Scott Brown Goodbye Hello filibuster-proof health reform

reform of health care, which seems inevitable a few weeks earlier, has suffered a serious setback. Yesterday, the state of Massachusetts held a special election to fill the position of the late Ted Kennedy Senate. On a sad irony for those seeking change the American system of individual health insurance, the reform has been staunch supporter of non-Martha Coakley replaced by a Democrat but a Republican by Brown, Scott. Brown is campaigning largely on his opposition to health care.

Independent voters failed in the endless debates on the health care reform. The economy, including an unemployment rate of 10%, were their main concern. Many Democrats believe that health reform is closely related to the job – they feel that small businesses that create more jobs in the United States is more likely to be launched if employers have more to worry about finding health insurance is affordable for self-employed. However, they failed to convince the public to vote on these potential benefits.

The results mean that the Democratic Party lost its majority in the Senate Jam. With 41 votes, Republicans can now block the bill of health. Leader of the majority, Harry Reid, has promised that soon oath Brown and such an approach would have potentially catastrophic consequences measures. For Democrats to run for reelection This year, weather and hostile. The White House is concerned about this near-fatal blow to the centerpiece of the national program of President Obama.

Employees have pointed the finger at Coakley to run an incompetent campaign, which included several notable gaffes and relatively little action on the ground. Moreover, Coakley employees accused the National Party and the White House for not providing a last-minute support (Obama made a campaign speech in the name) and the delay in approving a health insurance reform that has allowed the public increasingly impatient. A few weeks ago, Coakley has a substantial advantage in the polls, but has lost much As Congressional committees continued to match their bills with seemingly little progress. Both parties have certainly played a role in the defeat.

Massachusetts has more experience with the health insurance reform that most of the states. For several years the state had individual health insurance mandate. The term, which is somewhat similar to the current Senate bill, requires all residents to buy either a health insurance or pay a fine. It also provides grants to help individuals and families in a certain annual income to buy coverage. Medicare and Medicaid insurance are also available. Although it has resulted in a reduction significantly in the percentage of uninsured residents, the costs continued to rise in the reform of health care in Massachusetts. (Although the Senate has proposed other measures to control costs beyond those used in Massachusetts, the Liberals in the House have long objected to some of them – like the tax on insurance high cost, which mainly affected the majority of voters in the Democratic Union.) It is possible that personal experience color their vote.

Surveys output is in this concept, polls show that nearly half of Massachusetts voters were mainly affected by the health care reform, as opposed to Obama's overall agenda. In fact, the majority of Massachusetts voters approved of his performance, both in general and more specific issues (eg war in Afghanistan and the economy). Thirty-nine percent of voters say Brown is opposed to health insurance reform is the source for your vote. Coakley tactics lack of personal charisma and the perception of negative campaign also had an impact.

In what many saw as the incarnation of a blue state, emotions should be taken into account. Prominent Republican politicians and spokesmen have taken the vote in a new proof that any reform health insurance should be eliminated entirely. But it would be even more humiliating for the Democrats, who have spent a lot of political capital in the measure. The most likely option for Democrats is to convince the House of Representatives vote on the Senate bill as is, allowing you to reach an office Obama to be signed. This approach is legal and requires no new vote on the measure, the temporary replacement named James T. Kirk of the vote itself will be maintained. However, it works, the risk of inciting public anger due to perceptions that go against the will of the public. In addition, the Chamber of fact several adjustments to its own bill, which was released in this agreement.

Progressive House, who already feel as if they had given up a lot in the negotiations (Same the public choice) does not want to vote for the bill less expansive Senate. May be convinced to sell the idea of adopting legislation to provide health insurance at low cost to millions of uninsured Americans, especially since a new home can vote with Brown probably kill the bill altogether. Meanwhile, some conservative and centrist Democrats in the House of Representatives are angry at what has weak restrictions on abortion coverage subsidized individual health insurance policies. Some Democratic senators or representatives for re-election may also change sides and vote against any legislation All re-vote. This can hurt them with voters as he painted as a flip-floppers.

(Photo: Website of the Massachusetts State Government)

Politics: Health Care Reform: Then and Now – nytimes.com

Responding to Healthcare Reform $79.95 Responding to Healthcare Reform