That doesn't really sound different from what he was saying before. He didn't oppose health care reform, and his historical views on health care reform are fairly liberal. However, he felt that Congress should start over, because the people were left out of the discussion and the health care bill they got isn't what they want.

The health care bill in Massachusetts polled okay then and it polls okay now. the federal health care bill, despite being substantially similar, polls poorly. So you have to go back to the drawing board.

But note at the beginning when he says

"We're past campaign mode"

i.e. I no longer have to lie to win.

Seems like exactly what he was campaigning on. Anyone who was actually paying attention and not just cheerleading knew that he was no die hard libertarian conservative. He's a Massachusetts Republican. The fact of the matter is that if the Dems had proposed what he is talking about here, it would have passed in July with 5-10 Republican votes.

Maybe he's being a joker. Here's what he said a couple of days ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/scott-brown-my-daughters_b_432434.html

***QUOTE***
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - Republican Scott Brown, Massachusetts' newly minted Senator, toured the Capitol today and revisited a theme from his victory speech, telling reporters, "My daughters are available, but if I have my way, health care won't be."

Chuckling at his remark, Mr. Brown added, "I was just kidding. Not about the health care part, though. I was dead serious about that."
***END QUOTE***

Maybe interpreting what "dead serious" means requires death panels!

Meh. At worst, he's Coakley in disuguise (which I doubt).

Anything better than that is a plus.

what Phelps said,

Brown was clear that he was for some sort of healthcare reform (ie pushing back against the Obamacrat meme that Republicans never have/had any alternatives to ObamaCare) just not what is currently offered. He says "back to the drawing board" here and during the campaign.

There ARE many legitimate reforms that can be had - such as selling insurance across state lines and tort reform.

I had no illusions about Brown - but I respect his self-made background including 30 years with the National Guard translating into someone with a lot less "entitlement" issues than Coakley, Obama and the rest of the "shut up, WE know whats good for you" statists in the Dem party.

Where is tort reform? What percentage of procedures and testing happens due to CYA by doctors - who reasonably do so? There is a model for insurance to cover bad outcomes whether malpractice or bad luck - its the federal vaccine insurance program to cover costs of that 1 in 100,000 who are harmed by a particular vaccine. Such a program along with medical review boards with some teeth would actually save money.

Darleen,

Yes. But what did Scott SAY/b>?

1. Every one is going to get some kind of care

Do I have to?

2. Offer a basic plan for everyone

Isn't that what insurance cos already do?

3. Should we raise taxes?

Hell yes. The economy is doing way too well.

4. Or cut half a trillion from Medicare?

Sure. The plan already has too many doctors. No doctors no patients. I can see vast savings from that. It might also help keep Social Security solvent. A Twofer.

5. Affect veterans care.

VA hospitals are already too good.

====

Here is his official position:

http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues

I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.

i.e. in a rich state like Mass. the plan they have is not affordable.

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/blog/massachusetts-healthcare-plan-trouble

When enacted, MassHealth was touted as the answer to correcting the problem of the uninsured in Massachusetts. Healthcare providers (i.e., hospitals) and insurers were compelled to take cuts in reimbursement upon implementation of the program several years ago.

Today we find that earlier assumptions about cost and utilization were wrong and that enrollee benefits have to be reduced and providers have to take further cuts. Payments to hospitals and physicians for 2009 are deferred until 2010, and 2010 payments until 2011.

According to recent news reports, MassHealth explained that the shortfall is due to increased enrollment, higher utilization of services, and changes in savings estimates that were assumed in the original budget for the program.

The experience in Massachusetts with healthcare reform is frighteningly similar to the battle being waged today in Washington when it comes to healthcare reform.

A recent article points out that states can be useful as laboratories when it comes to new policy. The author points out that “Massachusetts has provided us with an example of a failed experiment in healthcare policy that should be a warning to all Americans as Democrats push to impose something similar on the rest of the nation.”

Now Scott had to know the State plan was in trouble.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10268

* Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
* Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.
# New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
# Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.
# A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician.

Washington keeps ignoring the correct path in favor of some Utopian dream.

None of us lead our lives that way. We assess problems and we address them separately. We don't try to better our lives by attempting to slay a thousand ills with one blow.

They should fix problems with Medicare by changing Medicare independently of all other health care problems.

If that means raising Medicare premiums then so be it. And if it means changing Medicare payouts then accept that. And if the best way to fix it seems to be something else then do that.

Ditto Social Security.

If the Congress also wants to pass separate legislation about private health insurance then do that. Ditto hospitals or torts.

Omnibus Mentality dominates. It leads to bills of several thousand pages containing favors to political pals and lobbies as well as incomprehensible provisions and consequences. It is a mad process.

He's a Republican from Mass, he's not going to be very conservative.

He's doing the thing that most people who supported him wanted, he broke the Dems unbeatable majority in Congress and stopped health care, cap and steal and lots of other stuff.

I couldn't care less if he votes against tax cuts, he's from freaking Mass.

I knew nothing about him except that he said he would stop the health care and cap and steal debacles and I bet most people who sent him money knew exactly as much.

That was enough this year.
We can try to get conservatives in places where they'll be elected, like Nevada, Penn, Virginia (I hope), Florida and, well, you fill in the blanks.

You're not gonna get a conservative in Mass for long time.

Until the last two months it was socially and electorally unacceptable to be to the right of Hillary and Brown has in Mass gov't for a while.
Maybe his victory will encourage conservatives to run and allow independents who are sick of leftists ruining instead of running their state to vote for the dreaded (gasp) R.

Most voters can accept corrupt pols if they don't steal too much and run their fiefs well, the Dems in Mass broke that compact (see health care, Big Dig).

Brown is the foot in the door.

Veeshir,

I favored what he said. Now what will he do?

And like you I am no purist on these matters. But now that he is out of the campaign mode I worry.