Well, everyone worried about Ted Kennedy’s death and what it would mean to any meaningful change to the health care system in the United States.  Apart from all the unwarranted hysteria about the Kennedy curse (he was old and he died…), I thought the press handled it pretty well, including The Kosmopolitan Online, which wrote a couple of nice editorials on Ted’s contributions to the Senate and how he was a one-man filibuster and so on and so forth.  I have to admit I never liked the guy, but staunchness and constancy aren’t very well spoken for in our representation, apart from on the extremely local level.  The paradigmatic Kennedy contributed a lot to health care reform while he was alive; he contributed even more by dying, creating an inamorata around which the Democrats could rally.  Democratic zeal for health care after his death is what got the legislation this far.

But now it’s fucked.

In an impossible victory, Scott Brown (R) defeated Martha Coakley (D) approximately 53 to 47 percent to take the late senator’s seat in Massachusetts.  The usually overwhelmingly democratic Massachusetts shocked the polity by electing to the senate the 41st member of the GOP, which keeps alive the Republican filibuster for the Senate health care bill.  President Obama’s first year in office is shot (unless he’s out of the country), and Democrats can wave goodbye any hopes of an expeditious piece of legislation.

Martha, Martha, Martha

I would understand if Martha Coakley had been in some kind of drug scandal and lost the election; I would understand if she was an ineffective campaigner.  No, I think Martha Coakley is another name for President Barack Obama and His Administration…Most democrats seem to have lost a little faith in their “change is coming” mantra, with frustration permeating throughout the House and Senate at the longevity of this convoluted health care bill.  Granted, the death of the champion probably didn’t help, but someone famous once said that things will one day be judged by the content of their character instead of outward appearances.

Scott Brown’s campaign platform makes the election even more painful for democrats to swallow: he actively opposes the health care legislation in the House and Senate.

It doesn’t help that Obama had a bad year.  What makes things worse is that he knows and admits that the year was bad, calling the Christmas Day attack of the Northwest airliner “a systematic failure” on the part of the administration.  The economy’s positive response to the senatorial election can almost entirely be attributed to increased faith in drug companies which would otherwise have been negatively impacted by the President’s health care package.  That’s sickening.

I think it’s funny that Scott Brown once posed nude for Cosmopolitan – it means we’re breaking down this crusty, white male paradigm of “what a politician should be” (iniquitous, venal, etc.).  I just wish Scott Brown was a (D).  Sigh…

“It’s the price of oil, the war for the spoils, where’s your bucket for the big bailout? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, we got a lot to drink about…”

Forgive my unlicensed quoting of a Jimmy Buffett song (for an intelligentsia-marketed publication no less), but it seems to me that today is a great day to develop some alcoholism. Now, I don’t mean to mock anyone with a serious problem (get some help?), but a recovering alcoholic got us into this mess. Shouldn’t our law-professor generalissimo be able to realize that maybe voicing withdrawal plans that are as intelligible as a monophonic recording of Bob Dylan singing the Tax Code in hurricane-force winds might not be the best strategy to adopt? That may be a bit harsh, but I should like to think that Il Duce is smart enough to experience a little déjà vu when he hears his withdrawal plan float out past that mole-colored mole on his lip. And I’m not likening Obama-fo-yo-Mama to Mussolini, but all of this plebeian pandering is reminiscent of the 30s in Europe, ain’t it?

It occurs to me (your local card-carrying GOP-er) that the withdrawal plan el Presidente has been handed to read to the public is strikingly similar to dear-old-W’s “wait-and-see” approach that had Hillary (this is actually her plan donchaknow) and Her Hell-kittens in a hullaballoo not too long ago.  Just don’t let anyone named scaevola (Latin, look it up) know that, holy shit, there are similarities between our two indelible parties.

“What if we’re wrong”, I question myself, “what if we just happen to be overreacting to the health-care debate?” That’s possible, but what’s also possible is that I’m still disgusted with the rabidity that Obama-disciples display; don’t let’s criticize the Phrenologist-in-chief, “he’s won a peace prize” (don’t worry, no “piece” puns here); “he’s ‘fixed’ the economy” (my collie is wincing).  Bullshit, he’s just as little as Clinton ever did, except Obama has a Senate in his favor, in HIS FAVOR!

By the by, the economy still isn’t fixed, but it’ll be worsened by spending ourselves deeper into Chinese debt. We can’t fix healthcare with a public option and it’s very foolish for Liberals to compare it to the VA. There won’t be an up-swell in new industry by placing increasingly devious barriers to job-growth. There won’t be any major success in Iraq and Afghanistan until either of those nations decides it wants success and the citizenry actively seeks to extirpate the fascist-fundamentalist coalition which has hijacked the same faith which sponsored Battuta’s journeys to China. I used to be an optimist, you know.

The fact is that the Change-Meister-in-chief has failed to bring his “change.” Don’t get me wrong, everyone in Washington politics needs to be taken out for an afternoon of electroshock, but it starts at the top.  I know it’s a tired line, but the hype generated by our President was obviously better suited for campaigning than leading.  I mean, anyone could get elected with that kind of plebiscitary doling.

Headlines are punchlines folks and there’s not much we can do about it, except pour shots and bitch until someone comes along worth supporting. We’ve got a lot to drink about…

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a long-awaited vote on Sen. Max Baucus’ America’s Healthy Future Act. What is most surprising may not be that this bill is finally getting a vote after months of negotiations and holdups, but that it may be the bill that finally makes its way out of Congress and on to the President’s desk all by the end of this year.

Sen. Baucus Meets with Treasury Secretary Geithner

Don’t get me wrong, the Baucus bill has its critics (including yours truly). However, the fact that the bill came out of a series of bipartisan negotiations that angered those on the left and the right has to say something about the overall substance of the bill.

The Baucus bill aims to expand coverage to more Americans via Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (co-ops) and an individual mandate with available tax credits and subsidies. When it comes down to sheer numbers, it would lower the amount of uninsured Americans to 29 million (form a staggering 47 million last year) by the end of the next decade.

In terms of coverage, the Baucus bill makes great strides. In terms of the President’s outline for reform, it meets all mandatory points.

The Baucus bill would put into place a new set of consumer protections that would prohibit insurance companies from denying patients coverage due to pre-existing conditions and also would prohibit them from dropping patients when they get sick. It also focuses on requirements for preventative care and capping certain out-of-pocket expenses.

The down side to the Baucus bill is that it abandons the idea of a public option, and instead favors a co-op health plan. Co-ops would be fine if we could trust insurance companies to price their premiums at market value, but there is no mechanism in the bill to keep their feet to the fire other than a government commission that will likely be given little power. We need to look no further than Blue Cross Blue Shield to see a co-op gone bad, and that is what scares me about this bill.

So far, so good for the Baucus bill. It gets fairly decent marks from me. Additionally, it gets fairly decent marks from a number of former GOP leaders like Bob Dole, Bill Frist, and Chuck Hagel, and the bill doesn’t even cover Bob’s Viagra. But here comes the biggest selling point. The Baucus bill is estimated to reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next decade.

That’s right. I said reduce. And I also said that number is $81 billion (with a “B”).

The key to any voter’s heart lies deep in their pocketbook. This plan will pass through Congress not only because it will make America physically healthier, but because it brings down cost, too.

I said earlier that I am not the biggest fan of this plan. It’s true. I prefer a public option. However, it is clear that such a plan has some Democrats in tough election cycles scratching their heads and has every Republican screaming on Fox News. The Baucus bill meets almost all goals set forth for health care reform and will insure 94 percent of Americans. Those numbers are better than today’s, and I’m happy to support a bill that can pass and improves that number as opposed to one that will fail and leave us back where we started. This debate truly is about America’s Healthy Future, and if we can improve that outlook I’m on boar