mind your business

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Scott Brown Supports National Healthcare

In a speech today (at 5:00), Scott Brown reminded listeners that he voted for universal health care in Massachusetts and believes that it's important to get everyone on a national level "some form of health care... a basic plan for everyone:"

"I voted for health care here.... we're past campaign mode and I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care. So to offer a basic plan for everyone I think is important... there are some very good things in the national health care plan that is being proposed"

Perhaps even more disappointing, Scott Brown even "denied he was intent on derailing the [health care] reforms," saying "I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop healthcare. I believe everybody should have healthcare, it's just a question of how we do it."

Mr. Brown's comments may come as a surprise to many of his ardent supporters in the grassroots "tea party movement" to restrict the size, role, and influence of government.

They indicate that he does not in fact oppose the Democrats' health care bills on principle, but because he believes that "we can do it better" and wants to take the process of reforming (which for him means "continuing to socialize") health care "back to the drawing board."

Hat tip: Matt Collins


  1. I saw that today, too. That's the sort of comment I'd expect to hear from someone who supported Massachusetts-run health care.

    Hope keeping that Democrat out of office was really worth it.

  2. I have felt for some time health reform of some sort was inevetable. It has public support in general.

    Legislation in its curent form is horrendously flawed and thus the majority do not upport it.

    Brown is a moderate Republican fom a very liberal state.

    It will be interesting to watch him once seated. He was however was only alterative as we needed to keep Cloakley out of the seat Brown will now occupy.

  3. We must always remind ourselves that the vast majority of politicians are no friend to liberty.

    Brown is considered a "moderate" in a state that is just barely to the right of France. From the freedom perspective, he wants to "moderate" our individual liberty. There are no significant numbers of liberty minded people where he lives.

    The "Tea Party" isn't a political party, and the day it becomes one (in the form of the traditional parties) it will cease to be useful in my opinion. Right now it is just (thankfully) a movement away from the hard left. It is different things in different states. It remains to be seen where it will go.

    But it is moving things in our direction, even if frustratingly slowly. Two years ago such groups were non-existent. I'm thankful to see a tiny spark of sanity in the ashes of the now incinerated concept of classical liberalism.

    Brown is a lefty, he deserves the scorn Wes shows him.

  4. Carl- me too. And I really mean that. I do certainly hope that at the very least this will railroad the health bills in Congress and help us hang on until November when we can seat some true believers like Rand Paul among many others.

    Ration Nation USA- I disagree that Brown was the only alternative. We also had a true small government candidate, Libertarian Joe Kennedy. You may argue that he was a long shot... but so was Brown. You may argue that he wasn't in either of the two main parties, but neither was Doug Hoffman. I don't know how or why folks settled on Brown, but he was not the only or best alternative.

    Grant- I really do hope the tea party movement stays true. Its reaction to this (among other things) has me concerned that it's losing focus and displaying weakness. I'm on the edge of my seat...

  5. Politicians usually disappoint.

    I disagree with much of what Ron Paul says on the economy, but WYSIWYG, and I can handle that.

    Being a Libertarian means dealing with disappointment.

    This may be shocking, but I was once libertarian myself, and I was crazy Libertarian.

    I like you man !!!!! (even tho I am disagreeable at times here)and i can tell you are a bit down.

    don't be.

    Let this invigorate you to keep getting the message out. At least Brwon's victory wasn't a step in the wrong direction

  6. Wes - I will concede he wasn't the only alternative. Nor the best.

    However, Joe Kennedy was unable to get his name out and run a campaign that would have had even a remote possibiliy of beating Cloakley.

    Todd said "At least Brown's victory wasn't a step in the wrong direction." I agree, to the extent it assured Cloakley was not seated. The possibbility of that happening was indeed untenable to me.

    This time I was the pragmatist. As distateful as it can be, it beat the taste Cloakley gave me.

  7. I just hope we don't end up compromising our way out of a real revolution.