Funny how a lot of the media outlets aren't talking about the fact that Scott Brown was elected in the one state that has seen "universal" health care. The most common notion I've heard amongst my Dem friends is that Brown was elected because the health care plan is not revolutionary ENOUGH.
I think any rational person can agree that nobody wants revoluntionary government. No one likes to see the people with power doing "too much." In general, the problems in society fit into one of two groups: 1) Chronic with the opportunity for progressive change; 2) Acute with the need for immediate attention.
The Dems have tried to treat health care like the latter, while I believe it is entiretly the former. We need reform. We need to make health care more affordable and find insurance innovations that may cover pre-existing conditions. However, addressing the issue as an acute problem of definable proportions will get you a failed expensive model, and may even destroy what progress we've made in medical services. You will anger the populace and aggrivate an already bubbling "class warfare" sentiment. Everyone loves the middle class when running for office, but ignores them once they sit down to their desk. The middle class is the Bruce Banner of our politics. You won't like them when they're angry.