The MSM quotes 47 million w/o health insurance, but in actuality, less than 5% of Americans dont have it. Many of those 47 million, IF that number is correct are illegals, and even more are people that make more than $75K a year.

We cant change a a system that works, and works well, for such a small % of the population. Maybe we need to address why these people dont have coverage.

Is it because they arent worth much in the workplace?

Is it because they choose to spend their 'discretionary' dollars on beer, drugs, lottery tickets, etc?

Is it because they'd just rather suck off the govt teat, instead of earning it themselves?

These questions need to be addressed before Hildebeast tries to win votes with promises of handouts.

You're right about one thing, they do not have a serious candidate. Why do you think guys like Edwards, Biden and maybe Algore linger?

Sounds like a replay of the Dems' 'We have a plan' tactic.

Except that THIS time, the Reps have to nail her on both her past fiascos with healthcare, and to constantly remind the voters that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and they'll be the ones who'll lose if she wins.

If Clinton is a marxist then that would make you a jack-booted goose-stepping fascist. Sieg Heil!

Alan Greenspan has been making some news for the past few days. CBS '60 minutes' has an extensive interview with the most respected Federal Reserve Chairman tonight. The full transcript is out on CBS website.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/1 3/60minutes/main3257567.shtml

Greenspan commented on the different presidents he served under in a candid way for the first time. It's quite interesting.

On Nixon...

In his book, Greenspan writes Nixon was so profane, it would have made Tony Soprano blush.

Asked if it really was that bad, Greenspan says, "Oh, indeed. He sits down in the room and within the first 30 seconds utters more four-letter words than I had heard in the music business. And I said, 'There's something extraordinarily wrong here.' There are two Nixons."

Greenspan writes that "Nixon was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak, I don't know anybody he was pro."

On Ford...

And Gerald Ford? "Extraordinary human being," Greenspan says.

While Greenspan says Ford was not the smartest, "he was the most normal."

"And that's what you ended up admiring? The normality?" Stahl asks.

"Well it was also the ethical base of the man. We'd be discussing policy and he says, 'Let's forget some of the facts and just do the right thing for the economy,'" Greenspan says.

On Reagan...

Of Ronald Reagan he said he had an "odd form of intelligence" which he used to improve the country's self image.

On Bush I

He writes that he had a, quote, "terrible relationship" with the first President George Bush, who pressured Greenspan publicly, saying in a State of the Union address, "Interest rates should be lower, NOW!"

"I was shocked because nobody talked about Federal Reserve policy in public," Greenspan remembers.

Was this improper?

"Oh indeed, yes," Greenspan says.

Asked, if in his view, a line had been crossed, Greenspan says, "Well, if you have, as we do, by statute, an independent Federal Reserve, it clearly is in opposition to what the purpose of the law was."

On Bill Clinton:

Clinton was the only Democrat Greenspan served under, and he says he was the smartest. "Even though I clearly was a Republican, I had to admit he was an extraordinarily effective president," Greenspan says.

"You seem to have gotten along with him best of all your presidents," Stahl remarks.

"That's right," Greenspan agrees. "The bottom line is what he called our relationship when he said, 'We, I think, are the odd couple.'

He got so close to Clinton and his economic team, that he began visiting the White House as often as once a month, something his predecessors had not done.

What was going on?

"Well, I was basically being an economic consultant," Greenspan says.

"But is that proper for the Fed chairman to become an economic consultant of the administration, given the need for the appearance of total independence?" Stahl asks.

"We are one government. The Federal Reserve is not the foreign enemy. I was very knowledgeable about lots of different subjects," Greenspan admits.

"You were influencing policy," Stahl remarks.

"I hope I was," Greenspan says.

On Hillary Clinton:

Stahl asked what he thought of Hillary.

"Very smart. She and I got along reasonably well," Greenspan says.

Asked if he thinks she can handle the presidency, Greenspan says, "Certainly. I think she's unquestionably capable. The question is she the best person for the job?"

"And?" Stahl asks.

"My tendency would be to vote Republican," Greenspan says.

Typical response FreeFried. Too bad Vince Foster is not available to comment.

I choose not to have health insurance. It would cost me almost $10,000/year for full coverage for my family and I. If I had insurance, the only type I want would be major medical, to cover the large bills. But...the lawyers effectively drove out major medical coverage in my state. Now all you can get is some form of managed health care.

I pay my own bills, and don't have a problem doing so. Unless somebody in my family has a major crisis, I would never even come close to shelling out $10,000/year in medical expenses.

Now Mrs. Clinton wants to force me to buy something that I don't want or need, AND pay for somebody elses coverage too in the form of taxes (Yes, I make too much money according to her.)

From the article: "The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance -- just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance."

At least with auto insurance, I can opt out of purchasing it by not getting a drivers license. And I'm not paying for somebody elses insurance.

If the gov't's gonna' pony up the money for health care, why does anyone need a plan, at all?

No need for all of this complicated hoosafuss, just let people pick a doctor, and/or, if they need emergency care, just let 'em go to the hospital; all without having to pay a dime out of pocket.

All of these "plans" and "options" and such do nothing more than jack up the administration fee.

All you need to do is have proof of your citizenship and you'll never get a bill.

Simple.

The installer for "Hillarycare 2.0" won't run if you've got "America v.2008", and "Intelligence v. 10.0" installed already.

>You're right about one thing,

Geeze... Just one?

Tough crowd. lol

Hillarys health care forced inoculation,force abortion and required health care and forced ritin on our kids

Moseby my anti-virus software labels Clinton v 2.0 as a trojan horse program.

Wow, the liberal trolls came in to vote on this one. She will force insurance that you will not be able to use when you need it, ala Canada and UK.

All anyone has to do is look at the past projected costs for all the government's medicare programs, or any entitlement programs, and what they ended up costing to see that the projected $110B will easily equate to much, much more. Judging by past projections, as much as three times more before the first year is out.

Where is the bogeyman?

Where is the socialized medicene? Where are the state run clinics and state employed docs that everyone has been screaming Hillary will force on us all. Oh my imagine it? LIons and tigers and bears!

Of course that doesn't exist. Hillary Clinton's plan is built squarly on the the existing system, using private insurers and health care providers, with the choice that comes with all that, and simply uses the government to step in and help those that fall through the cracks.

So be careful what you wish for. You may convince a few shut ins and those with mild cases of retardation that Hillary has socialized meds but the vast majority of Americans are going to see something different. Something they just might like.

All most all Americans know family members and friends who lack insurance.

The $110 Billion per year will be the cost to the taxpayers after the taxpayers (only those who work pay taxes) are forced to pay for a government mandated monthly health care premium at work. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the monthly cost to the workers. I'll say not less than $500 per month, probably much higher, and that will be on top of the massive tax hike the democrats will bring on to pay the $110 billion. Fifty percent of the American population will be better off to quit work and go on welfare (50% + of the democrats are already on welfare) with the democrats in charge, more take home dollars anyway.

"we learned that over 10 years ago"

Unfortunately, we learned that more like 15 years ago. And we have had 15 years of new voters.

Those 15 years of voters, in relative comparison, has no qualms about taking handouts (errr entitlements) and don't give a rat's behind about the negative consequences massive taxes will have for the economy.

Scrapiron:

Look at the currently numbers and how they are arrived at. If YOU or your employer pay for a health care policy guess what, YOU are paying for every indigent that walks into the emergency room. Every single one. YOU are also paying to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid.

A friend of a friend who worked the finance side for a major health care provider explained to me in a straightforward way.

A poor person comes in and gets a $100 medical procedure. The hospital collects zippo. Out $100 bucks.

Next a Medicare patient comes in and gets the same $100 medical procedure as above and the government forks over $60. Hospital out $40. Now they are down 140.

Blue Cross or Aetna or whomever comes in and says how much will you charge my 200,000 members for this medical procedure (the same as above). The hospital gets out the calculator and says $250 dollars.

Insurers pay the $100 for the poor, the $40 that the gov didn't pay, the $100 for the procedure, and for a little bit of profit to boot.

People who rail against insurance for all are using the cut off their nose to spite their face types. They push aside the fact that more insurance coverage for more people means their rates will actually go DOWN in the longrun, and instead they worry that one of Reagan's "welfare queens" will get something for nothing.

I think FredomFried is like 14 years old.

I'm trying to figure this out:

If the GDP is 13+ Trillion and Health Care is 14% of the economy then $110 billion would be less than 10% of the annual expenditure on health care.

So how is this single payer system going to cover all of health care with that kind of budget?

I guess we'll all be getting into loooonnnnggggg waiting lines. (Or paying in the 90% tax bracket)

Hey Hilary, you stupid paranoid pig. I don't half health insurance and that is MY CHOICE. F**k Off and show Americans the real you. That Lower half that your partners in the media like your your last pathetic add purposely omits. Your huge ugly fat incompetent ass. You should be banned from eating any of those the same fatty items New Yorkers are forced to do away with. Better yet you should be placed on a government approved diet. Your fat ass is a disgrace to the senate and just one of the many reasons YOU ARE UNFIT FOR ANY POSITION OF POWER ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENCY.

Why does the Media purposely omit coverage of their criminal fraud partners when their phony faces are black and blue from numerous face lifts like plastic face Pelosi. Why does the Media hide the truth about Hilary like they hide her disgusting fat ass?

She is a LIAR and a lazy POS. Jog PIG , secret service will hide some twinkies in the bushes for you even a blond or a brunette.

"If the GDP is 13+ Trillion"

Why do you democrat cry babies whine about the war and it's costs while you actively worked to OBSTRUCT AND PROLONG IT! YOUR WORDS ARE KILLING OUR SOLDIERS!

ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS OR SHUT THE F**K UP, YOU HAVE NOTHING IMPORTANT TO SAY.

RobLACal:

Actually, I am very conservative and tend to vote very Republican (only because they are the lesser of the 2 evils).

Take a moment and actually read what I wrote.

If the government takes control over 14% of the economy that means that the paltry $110B that Hillary says she will spend is about 1/10th of what the country is currently generating.

So consider the impact: Massive reductions is jobs (and the attendant tax revenues), elimination of all research and development (No new drugs, therapies etc. consider that less than 4% of new drugs come from Federal research funded programs and most of those are only partially funded with fed money)

Also consider that the health care sector grows at around 4% per year. With cost cutting as the primary focus of the Dems, when do you think they are going to fund any growth?

Take a 2% economic growth rate for the nation and cut it to 1.7 before the spreading impact of reduced jobs etc. Get ready for a depression.

The sad thing is that under of single payer system you will likely not be able to receive the psychiatric help you need. I do hope you feel better soon.

She is politically tone deaf!

I continue to ask - and nobody will answer me - what exactly has she ACCOMPLISHED during her tenure in the Senate. What bills have her name on them? What initiatives has she encouraged? HOW has she contributed anything at all to the benefit of America? Except, of course, for her Iraq War vote - a vote from which she has been scuttling backward ever since!

"While Clinton is expected to lay out a concrete vision for health care reform, she will probably steer clear of delving too deeply into policy specifics, at least for now."

Ah! It's a secret! How special for her campaign to promote a (stealth) plan that she will never have to experience because she's not one of the "little people"! Funny, how the only thing she was willing to reveal was the cost of this sucker-punch-uh-secret.

And just like hubby slick Willy reneging on his promised "middle class tax cut" (remember the old "I worked harder on this than on anything in my life" crap) if she actually were to be elected, the 110 billion figure would be increased by 3 or 4 hundred percent. Naturally it would be because she didn't have access to all of the figures. The health care problems caused (and covered up) by the Bush administration would require massively more spending. So, she would get away with yet another lie, and Bush would be blamed as usual.

RobLACal - have you ever wondered why for someone who is on "the right side" of the aisle and comment on a right-wing blog you gather as many or more negative tick marks on comments than some of the "lefties?"

In fact they very often exceed those received by the "lefties." Do ya ever wonder why?

Do ya ever think you hurt the cause of the rest of us?

Obviously not.

Hillarycare would be as primataive as amputations during the civil war like having ones leg sawed off in case you never ever saw GONE WITH THR WIND and saw that conferate solder getting his leg sawn off and SCARLET O,HARA fled

To guarantee "free" health care, a government must force the individual to pay for everyone else's medical care and limit his freedom to pay voluntarily for his own. With bureaucrats deciding who receives what, the individual is therefore forbidden from spending his money according to his own rational judgment (and the advice of his doctors) as to what's best for his health. When a government forces people to act against their own interests, it's no surprise that the results are misery and death.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." --P. J. O'Rourke

David Brooks likes it.

Americans want some help too.