Benemax

Following the election of Scott Brown (R-MA) to the U.S. Senate, the future of Health Care Reform is entirely uncertain. Why did this one election change everything?

First, because it robbed the Democrats of their veto-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate. Even more importantly, because it sends an unequivocal message that American voters, even in dark blue Massachusetts, are unhappy with the course of government in general and with the current Health Care Reform bills in particular. But most importantly, because it demonstrates that no Democrat-held seat in either the Senate or the House is completely safe. I mean, if Ted Kennedy’s seat isn’t safe, whose is?

But now, what to do? The Democrats have wisely decided NOT to try to ram legislation through Congress before Scott Brown is seated. However, they still have a number of parliamentary procedures at their disposal that might allow them to avoid another vote in the Senate that would require 60 votes. The problem with these options is that some Democrats are opposed to them on principle while others worry that using them will anger voters even more.

A second option involves re-writing the bill(s) in an effort to find enough common ground with Republicans to get back to a 60 vote majority in the Senate. However, it will be MUCH harder to find bipartisan consensus now that there is blood in the water than it would have been 10 months ago when the process began. Republicans are calling on Congress to “go back to the drawing boards”. That might have worked a few months ago but it is questionable whether there is enough time…and energy…to do this before the 2010 election season begins in earnest.

According to a third set of options, the bill(s) would be broken down into smaller, less adventuresome bills that would enact fairly narrow, specific reforms that are generally popular and could get majority support in the House and 60 votes in the Senate. This is probably the best idea out there right now.

But all of these options ignore a basic reality: Speaker Pelosi is down to just a one vote pro-reform majority in the House and 11 conservative Democrats have indicated that they may switch their votes to “no” if the final bill does not contain a total ban on abortion funding, a provision totally unacceptable to liberals. Only one of these “Blue Dogs” needs to make good on that threat to kill the bill in the House. And it will now be easier than ever for one or more of them to change sides saying, “I am listening to the will of the people so clearly expressed in Massachusetts.” The election of Scott Brown has created political cover for members of Congress who would like to forget this entire nightmare and get back to the business of government.

So what’s next? Literally, nobody knows. As we’ve said before in this blog: Stay tuned!

A little known Republican state senator from Massachusetts has won election to the U.S. Senate seat held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy. Scott Brown becomes the 41st Republican senator, denying Democrats their filibuster-proof 60 vote “super majority”.

But Brown’s victory isn’t just about numbers; it is a dramatic message to everyone in Washington that voters (even in dark blue states like Massachusetts) are VERY unhappy with the course of events in this country and will do almost anything to turn things around. And there’s already evidence that politicians are getting the message:

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) made it clear this morning that he would not support any effort to rush health care reform through Congress prior to Scott Brown’s official seating. And none other than ultra-liberal congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) stated that Congress needs to “re-think” the direction of that reform. 

Today, there are three possible paths: (1) The Democrat leadership could still try to push the current bill(s) through Congress, ignoring the express will of the voters or (2) Congress could abandon health care reform legislation entirely or(3) Congress could come together on compromise, bi-partisan health care reform package that would increase the number of insureds, improve the health of all Americans, and bend the heath care cost curve.

Such a compromise might include the following:

(1) Insurance reform: no more medical underwriting, no more pre-exisiting condition limitations.

(2) Catastrophic mandate: All Americans would need to show that they had protection against the cost of hospitalization, surgery and diagnositc testing over $5,000/year.

(3) Subsidy: Expansion of Medicaid to help low income Americans afford the cost of health insurance.

(4) Incentive: Tax breaks for employers who invest in their employees’ health.

Democracy…a novel concept. Since ancient Athens the idea of popular rule has flickered on and off across the global political landscape. But the current Health Care Reform debate is a great advertisement for self-government: the American people are WAY AHEAD of their political leaders when it comes to understanding the current health care crisis and supporting policies that would actually make things better.

For example, recent Rassmussed polling shows:

(1) 74% favor rules that would prevent insurance carriers from denying coverage based on pre-exisiting conditions. This is the single reform that is most urgently needed…and the people overwhelmingly agree.

(2) 57% favor increased subsidies to help lower-income people buy health insurance.

(3) 57% favor tort reform, a key element in any possible solution but an element entirely absent from the bills currently pending in Congress.

(4) On the other hand, less than 50% of the people favor either the individual or the employer mandate.

(5) Finally, and most perceptively, only 24% think that people should be prohibited from buying low premium/high deductible health plans. Such a prohibition is a key feature in pending legislation but it enjoys almost no support among the American public.

All in all, what people are saying is that increased competition, more personal choice and responsibility, a stronger safety net and a level regulatory playing field are the keys to expanding coverage and holding down costs. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves!

On January 19, voters in Massachusetts will elect a new Senator to replace Ted Kennedy. It has been widely assumed that the Democratic nominee, Martha Coakley, a strong supporter of the pending Health Care Reform bills, would win easily and preserve the Democrats’ 60 vote “supermajority” in the Senate.

However, polling data released Wednesday by Rassmussen shows a very different picture. Republican Scott Brown is within 9 points of Coakley. Even more surprising, he is within 2 points of Coakley among those who say they are “certain to vote”.

This polling result, reportedly confirmed by the candidates’ own private polls, will release a torrent of campaign spending as Democrats and Republicans all across America rush to contribute to their candidates in this historic contest.

A win by Brown would rob the Democrats of their 60th vote and would probably doom the current Health Care Reform bills to defeat. Even a strong showing by Brown (withing 10 percentage points?) might send enough of a shock wave across the country to shake lose one or two of the wavering Democrat Senators…or a half dozen wavering Representatives in the House.