According to CNN in the article above, Republican Scott Brown won the senate seat previously held by Democrat Ted Kennedy (the Liberal Lion) for 47 years. His opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, conceded the election when down 47 - 52 percent. What does this signal? What does this mean for people like me, who lean left on a lot of issues? What does this do to one of the major issues of our lifetime, healthcare reform?
First, the historical context. As shown in recent elections, Massachusetts falls heavily Democratic in Presidential elections, and routinely fields Liberal senators. The entry of Senator Brown into the seat marks a large change from what once was - decades of Democratic leadership.
Most importantly, this appointment changes the structure of the Senate. Before Brown's election, the Democrats held a Supermajority in the Senate. This meant that the Democrats had the required number of voters to theoretically push through any legislation they desired. Now, that Supermajority is gone, and a more bipartisan Senate is now in session.
What does this mean for the healthcare debate? For one, it means that the Single Payer and Public Option systems are defeated for good. They were well and dead before Brown's victory, but now they are gone for good (until the next Left-leaning president brings it up again). This is a travesty. The United States remains one of the only countries in the first world that does not provide health care for its citizens - and the people pay for that (both out of pocket, and in lives lost). According to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917), 45000 people die each year from lack of health insurance. This is beyond an economic or social problem - it is a moral problem. People are dying on our watch from assignable and preventable cause - yet we stand here and debate how much its going to cost or if we can get bipartisan support or if Joe Lieberman would vote for it or - and I can't believe this ever became an issue - if there were actually going to be death panels.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm a young person who sees this issue in a different light than the people in charge. Run this through your mind for a second though - US Senators and Representatives (and a lot others in government positions) receive taxpayer-funded healthcare. I don't begrudge them this at all - but then some of them vote against giving the average citizen the same protection. It doesn't make sense to me.
Budget concerns? Okay, lets get rid of a military base in Germany (Germany for god's sake!), maybe some in Japan, and bring the troops home from Iraq. That covers it. Healthcare for everyone - from the amount we've spent on unnecessary military expenditures.
But what about the people who are out of jobs because the government takes over healthcare (mainly insurance workers and redundant medical staff). Well, they are skilled, and they can find other work. But most importantly - they would have healthcare.
The election of Brown to the Senate seat changed all that. If you thought Republicans were staunch and stubborn in never giving any compromise in healthcare before, now that they do not face a supermajority, look out. Their demands will be more excessive than before. Because the truth is this: real healthcare reform was blocked by the Republicans (and a few Democrats) in the Senate. They stripped the bill down from a Public Option to some watered down legislation that demands everybody who can afford it to buy insurance...from insurance companies. Huh...
The election of Brown has also shown me something. Maybe the people just don't want real healthcare reform. Maybe the people of Massachusetts are happy with the system we have today - and they voted for that. Good for them. But in the process they killed a hope that we could have real healthcare reform in this country for at least another 3 years. My personal beliefs were defeated by democracy, an eye-opening event.
In the time you took to read this note another person died from lack of health insurance.
