There were a lot of changes that didn’t have to do with “kickbacks” and the like. The excise tax was weakened, the subsidies were strengthend, etc. I imagine someone was against one of those changes.
It was Jim Cooper of the 5th District in TN, which is pretty much Nashville and surroundings. He is a Blue Dog, who touts the economic necessity of reform on his website. Which makes his vote against the reconciliation bill less clear to me, since it seems to make the Senate bill better financially from what I have seen.
Why should I have to look to the government at all? I rely on myself first, family second, community third and only as a last resort would I even consider thinking about looking for a government solution. This country routinely helps out entire nations when they are in need of help. The generosity of people here is enormous. We don’t need the government to mandate it.
Recently in my community a woman was stricken with a disease that will eventually, though slowly leave her helpless. Needless to say the outpouring for this woman and her family has been enormous. People help each other out when times get tough.
There is the case of Natoma Canfield. Obama used her as an example of how the cost of health care was going to put her out of her home. It turned out she was in no such danger. She hadn’t exhausted all of the existing state run programs and even then was still eligible for charity care from Cleveland Clinic.
This was Obama’s example. This is why we need a government mandate? I just don’t buy it.
Two people?
Two people who couldn’t afford health care received help from the generosity of their neighbors and you think the same can be said for the 40 million others who are uninsured?
How in the world do you confuse the charity of others with specialized, professional (and costly) health care? 
Do you stick your own finger up your ass to check your prostate, get your mom to do it of you can’t reach, and if she’s not available, call your neighbor or the local rotary club?
I would be in favor of the government mandating people like you take a few economics classes so I didn’t have to listen to this drivel anymore.
When (and if) reconciliation passes in the Senate tomorrow, it could just be with a quorum present, right? No need for all 100 senators (less any vacancies)?
This is not appropriate in this forum.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
The only thing the Senate can’t do with the normal 51 quorum is choose the President if the electoral college fails to return a majority vote. Then they need two thirds.
They’re going to call a point of order or something on every single fucking comma, as part of the scorched-earth policy they’ve locked themselves into. It may take a few days.
There are 40 million examples and this was the best Obama could come up with?
If you take a look at the link I posted you will see that the woman in question who Obama used as an example of why we need health care reform is receiving charity care from Cleveland Clinic. If they aren’t professional enough for you who is?
This country routinely has people filing for bankruptcy as a result of medical expenses they can’t personally cover. How is it that the generosity of their communities failed to provide them with adequate medical care?
The govt keeps on interfering in people lives. Can’t even run a lunch counter, swimming pool, or bus system the way you want to these days.
or drinking fountains
F#%kin’ commie bastards
So absence of evidence from Obama is proof of absence?
Here is what I came up with by doing a 2 second Google. No one is seriously disputing that there are people going bankrupt because they can’t pay health care costs. I’m not sure how one bad example from Obama negates all those other people.
Do you really think that all those uninsured people will receive charity care when they face a health crisis?
This is my frank opinion of the Health Care Bill.
This bill (and I know this will be heresy and RINOist to many Republicans) has a lot of good ideas but two things in here make it so I can’t support it due to my conscience. The first is the mandate of having everyone purchase healthcare and second is the federal funding of abortion (and the President’s executive order doesn’t have much say-that’s the Straight Dope on that). But than again the Republicans failed to act on health care reform in their years in office. Thus on the balance I advocate moderating and modifying this bill. I heard Mark Levin rant against Republicans who want to modify this bill. Let’s hope they exist in large numbers.
The Presidents Executive Order doesn’t have much effect because it just reiterates the fact that the bill already expressly forbids federally funding abortions.
Do you understand why the mandate is necessary? Do you understand anything about risk pools and gaming the system?
BTW I just donated some money to the Dems and am going to get my very own HCR T-shirt. I’ll save it in case the teabaggers decide to have a rally around here - not very likely, though.
As Simplicio has pointed out, the bill not only has no funding for abortions (despite all the loud noises coming from the “pro-life” groups), it goes to great lengths spelling out details to prevent any federal funding from having a remote chance of funding an abortion. And that individual mandate you don’t like? It is a Republican idea placed in the bill to overcome some of the problems caused by not allowing a public option or a Medicare for all system.
So congratulations, of the 2 things in the bill you don’t like, one doesn’t exist and the other is Republican.