Senate Democrats Try To Move Health Care Ahead

Senate Democrats have had their presidential pep talk and now it's back to work on the thorny issues in the path of passing health care legislation.

Abortion is next on the list with debate beginning today on an amendment that would embrace House language.

Anti-abortion lawmakers in both parties have insisted that taxpayer funds not be used to pay for abortions in government-run health programs.

The House language would bar federally subsidized health insurance plans from covering abortion, even if the procedure is entirely paid for with customers' premiums. Liberals say that's too restrictive.

A prominent anti-abortion Democratic senator, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, plans to urge the Senate to follow suit. Numerous lawmakers say the amendment doesn't appear to have the necessary 60 votes.

Nelson says he doesn't expect a vote before tomorrow.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Wow Location: Greenville on Dec 18, 2009 at 08:33 PM
    He backed it up with zero facts and 100% conjecture. Watch it yourself, the episode in question can be easily found on youtube. He is a master at taking a political headline and inserting his own conspiratorial opinions. Even other Fox associates and news anchors have openly mocked him (specifically O'Reilly and Shep). It's funny that you say I 'make blatantly unsupported statements'....when I am more than happy to actually show my sources and actually really back up what I say with real studies, and have done so multiple times not just in this thread but in others. So go ahead, reply. I know you can't stand not having the last word. This will be my last post in this thread because, my god seriously, I am trying to defend my position from people that think Glenn Beck is actually a reliable, 'spin-free' and unbiased source!
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Dec 18, 2009 at 06:46 AM
    Yes Wow, that is correct, he said that and backed it up with the facts to support it. Unlike yourself, that just makes blatant unsupported statements, facts are what "we" are looking for. You should personally, contact Fox's news people and let them know of the "news" you found.
  • by Wow Location: Greenville on Dec 17, 2009 at 03:06 PM
    If you think that what Glenn freakin' Beck is a reliable source then it is too late for you, you have lost your mind completely. He gives incorrect information all the time. Of course as you and everyone else knows, he is as far from biased as a person could possibly get. Just a couple of days ago he was talking about how the government is going to institute a one-child per family (china style) policy and that the government would control the thermostat in your house through smart-grid technology. He just says whatever he wants, whatever sounds good to him and makes him think he will get more viewers and more $$$. I bet he goes home at night and kisses photos of Obama because without him, he would never ever be as rich as he is right now.
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Dec 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM
    Wow, Beck is entertaining but I have checked his numbers and his "facts". I am yet to find a slant or spin. I can tell you even the whitehouse couldn't dispute his facts, ask Dunn who resigned. I will say Suntimes is not reliable for facts, the owners and writers are all liberal. Yes, we do need to secure borders yet your guy, will most likely grant amnesty.
  • by Scooter Location: Delivery room on Dec 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM
    Hey Wow the illegals are already here. My old lady is a nurse in labor and delivery. She says undocumented pregnant immigrants show up at the emergency room all the time in the middle labor. We get to pay for that. You are right about tightening border security but it is already a very big problem.
  • by Wow Location: Greenville on Dec 17, 2009 at 09:06 AM
    Glenn Beck is nothing more than a commentator and entertainer. The 25% is a rough estimate - and it varies from year to year and company to company. I have never been to whatever moveon.org is. My figure comes straight from (http://www.suntimes.com/business/73050,CST-FIN-health27.article). I DON'T want to insure illegals. I think that if you are a citizen you have the right to health care insurance - illegals that show up in the ER get treated and then INS comes to deport them. They get a bill in the mail (which they will probably never pay). We should make our borders more secure to limit illegals and make the laws tougher and actually enforce them on people that hire illegals. As far as your logic with the 50M ... the illegals are already going to the ER and not paying. We pay more to make up for this - just another reason why health care is so $$$.
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Dec 17, 2009 at 05:22 AM
    Actually Wow, you do not understand full time? Fifty million are not insured and get a bill if they go. They pay it even if in increments. Add the illegals to the system that cannot be traced to an address and they don't pay. Commonly, they move to another town. Its not the young not paying, its the illegals that are the problem. Your post seems to reflect the progressive left that think it is inherent to give away healthcare. Still, I don't buy the argument. You want to fix it and make it affordable? Tort reform, allow interstate buying of insurance, increase tax breaks for chronic illness and allow insurance companies a break for pre-existing conditions. Your 25% is right off of moveon.org and not truthfull, based on Glen Beck. I trust him since he actually "shows the facts" and the "numbers" that they make. I know he is Fox news, however, he presents the truth and not the spin you are whirling around.
  • by Wow Location: Greenville on Dec 16, 2009 at 04:52 PM
    Snake Oil- What the heck are you talking about fulltime care? People either get sick and go to the doctor or they don't. Right now EVERYONE with insurance (and medicaid/care) is in separate, smaller pools - some pay, some don't. If you pay taxes, you pay for your own private insurance pool AND you pay for those that don't. The ones on Medicaid/care are generally the most unhealthy (old people and poor people). With the current system, taxpayers are getting the short end of the stick. Expanding Medicare to everyone puts us all in the same insurance pool. It's not like 50 million people will suddenly start needing health care that are not already getting it, on OUR dime or out of pocket! Trust me, 50M people still go to the ER or doctor, they just don't have insurance. Putting everyone in the same insurance pool gets us all insurance and gives us cost control. Hospitals will always get paid. No 25% of your premium going to private insurance overhead/profit. IT WILL COST US LESS.
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Dec 16, 2009 at 03:42 PM
    Have come up with a better plan that would have included both sides of the aisle. Well, this is all dnc and you know it. My mother called her senator this morning to complain and tell em she was against it. Her medicare sucks, limited doctors taking it and the doctors she gets, run her through so fast, she thinks it should be for free.....you can keep pushing this issue from your side, the rest of us know it stinks. Spend some time on the right side and left side on the internet. The cons outweigh the pros. I do not want a government telling me how to live, apparently, you need that.
  • by Obama Snake Oil Co Location: Washington on Dec 16, 2009 at 03:34 PM
    Wow, well you don't understand the insurance industry. Yep, people pay into a pool and benefit from the pool. Then there are those that don't want to play in the pool that don't pay for it. We pay for it. Again, then adding "fulltime" 50 million that don't belong to the pool enter the system, passing the pool price to everyone who has been paying for the pool. So, instead of only paying when they have an emergency or need care, we pay for it "fulltime" care. Thanks, but no thanks. The only benefit would be to the government which will spend it just like they always do for your feel good programs and free pot. What Scooter posted is accurate based on other countries. I am a glass half full guy, but this ain't glass full as you protray. Its a terd subject to corruption, just like any government run org, will cost far more than we can afford. Obama spent it all in his first 6 months. 800 billion stimulu=pork bill and his budget. Now if he knew how to budget, maybe he could; "continued"
WITN

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 78672247 - witn.com/a?a=78672247
Gray Television, Inc.