remain an enigma! It carries less risk!

Seems pretty obvious to me... a working majority would be a majority, clearly, and it would work. A working majority would pass a piece of legislation; a non-working majority, or a working minority, or anything else would not pass it.

Her health care plan did not pass. There was Democratic congress and a Democratic president. Obama was not around in 1992 to torpedo it. If she had been able to put together a working majority in Congress, it'd have become law.

The real point of all this is: why do you believe that she's capable of putting together a working majority and getting anything passed in 2009? What's changed since 1993?

"she didn't create a "working majority," whatever the hell that means.

Yes, that snake Jim Cooper, a conservative democrat, killed her support for universal health care.

Just add him to the list above...where it talks about the creep and NAFTA!

Thanks.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1 282/is_n4_v46/ai_14885300/pg_1

good.. but it relies too much on employers..

Experts are saying that the 21st century (post-industrial) era will be an era of project-based rather than job based employment.

That means that many people wont have employers, or will be independent contractors, or will spend long periods unemployed, with periods of employment as well. Many simply will not have any skills that will get them employment.

That is why we should have single payer health care, otherwise, fewer and fewer people will be able to get insurance..

This is an enormous and unfair oversimplification.  The original bill was over 1,000 pages and appropriately complex. If you care to look, here is a link to the original.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1 03:H.R.3600.IH:

It was not without its flaws and informed detractors, nor was it meant to be the last word.  It was defeated by a coalition of the insurance industry (which funneled literally 100's of millions of dollars into the campaign to defeat the bill, including the Harry & Louise ads run recently by Obama), libertarians and the right wing.  Many democratic leaders were not courageous enough to support such a "big government" proposal.

That such a bold important effort, undertaken just three days after Bill's inauguration, should have morphed into a stinking dead fish around Hillary's neck for 15 years, even in the eyes of "progressives," is testament to the power of the Clinton haters mind control program.

Think about it, for god's sake, she understood the profound misery of being poor, having a sick child and not being able to pay for surgery, and was committed to the principle that it is government's first responsibility to alleviate misery and fear.  
And this is an argument against her???

"Hillary's earlier health plan that was rejected was not that good." Hillary started out favoring a plan that was a variation of a single payer plan, but in the process of being attacked as too liberal over and over by Jim Cooper and other conservative Democrats she had more move more and more to the right, so what she ended up with was an extremely complex plan that tried to work with business instead of creating a publicly administered programs like Medicare. When you try to keep business in the picture the plan becomes impossibly complex and expensive, because you have to include their profits and high administrative costs. The plan proved to be impossible to get support for because it was too complex to explain to people, and was easily assaulted and killed by the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads, funded by the insurance companies..  

seriously..

He clearly has a big committment to the insurance companies as shown by their financial support of him.

I think Hillary's goal has, from the beginning, been a workable solution to this MESS, so she would sign it.

PRAY...