A Massachusetts special election to fill the term of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy handed Republicans a surprise victory last Tuesday. We're told Scott Brown's victory completely changed the dynamics of the health-care debate.

The thinking goes like this: Republicans have tapped into a deep-seated distaste for Democrats' plans to revamp health care, so much so that Democratic-friendly Massachusetts put a Republican in the U.S. Senate seat.

One poll of Massachusetts voters shows health-care backlash as one factor in the election, though 70 percent of respondents to a Washington Post, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University's School of Public Health poll said Brown should work with Democrats on reform, as opposed to stonewalling proposed legislation.

Democrats spent the past few days applying the brakes while holding a moistened finger to the breeze.

House Democrats nixed the idea of passing the Senate's version of health-care reform. The House version that passed in November isn't likely to pass the Senate now that Brown takes away the Democrats' ability to break the filibuster requiring 60 votes.

"We've gotten pretty far down the road, but I've got to admit we had a little bit of a buzz saw this week," President Barack Obama said last Friday. "I also know that part of the reason is, is that this process was so long and so drawn out. This is just what happens in Congress. It's just an ugly process."

He's right. The debate that's been bubbling since last spring has been about as attractive as a mule with lipstick.

Anyone but the most dedicated congressional watcher could be forgiven for not being confused. This Democratic lawmaker wants this special provision. Another Democrat wants more dollars for his or her state. Still another is so shaken by it all that he switches parties; we're looking at you, Rep. Parker Griffith.

Most Democrats and the president are calling for a cooling-off period.

Then there are the Republicans, who've not wavered on where they stand on health care: They don't like it, and they will do what they can to stop it from getting a simple up-or-down vote. With Brown's win, expect that intense opposition to grow.

Granted, a lot has changed in the political world.

However, the main reasons for a health-care overhaul have not.

Statistics show 3 out of 5 personal bankruptcies stem from unpaid health bills, the American Journal of Medicine reported last June.

According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 46 million Americans are uninsured.

At a more fundamental level, the current system fails to live up to the highest ideals of the United States.

Our current employer-based system is a drag on companies and workers, especially when competing against firms from the vast majority of developed nations that recognize health care as a basic right and fairly spread its costs across the entire population.

Our current for-profit system lets the market play havoc with the lives of the poor and the middle class, cruelly abandoning the sick if the balance sheet says to.

Our current dog-eat-dog system applies a terrible strain on local hospital emergency rooms where the desperate turn when they run out of options. Who foots that ER bill, where the costs are triple or more? The taxpayers, of course.

Most lawmakers know this, both Republicans and Democrats. Most say they are waiting for a better bill, one that better suits their ideology. Yet, the current system's toll can't be put on hold.

Imagine these same reluctant senators and representatives telling Haitians desperate for help to put their pain in check until the perfect relief plan comes along. No sane person would even consider it.

Yet, too many in Congress and at the White House are willing to do much the same when it comes to improving health care in the United States.

It's a shame.