By now we’ve all heard the endless speculation about the meaning behind Senator-elect Scott Brown’s upset over Martha Coakley in last week’s Massachusetts senatorial election. Pundits and journalists are quick to label his victory a harbinger of midterm Democratic loss. Perhaps even more crucial is what this election means for national healthcare reform. Having taken their licks, Democratic leaders are already considering changes to the Senate bill to pass it through the House. Through a process of reconciliation, which requires only 51 Senate votes, Senate Democrats can make limited changes to the existing bill and present it to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s caucus for review. Alternatively, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could include changes in an entirely different piece of legislation. In White House meetings last week, House and Senate leaders discussed changes regarding a deal with labor unions to lower the tax on the so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans, Medicare cuts and taxes, and the elimination of a Medicaid funding deal for Nebraska and funding for prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Hesitant critics have warned against a new bill, regardless of the changes, claiming that last week’s Republican victory in Massachusetts is indicative of American unease with national healthcare reform. What few people take the time to consider is the relatively small difference national reform will have on healthcare within the state. Even though costs have skyrocketed since the commonwealth instituted universal healthcare in 2007, a Washington Post/Harvard poll of special election voters shows that participants in last Tuesday’s election support the universal healthcare law in Massachusetts by a margin of 68-27. Despite this inclination toward universal care despite the high costs, Massachusetts seems to have cast a vote to delay a bill proposing national health coverage similar to its own. Out of this discrepancy Democrats should infer that it is not the content of the bill voters find contentious, but rather the bipartisan stalemate and Democratic glorification of the filibuster proof majority that Massachusetts voted against.