Well, shit.
It turns out that the common wisdom was wrong: a Democrat doesn't automatically get to be Senator in Massachusetts. The election must still be held.
Or maybe the common wisdom was right: no matter how favored, a Democrat is still capable of losing an election.
The truth is probably a hybrid: the Democrat gets to be Senator unless she trashes the Red Sox, refuses to campaign, misspells her state, and shows a complete absence of basic human charm.
Meanwhile we have Scott Brown - a Republican who supports water-boarding, opposes cap-and-trade, and stands pretty much shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican party on any given issue - in Ted Kennedy's seat until 2012. 2012, of course, is a presidential election year. Presidential election years tend to have higher turnout. And election day will be in November not January... when it's warmer. And people tend to vote straight down the ticket. Massachusetts has voted for the democratic presidential candidate since 1988.
Anyway, Mr. Brown's tenure in the Senate is likely to be short-lived.
So: what now?
The key issue on the table was health care reform. Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage. So it looks like voters who will be totally unaffected by health care reform are opposed to it. Good for them.
As for the rest of us (and I can't afford health insurance, so I really mean 'us' here), little has changed. There will no longer be a Democratic supermajority in the Senate. The Senate already passed a health care plan though and only needs to revote on the bill if it is adjusted in the conference committee.
So - and I encourage everyone to swallow the big hunk of outrage now caught in their throat - we need to vocally and wholeheartedly support the Senate bill without any changes.
By 'we,' I mean progressives, I mean almost everyone writing for this site, and I certainly mean the unions. Progressives need to give up the demand for a public option, the unions need to accept the so-called 'cadillac' tax, and we all need to accept that it's time to pass something.
The fact is this: healthcare reform, however imperfect, is dramatically and substantively better than no healthcare reform. At the very least, it forces Americans to contemplate the costs of their own healthcare and the insanely opaque system through which those costs are calculated. And, as Atul Gawande points out in a December New Yorker article, the Senate bill at least begins to contemplate how we might begin to work towards a longer-term solution.
Also - and I really want to emphasize this - I will get health care coverage.
This is an exciting prospect. I am very accident prone.
There are other benefits as well: the bill ought to be deficit-neutral, it forces us to honestly assess the percentage of our GDP going towards health care, it philosophically recommits us to protecting our poorest and weakest citizens, and it begins to examine why health care in Rochester, Minnesota is so much better than health care in McAllen, Texas at one third of the price.
But even if you are on the fence about it, consider this: by passing the Senate bill, as is, through the House, progressives and Democrats will avoid being derailed on a major legislative objective by political infighting.
That would truly defy the common wisdom.
Follow Nicholas Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nicktbrown
Brian Reid: Is Medicare Just Bad at Controlling Cost?
I am assuming this is satire.
This Senate bill is not a "health care reform" bill. It is a "health insurance mandate" bill.
It forces tens of millions of American by law to purchase for-profit insurance at whatever rates the insurance corporations wish to charge, with no public option, under heavy tax penalty if you don't with the full enforcement power of the IRS.
Sorry, but this health insurance mandate bill was simply a deal to exchange a mandate and no public option for an ocean of corporate campaign cash.
It does more harm that good.
I believe that our corporate shill President who did not have the courage or character to stand up and fight the conservative movement or corporate power will nonetheless bully progressives to vote for the health insurance mandate bill, so you will get what you want.
But I have no intention of supporting this trillions of dollars of corporate welfare on the backs of those who can least afford to pay it.
And we don't have to pretend that this bill is good just so the corporate shill President can have an empty "win'.
I would prefer a public option. No question. But mandating insurance coverage begins to solve a problem that has proved politically intractable. Mandatory insurance is good for a number of reasons, but I'll address two here: first, mandatory insurance forces people like me, who are young, relatively healthy, and might otherwise opt-out of insurance coverage to opt in. This spreads the health care costs of the unlucky few among the fortunate many and eliminates the most criminally unjust aspect of health insurance in this country: that a person who is injured through some freakishly cruel twist of fate will not only be injured but forever in debt.
Second, mandatory insurance creates a political atmosphere where the body politic is forced to examine health costs honestly. In the same way that a draft forces all of us to look at the justness of our military policy, mandatory insurance makes us all examine the costs of our health care system.
Those "unlucky and few" still have the current option of medicaid.
And as far as mandatory insurance goes, if preexisting conditions are removed, and the $750 tax for not having insurance stands. It's cheaper for me to NOT pay for the insurance I already have and just get insurance when I get "sick", drop it while I'm not, get it again when I'm "sick", repeat...
Mandatory insurance is just not right. The government can not require me to pay something to a private company just for existing. And don't even compare it to driving, driving is not a right it's a luxury and having to have liability insurance in order to drive is no way on the same lines as mandatory insurance. Luxury vs Living.
Unions not having to pay the 40% tax until 2018... there's so many ways that's wrong. Aren't the Cadillac gold-plated plans supposed to pay for the rest of this thing?
Thankfully my health insurance is only a 1/3rd of the limit for the tax.. (I'm sick of taxes)
I honestly don't think there's anything in this plan that will make health insurance cheaper. Other than the mandate, but I don't think they had it in mind, do you?
But the following line:
"Also - and I really want to emphasize this - I will get health care coverage. "
That's nice, but I don't want to pay for years on top of mine.
You might think you have it good- just don't get sick- ever. Your nice comfortable monthly health care bill will balloon- just read the small print.
I don't know, my 28yo sisters health insurance payment (employee offered, by a bar, to a bartender) is the same after falling snowboarding and fracturing her hip which made her bed ridden for 2+ weeks. Or when she got too drunk the night after our grandfather died, she fell and knocked out 3 teeth which her insurance replaced.
Mine didn't rise after dropping a car on my arm (don't ask), or busting out a knee I had to have repaired after sliding into a post on my knees (at age 35) during speed-ball. My payment didn't change after that either.
Now sick, I never visited a doctor for that. If you mean REALLY sick, I can probably pay any bill I'd run into off in a few years. And for those that can't there is Medicaid (which states pay a portion towards from our taxes) The bill being put forth does not get rid of Medicaid.
Oh! My renters insurance did go up by $2 after moving to a place that didn't come with sprinklers, but I know that's not related.