What editorial writers are saying about health reform after Brown's election

A sampling of newspapers across the nation shows editorial writers' views on what impact the special election of the new senator from Massachusetts has on health system reform.

Don't give up now

It would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to abandon comprehensive health care reform just because voters in the Massachusetts Senate race [Jan. 19] decided that they liked the Republican, Scott Brown, more than the Democrat, Martha Coakley. There is no question that without a filibuster-proof majority it will be a lot harder to pass a bill. But it should not be impossible if congressional Democrats and the White House show courage and creativity. Health care reform is too important to throw away, and it is not too late to persuade voters that it is in their interest. -- New York Times, Jan. 26

After Massachusetts

Go ahead, call the Republicans' bluff: Invite them to the table. Find out if they want to participate or want to obstruct. We think they have some good ideas for curbing health care costs. And you could find a way to get at least some Republicans to join you in a bill that was better focused on providing coverage to people with preexisting conditions. -- Chicago Tribune, Jan. 20

Faux health reform

Democrats are in turmoil. In the wake of [the Jan. 19] Republican Senate victory in liberal Massachusetts, there's no agreement about what to do with the government health care bill. -- Washington Times, Jan. 25

The incredible, shrinking health care overhaul

No doubt the independent voters in Massachusetts, who sent shivers through Washington by filling the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat with Republican Scott Brown, now hope a chastised Congress will pass a bipartisan bill that attains Obama's goal of affordable health care for all. We would hope the same. -- USA Today, Jan. 21

Health diplomacy

Republicans say that the Democrats wanted a bipartisan gloss on a Democratic bill, and that -- knowing he had an unshakable 60-vote majority in the Senate -- Mr. Obama didn't bargain in a serious way. With the election to the Senate of Scott Brown (R, Mass.), Mr. Obama no longer has that majority. -- Washington Post, Jan. 24

GOP must do more than just vote no on health-care reform

Brown and his fellow Republicans need to be something more than 41 "no" votes in the Senate. Democrats need to address the concerns that led to Brown's election. But just as the health-care crisis didn't go away after 1993, it's not going to go away under a barrage of partisan sniping in 2010. Both parties need to work together to solve these problems by listening to the people and to each other -- or else the people will find someone else to do the job in the November elections. -- Green Bay (Wis.) Press-Gazette, Jan. 25