Senate election in Massachusetts

Here is a link for an article from the Economist about the Senate election in Massachusetts (before the election outcome) and also a link to the most current discussion about the national health care plan - after Brown won.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15311136
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/health/policy/21health.html?hp

The first article is titled "Too Close for Comfort". It begins by stating "The Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney-general, should be a shoo-in.". Its states reasons such as "Massachusetts' combination of unions, intellectuals and blacks" and that "the state as a whole does not have a single Republican member in the House or Senate", which it claims "makes it one of the safest Democratic states in the country."

However, the economist article attributes Brown’s lead in the polls to his stance on controversial issues such as being in favor of stopping the national health bill from passing, trying the 9-11 mastermind in a common New York court, maintaining Guantanamo Bay prison, and consistently denying terrorist suspects of constitutional rights in order to improve national security.
However, two important points generally overlooked is the fact that Coakely has promised she vote against the bill if “it retains language that would keep federal money from paying for abortions” and that Brown did vote for “a comprehensive health-care bill pushed by a former Republican governor, Mitt Romney, that looks a lot like the national bills”.
With the health bill’s senate voting outcome still up in the air, economists are left worrying. If this national health bill is passed, even if in a more moderate form than originally proposed, the operations of a huge industry will be completely changed. Currently, the U.S. spends 16% of its annual GDP on heath care. Private insurance pays for 54% of the total payment for annual health care. If this percentage is replaced by public, the huge health care industry will be massively cut and transformed into a non-profit or at least low profit operation.