SuziavanSwol post #3Abortion again roils health care debate

And hear we go again, another abortion debate, but this time it involves money money money. With teh health care reform debate, and what ultimately needs to be a comprimise, how is the government controlling us? If we use public funds to support abortion, is our society supporting abortion? But if we don't provide those wanting an abortion but who can't afford one with funds, are we forcing rape victims to have babies? I think a lot of this debate is outrageous but I don't think anyone can disagree that part of the problem is that people are afraid that the government is going to control yet another aspect of our lives, but my question is, don't they control it already? At least this way we might actually get coverage.

Video: Health care compromise?
RELATED TOPICS
Health Care Policy
Ben Nelson
Abortion
"As written, the Senate health care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion," Nelson said in a statement. "Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn't open the door to do so."

Nelson has warned that without the amendment, he could vote against ending debate on the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Arizona, needs 60 votes to close debate on the bill and send it to a vote but only 51 votes for final passage.

In the Senate, the Democratic caucus contains 60 seats in the 100-member chamber. If any members of the Democratic caucus break with the party, Reid will need some Republican support to move ahead with the bill. Senate Republicans unanimously oppose the health care bill so far.

Opponents of the tougher language proposed by Nelson argue that the amended language would expand the current level of restriction because women receiving coverage under a federally subsidized health care plan would be barred from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money.

"The fact is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and women have the right to choose in the early stage of pregnancy," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, said Monday, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

The House adopted its restrictive language as part of a last-minute concession to anti-abortion legislators who threatened to defeat the health care bill without a vote on the provision.

Now a similar dynamic could exist in the Senate, with anti-abortion Democrats preventing final approval of the health care bill if they don't like the abortion language.

If the Senate defeats Nelson's amendment and eventually passes a bill that gets merged with the House version, the abortion language will be a crucial issue. An anti-abortion bloc in the House threatens to reject a bill without the tougher language adopted by the chamber, while a liberal-progressive House bloc has said it won't accept a bill with the more restrictive abortion provision.

As liberal and moderate Senate Democrats continue their debate, they're also considering a package of alternatives to a public option.

The ideas under discussion would replace the controversial public option in a compromise intended to win the support of the chamber's entire Democratic caucus.

"We've got a whole bunch of things we're talking about," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "It's coming together. We're very close."

Several Democratic sources said an alternative to the public option strongly opposed by some moderate Democrats is the main focus of the talks that began last week at Reid's request.

According to an aide to one of the senators involved in the talks, one provision under discussion would have private insurers seek approval from the government's Office of Personnel Management to provide coverage for people in state insurance exchanges being created by the bill.

Currently, private insurers must get such approval to offer coverage in the federal health insurance program for government workers.

By participating in the exchanges, the private insurers would limit their profits, just as they do by taking part in the federal workers' plan, according to the senator's aide. The fee-for-service plans for federal workers can earn private insurers a service charge of up to 1 percent, with the average charge being about 0.75 percent.

The senator's aide said the goal is to create low-profit or nonprofit competition for private insurers that public option supporters contend is vital for real health insurance reform.

Such an alternative to the public option would avoid the government-funded or government-run label opposed by moderate Democrats, while providing liberal Democrats the lower-priced competition they seek.

Meanwhile, some of the senators in the talks said another idea is to allow Americans to buy into Medicare starting at age 55. Currently, Medicare coverage begins at 65, with some exceptions.

The idea appeals to liberal Democrats seeking to expand health coverage to more Americans and could offset their opposition to a bill that lacks a full public option as originally proposed.

However, issues of when to implement the lower age for Medicare eligibility and how to pay for it were still being worked out, according to sources close to the talks.

Other ideas in the package under discussion include expanding the Medicaid program more than currently called for in the bill, and expanding a proposal in the bill that gives money to states to allow them to cover low-income people through existing programs instead of Medicaid, the senator's aide said.