A Special Election in Massachusetts, and Health Reform Hangs in the Balance
UPDATE: 9:54 p.m., Jan. 19
The phrase "stunning upset" doesn't even begin to capture the national political shockwaves as Republican Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's seat. The "what happens to health reform now?" political analysis below remains relevant. In the meantime, here's a quick roundup of the latest coverage and analysis:
The Boston Globe's Lisa Wangsness examines Democrats' strategy for pushing health reform through now that they've lost their 60th vote in the Senate and doesn't mince words about what health reform's failure would mean for the party:
...Democrats will need at least one Republican on board to accomplish anything on their or the president's agenda. That is a tremendous weight, since relations between the parties have soured to such a degree that even relatively routine matters became full-fledged parliamentary battles late last year.
Failure to enact a health care bill, which the president made his top domestic priority and Congress spent a year pursuing, could be a political disaster of epic proportions for Democrats, casting serious doubt on their ability to govern and further jeopardizing their political position heading into this year's elections.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein blogs: I really wonder what the Democratic Caucus thinks will happen if they let health-care reform slip away and walk into 2010 having wasted a year of the country's time amidst a terrible recession. It won't be pretty, I imagine. If health-care reform passes, the two sides can argue over whether it was a success. If it fails, there's no argument.
And the New York Times' David Herzenhorn examines how advocacy groups are spinning the prospects for passing health reform legislation.
Stay tuned. We'll have more tomorrow.
1:05 p.m., Jan. 19
Health reform advocates and critics alike are glued to Massachusetts election coverage today, awaiting the outcome of a surprisingly close race for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat. So much is at stake: Republican candidate Scott Brown, facing off against Democrat Martha Coakley, has said he'd cast the 41st vote against health reform legislation. Here's what some health and policy wonks are thinking about the ramifications:
Matthew Holt at The Health Care Blog forecasts what happens if Brown wins:
No bill means in 5–10 years a huge rise in uninsurance, no reform of the delivery system, and no prospect for a rationalization of health care spending. That will mean the collapse of large parts of the health care system in a spasmodic unplanned fashion.
Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein outlines what House Democrats would have to do to pass current health reform legislation if Brown wins, and exhorts them to do it.
Robert Schlesinger, writing for U.S. News and World Report, is more pessimistic that House Dems would indeed pass the Senate health reform bill untouched, which they must do to avoid a filibuster. The fallout he predicts:
If they fail to pass a healthcare bill, Democrats as a party will have achieved a remarkable political hat-trick: Anger base liberals by failing to produce a perfect progressive bill, anger independents by producing a bill that was too liberal, and anger pragmatic progressives by failing to produce anything at all.
And Jonathan Cohn, writing for The New Republic, pins his hopes on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President to push reform through even without that crucial 60th Senate vote.
Pelosi is one of the two big reasons I believe health care reform has a decent (not good) shot of passing, even if Scott Brown wins today. The other is President Obama. Both understand that enacting health care reform is in their personal, and their parties', long-term interest. More important, both believe health care reform is the right thing to do--and aren't about to give up on it, this close to success, because their party's majority in the Senate is "only" nine seats instead of ten.