The House of Representatives is set to vote on major health care reform legislation today. Check this page throughout the day for the latest news, or follow live streaming video and Twitter updates HERE.

10:46 AM ET -- The President's pitch. What is the White House telling fence-leaning Democrats? The AP's Eric Werner talked to Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn.) who "said he heard from Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message: 'This is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing,' said Altmire, who remained undecided."

10:10 AM ET -- Rep. Dingell to preside over House for first time since 1965 Medicare vote. Democrats wavering on the health care bill will have their heart-strings tugged by the man overseeing today's planned vote: Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the Dean of the House of Representatives and the third-longest serving member in history.

Dingell's late father, also a congressman, introduced the first bill to provide national health insurance in 1933, and his son has continued a tradition started by his father by introducing health care legislation at the beginning of every session of Congress.

Rep. Dingell last led debate on a vote on April 8, 1965, the day the House passed legislation creating Medicare, according to his office.

10:08 AM ET -- House Hispanic Caucus balking at bill over immigration provisions. (AP) As drafted, the health care legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created -- a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama's desk.

The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains "a work in progress," Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a meeting in Pelosi's office on Friday.

One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president's desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.

Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.

10:02 AM ET -- What happens if Democrats don't have the votes? The answer is easy: they won't vote -- at least on Saturday. Democratic leaders insist that they can get the legislation passed today, but

9:20 AM ET -- Bishops endorse health care bill. "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions."

8:39 AM ET -- Compromise reached on major potential health-care hurdle. HuffPost's Ryan Grim reports: As the House of Representatives inches toward a final vote on comprehensive health care reform this weekend -- the most dramatic domestic policy debate in several generations, a reorganization of a sixth of the economy - the only thing the parties can talk about is abortion and immigration.

"It tells you something about our country," remarked one distressed member of Congress, who didn't want to be named speaking ill of this fine land.

What it tells isn't pretty: The ranks of the uninsured are steadily being filled, with the number approaching 50 million. Health care costs are rising at a rate several times that of inflation, eating into the take-home income of the majority of the American people and threatening to break the federal budget in less than a decade.

Yet the talk is of abortion and immigration.

All day on Friday, House leaders struggled to reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice wings of the Democratic Party. Over the last several weeks, the pro-choice bloc, consisting of nearly 200 Democrats, had gradually come to terms with an amendment authored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).

The intent of the amendment was to keep the debate about health care rather than abortion and it would make clear that - as is current law - no federal funds would be used for abortion. "Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation," wrote Capps at the time.

That wasn't enough for pro-life Democrats. On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion.

The divorce from reality had been filed by this point, considering that most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- do not cover abortion. Story continues below

Still, pro-choice Democrats swallowed the compromise, but said they'd go no further. Health care reform, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a staunch pro-choicer and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should not be a vehicle to drive a pro-life social agenda.

That's when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-entered the debate. Stupak is a longtime pro-life advocate and had been pressing his concerns upon House leadership. On Friday, Ellsworth withdrew his compromise language from negotiations, according to several House sources, sending the debate back to the starting line, where Stupak was waiting.

Stupak, in meetings with Pelosi and other members of leadership, pressed to include, instead, his own amendment that would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.

During the early afternoon, Pelosi was leaning toward including some more moderately blended version of Stupak and Ellsworth's amendment's as part of the health care bill that would be sent to the floor, several aides told HuffPost. Just before 5:00 PM, Stupak and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who battled over abortion while the bill moved through Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee, huddled on the House floor. Leaving the floor, the generally talkative Waxman gruffly brushed off reporters, asserting his alleged right "not to be swarmed."

Tempers flared. A Democratic congressman told House Republicans, who then told the Huffington Post, that Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) was asked to leave a leadership meeting where the pro-life agreement was being considered. DeGette is firmly pro-choice, and it was thought, the source said, that she would not agree to the deal. "False," said a leadership aide, saying that "she had to leave to attend another meeting. Other pro-choice members [were] in there with leadership, as well as Waxman."

Either way, the question came down to who had the votes. Stupak's driving argument was that he had more than the forty members he needed to "take down the rule" - legislative lingo for defeating a bill on the House floor before it comes for a final vote. No one was sure whether Stupak actually had the 40 votes, but pro-choice Democrats were skeptical.

As the night and the meetings wore on, Pelosi shifted, multiple aides said, and was leaning toward allowing a floor vote on the Stupak-Ellsworth amendment rather than inserting it into the bill. The logical conclusion is that Pelosi determined she would lose too many pro-choice and progressive votes in the process of harnessing pro-life Democrats.

Shortly after midnight, Stupak addressed the Rules Committee and requested a floor vote on the amendment, ending a day of drama, but leaving open questions that will be answered tomorrow: Does his amendment have enough votes to pass? If it does, will pro-choice Democrats flee and sink the bill?

The thinking among leadership is that allowing a vote -- regardless of the outcome -- helps win votes for final passage. If it passes, then pro-lifers line up behind health care reform. If it fails, at least they had their vote. For pro-choicers, if the amendment passes they can still fight to remove it during negotiations with the Senate -- which rejected tough abortion restrictions.

Meanwhile, aides from both parties say, the GOP is planning out how it will game the language in its motion to recommit - an alternative measure aimed at stamping out the bill that the minority is entitled to introduce. The GOP could include language supporting Democrat-backed proposals, such as single-payer health care or a robust public option -- and then vote present, allowing a majority of Democrats to carry the vote to victory and complicate things for leadership. (Dems probably wouldn't have the votes, however, for single-payer, believe it or not.)

Or the GOP could toss out anti-immigration language. That effort could garner the support of a big enough bloc of Democrats to give Pelosi genuine concern that it could prevail. Here we wander further from reality: undocumented workers currently get free medical care at great expense to the American people at emergency rooms across the country. The GOP's alternative approach, as it's been described in the past, denies that reality while simultaneously turning businesses into immigration-enforcement arms. People here illegally, however, would still be able to go to the emergency room for free.

Lost in the back and forth are the tens of millions without insurance and the nation's broken health care system. More surprising than the behavior of Congress, perhaps, is the fact that it has gotten as far as it has.

7:45 AM ET -- The Democratic 'no' votes. HuffPost's Jeff Muskus reports: House leaders, with the help of the White House, frantically whipped for health care votes Friday in advance of a floor vote, but the number of Democrats planning to vote against reform continues to rise.

As of 6 p.m. Friday, 26 House Democrats have stated that they will oppose the health care bill. The confirmed "No" votes so far: John Adler (N.J.), Brian Baird (Wash.), John Boccieri (Ohio), Dan Boren (Okla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Artur Davis (Ala.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Eric Massa (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McMahon (N.Y.), Charlie Melancon (Louis.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Ike Skelton (Mo.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.) and Harry Teague (N.M.).

This level of opposition isn't fatal to health reform -- Democrats only need 218 of their 258 votes to pass the bill -- but it makes leadership's margin for error much smaller.

Unsurprisingly, 15 of those 26 are Blue Dogs. Several from rural areas cited the familiar Blue Dog complaint of "regional disparities" -- typically a shorthand for the different state levels of reimbursement under Medicare -- although the bill headed for a vote contains a public option that is not tied to Medicare, not the so-called "robust" option Blue Dogs have opposed for months.

Some of the bill's opponents are from districts where lack of health care coverage is less of an issue. Bart Stupak's longstanding drive for stronger anti-abortion language made his opposition a virtual certainty. And Baird said that he would oppose the bill in part because a report from Medicare actuaries is still forthcoming.

The most common complaint among the confirmed "No" votes, however, is overall cost. "Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion or increases the financial burden on middle class families and small businesses," Adler said in a statement Friday. "First and foremost, I cannot vote for legislation with this big of a price tag in today's economic climate," Childers said Wednesday.

Several of the confirmed "No" votes said they would prefer a package more like the weaker Senate Finance Committee bill.

More on Health Care