Voters Sound Off on Health Insurance Reform

Earlier this week, Massachusetts held a special election to fill the vacancy in the U.S. Senate left by Senator Edward Kennedy’s death in 2009. At first, the pundits expected Martha Coakley, the Democrat, to hold onto the seat. After all, the state has more than three times as many registered Democrats as Republicans. According to form, Coakley enjoyed more than a 20-point lead in the polls. But in the final weeks of the campaign, Coakley’s lead disappeared. On Election Day, Republican Scott Brown prevailed by a five-point margin–receiving 52% of the vote to Coakley’s 47%. The stunning turnaround left politicians and pundits sifting through the results like CSI detectives trying to make sense of what happened.

Democratic spin-meisters argued that voter discontent at the stagnant economy sank the Coakley campaign. Republicans disagreed, saying the vote was a referendum on the health insurance reform legislation passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve, in the middle of the campaign.

The vote on health care insurance reform marked the turning point in the campaign, catapulting Brown from sacrificial lamb to successor of the Lion of the Senate.

The forensic evidence supports the latter view. The health care insurance reform debate dominated the news during the campaign, and it was the central piece of legislation that a U.S. Senator would have to consider this term. Brown made the issue the centerpiece of his campaign, promising voters he would oppose it. Coakley said she would vote for it. It was left to the voters to decide.

They did. Resoundingly.

Nor were the Massachusetts voter out of step with the rest of the country. Polls indicate that scarcely more than a third of voters support the health insurance reform bill nationwide. Concerned citizens across the country are saying, “Wait. Let’s think about this. We want to improve the health care system, but this bill is not the way to do it.”

The demise of the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the Senate affords the opportunity to incorporate some bi-partisan ideas into health insurance reform. For example, we can address the underlying causes of runaway healthcare costs by putting a cap on medical malpractice awards, decreasing the need for doctors to practice defensive medicine by ordering superfluous, costly tests and procedures. We can permit health insurance companies to do business across state lines, allowing healthy competition to drive down insurance costs. And we can protect the actuarial foundation of health insurance while extending health insurance coverage to the gravely ill by creating a transparent superfund to pay for the care of the truly uninsurable. These simple steps would require little in the way of bureaucracy or cost but would make private health insurance more affordable, allowing millions of people who are currently uninsured to get the coverage they need.

What are we waiting for?