liberal health care ideas and conservative ones. They’ve already tried that," writes New York Times columnist David Leonhardt. "The decision is whether to expand insurance and try to control costs, despite the political risks, or whether that project will once again be put off until another day."