Note that I'm using this picture for levity purposes only. My arguments don't require cheap-shots by way of Cosmo. Besides, his abs aren't that great...Now that the internet has stopped exploding, I think we can have a reasonable discussion about Scott Brown's victory, the future of healthcare reform and the future of the Democratic party.

Before I get into what the election means, let's be clear about what it does not mean. Brown's victory does not mean the nation has rejected healthcare reform altogether. Massachusetts has universal healthcare through a system of co-ops, so they couldn't care less about the nation's plans. Many Bay Staters likely resent the federal government for drafting a plan that allows their tax dollars to go toward a national system from which they would not benefit. So, when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says, “There’s a reason the nation was focused on this race: The voters in Massachusetts, like Americans everywhere, have made it abundantly clear where they stand on health care," I think he's purposefully misleading people. It doesn't take a logician to tell you that Bay Staters are not like "Americans everywhere." "Americans everywhere" do not have affordable healthcare insurance. And unlike Bay Staters, the rest of the country can look forward to healthcare costs continuing to spiral out of control.

So, here's the big question: Have Americans rejected healthcare? I think the answer is "yes." But, politcally, that answer is fairly useless. The even bigger question, if you're a Democrat, is "why?" Most Republicans don't care why. Why should they? It's not in their best interest to figure out why. However, if you're a politician trying to solve long term problems, then why is extremely important. Why is the difference between a) letting the issue die and b) forcing America to swallow the bitter healthcare pill. The latter must happen eventually.

So let's look at why healthcare reform has become so unpopular. A logical reason for the shift in healthcare reform popularity would be if the problem was solved. If all of a sudden, everyone with quarrels with their health insurance provider managed to get their premiums paid. Maybe, during the last several months, no one was denied healthcare insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Perhaps the uninsured started paying for their own emergency room visits. Obviously that's not what's happening. The problem is just as bad now as it was when Obama won the presidency by, believe it or not, largely campaigning on healthcare reform. So why is the public no longer as gung-ho about healthcare reform as they used to be? Well, it's because they don't have jobs.

Now that's almost a logical reason to obstruct healthcare reform (more on the almost in a bit). If you don't have a job, you probably want the government diverting most of its attention to creating jobs. Of course, this raises some hypocrisy. If you rallied against healthcare reform because Congress should instead be working to aid the economy, then that would mean you think the government should spend money and energy aiding the economy. If that's the case, then you probably shouldn't degrade Obama's first stimulus bill too much and you certainly shouldn't impede the next one. If you think Obama shouldn't exercise so much federal power and instead just let the market work itself out, that's one thing. As much as I disagree, I respect that position. But if you're out there saying, "Obama needs to quit messing with healthcare and instead focus on the economy," but also saying, "Not another stimulus!" then I'm just going to associate you with the other obstructionists.

For the sake of clarity: You cannot fault Obama for ignoring the economy to pass healthcare and then block his efforts to aid the economy. This hypocrisy may seem obvious to you, but I dare you to watch the commentary following Obama's state of the union speech. Someone will make this argument. And I will try not to lash out irrationally.

Let me revisit the almost I wrote earlier. The problem with sacrificing healthcare in order to focus on the economy is that both are long term problems that will not react quickly to present actions. So, sacrificing healthcare for the economy would make sense if both weren't pressing long term concerns that require immediate action. This is where American's "gotta have it now" mentality causes problems. Neither of these problems will go away in the months following the passage of legislation. So now we have people perturbed that the economy hasn't rebounded after all of Obama's efforts; they want to nix healthcare in order to fix the economy and create jobs. But even if Obama says, "No more on healthcare. I'm devoting 100% of my time and energy on jobs," he will get the same frustrated response from voters as he did last year. Why? Because job creation, like healthcare, won't be significantly affected by a bill's passage overnight -- not after 10 nights, 100 nights, or maybe even 1,000 nights.

And that's the folly in playing the public opinion game when it comes to long term domestic issues. Public opinion will invariably change. Emphasis will shift from the economy, to healthcare, to wars overseas, to Tiger Woods. That's America. If all you do is sit and stare at the polls, nothing will get done. Sure, Americans don't think healthcare is all that important now. Then Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield or whoever will destroy someone's life. It'll get on CNN and the nation is back to beating the healthcare drum in six months. If Obama is at fault, it is for trying to fix all our problems at once. Not because it's a bad idea or that it can't be done, it's because America won't let it happen. Americans think it's reasonable to sacrifice healthcare for the economy. It almost makes sense, but ultimately does not. If we don't get the ball rolling on both issues now, then American could be in serious trouble in ten years.

The public now clamors for law makers to halt healthcare reform and start over. It took nearly 20 years to get as far we were the day before Scott Brown's election (counting from Hilary Clinton's first efforts). Hell, Ted Kennedy championed healthcare reform all his life. If you want healthcare tabled, neglected, and set aside for the next generation to tackle, then by all means, keep telling lawmakers to "start over." That's what you'll get. Do you really think Republicans want to try to reform healthcare after seeing what the debate did to the Democratic party? Of course not. In order to gain significant political capital, all they have to do is stop the Democrats. That's it. I welcome a bold Republican solution to the healthcare conundrum. Nothing watered down, like the Republican bills we've seen thus far. I mean a real solution, like the one the House passed. But I doubt we'll get it, because why act when obstructing others from acting is enough to win elections? Case and point: Scott Brown's victory.

*EDIT* Sorry, no part 2. I'm afraid I let too much time go by and the issue isn't newsworthy anymore. However, I think I already covered the main points I wanted to make about the political atmosphere following Scott Brown's victory.