>> rob, you have been one of the hottest guys on the street, but i think you're getting too cute. neil: all right. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- david: here's a message for washington. please spend more than a trillion bucks on health care reform. that's the best way to fix the job market. hi, everybody, i'm david asman. welcome to "forbes on fox ." the fiery flip side with our guests. mark, let's start with you. spend more? >> yes, i think spend more, but i think we also need to increase availability of health care as well. right now we have a system that

the private insurers ration health care and the people who are most likely -- or the sickest and need care the most are not getting it. so spend more, we'll get more jobs and we'll have more availability of health care. i think we'll have a better system. david: jack gauge, there was an editorial in "the wall street journal" that said u.s. health care should be viewed not as a burden you go an engine of growth. we do sell a lot of medical stuff. >> all that will come to a screeching halt if we nationalize health care and extract from it the innovation that comes with being a private market. this is a big problem because if we spend more money, if the government spends more, also it is growing government's influence in health care, hiring bureaucrats and people to administrate the government programs to go along with it like we have with medicare and medicaid now. spending more isn't the solution. you need to reduce the burden and get free market players and they are competing, getting scrappy and driving innovation. david: evelyn, health care will only need to more jobs if it's done in the private sector. >> i don't think that's true.

i want to cut waste out of the system just as much as jack does. the reality is we need to spend more in the short term in order to get long-term gains. the system is broken. for example, let's look at modernizing the health care system, making medical records electronic, fast i will traiting communication between hospitals and doctors. that's going to cost tens of billions of dollars. if you think about it currently, the processing of claims costs more than $200 billion. david: rich, isn't the private sector the best place to do that? >> i think so because you get much more efficiency improvements when people are spending out of their own pockets. for instance, lasik surgery, the price has come down, the service has gotten better. the main question is jobs and the economy right now. when you talk to employers, they are increasingly looking at employees as costs and burdens because of mounting health care costs. so i don't see how spending another trillion dollars and laying that on employers through taxes is going to improve the employment situation. david: quentin, what do you

think? >> i think the key is entrepreneurship and the key is jobs. the journal says we should spend more money. i'm not sure that's true. but the cynical opportunists who seem to want the status quo i guess for the sake of hurting obama seem to ignore that it's just strange in this country that we have tied health care to employment. how many good entrepreneurs are stifled because they are afraid of leaving their jobs and losing their health care. it's a crazy system and it has to be changed. david: i don't think anybody is for the status quo. everybody seems to believe we need some change. to get the patient and the doctor closer together, that's the key, to get out all these middlemen. >> listen, there is no question that increasing government intrusion in the health care market would increase jobs. that's one of the bad things about it, believe it or not. >> listen to this economics. we're better off with longer, healthier lives created with fewer workers. i got a little secret i want to tell you about jobs.

i want to keep this confidential. david: go ahead. >> the engine of prosperity is not the creation of jobs. it's the elimination of jobs. david: wow. well, i guess what your editor here is saying is that we need fewer jobs in health care to make the system more efficient. >> i don't agree with that. look what happened when we put inactive medicare and medicaid. it's led to an expansion of the health care system. it's generally been well received. there has been more employment because of that. so are you suggesting government ought to get out of the health care business altogether and we turn it over to the private sector? i mean, that's not very -- david: if the private sector could do it, i don't see anything wrong with that. >> medicare is running out of money as we speak. that's one of the problems with it. we can't fund the increasing liabilities going forward. what you have to do as we have said here is that you have to get it back to the private sector. you have to start growing jobs through innovation, your pharmaceutical companies,

investing in research and very many, and maintaining our standing as the capital for innovation. david: evelyn wants in. >> the private sector left to its own devices hasn't been able to solve our health care crisis. when you look at the 40 million plus people who are uninsured, the private sector on its own -- >> maybe it's because so much of health care spending goes to medicaid and medicare where there is $60 billion of fraud every year. >> i mean, sure, there is clearly problems within medicare, but i think that the government has a role in insuring these people and helping people afford health care. >> the benefit to innovation is eliminating jobs. honestly. that's how you make a country more prosperous, david. you expand output, shrink the number of people doing it. david: rich, i have to tell you, that's a lousy political message. bill is no politician. he is a great editor but he is no politician. go ahead. >> i will fill in the blank for billy. he is absolutely right. you eliminate inefficient jobs.

we once had half the people in this country and the farming industry. now we grow more and better food with 1.5% of people in the farming industry. look, what we don't need is the nationalization of health care. where you look at countries that have that. you also find chronically high unemployment. 8% to 10%. that's what we have now. but historically we have 4% to 5% unemployment. i don't see that we're going to get there if employers are afraid to hire people because they see them as burdens. david: mark, go ahead. >> i think the bottom line is that the private sector is not going to help. i mean, 20% of the people in america don't have health insurance. it's a major impediment to people starting small businesses because they remain with these very large companies and won't go out on their own. entrepreneurship is not going to come from the private sector. it's going to come from the government nationalizing our health insurance system.

david: that 20% figure is pretty high even if you believe the 47 million figure. >> absolutely. look. half the people without insurance right now could get it if they so wanted it. what we're talking about is overhauling the entire system for the sake of less than 1% of the people in the country. so, you know, 1% to 10%. it's an argument i think that is won by the private market. david: quentin hardy has been mulling all this over. he has put it together. go ahead, quentin. >> how much waste and fraud is there in the private sector, in the insurance industry among private hospitals in america. >> lots. >> when you talk about it in medicare, you really do need to have some kind of standard against how the private sector is performing. now, winston churchill, that right-wing icon was a fierce defender of national health with a very good point, the disease affects all of us, the rich and the poor, and it's a fight against it to promote prosperity for all. david: are you actually saying the government is more

efficient in the private sector. >> if you want it, you can buy private insurance. what's wrong with that? david: let me just ask. do you really think the government does things more efficiently than the private sector? >> wage war, yes. we have seen that in iraq. david: now he is standing up for the war in iraq. >> if you're talking about the lifles of american citizens who are making decisions rather than bureaucrats who are out to maintain the status quo. >> bureaucrats is one of the shadow terms that means nothing, jack. >> i can spot a bureaucrat when i see one. david: he can spot a bureaucrat through a potted palm, can't you? the health care debate is far from over. chinchin -- catherine catherine has effects that won't cost you a penny. coming up, what wal-mart just did that may put this idea of government-run health care to bed for good. first, we have been warning

that the pay czar may come af bicycle, i've missed you. gathering dust, as pollen floats through the air. but with the strength of zyrtec ® , the fastest, 24-hour allergy relief, i promise not to wait as long to go for our ride. with zyrtec ® i can love the air ™ .

winds came into play. there are no reports of injuries. more headlines in 30 minutes. david: all this time we have been told the pay czar was just going to target executives' pay with companies still on the government dole. the tarp companies. now it appears ken feinberg may be changing rules mid game. michael says this is proof everybody is a target. mike? >> david, as the obama

administration has forced more and more people and companies onto its plantation, it's exerted greater and greater influence in terms of how much money people and how much money companies can earn and how they can spend that money. we have already seen this in the past where it was prohibiting companies, for instance, that received some tarp money from spending money on sporting events. you're also effecting those sporting events, whether it be golf, baseball, whatever. that has a big effect on even companies and businesses who have not received bailout money. this is a huge, huge problem. david: quentin, should everybody be afraid? >> well, people got pushed onto the government's plantation, particularly wall street where we're talking about these big pay packages, during the bush administration. and you know something? it was probably a good thing because they had destroyed the world economy with their shenanigans. we had to bail them out. a.i.g., you can shake your head, but they -- the government gave the appreciate secretary $700 billion because the world was flying apart.

a.i.g. was bailed out. that's why goldman sachs even exists today. goldman sachs has done a brilliant p.r. job convincing the world they have nothing to do with this downturn. it's nothing but the financial system which we had to save. these guys have lost perspective, giving themselves these monster pay packages. >> the pay czar says and i am quoting him, i have the discretion. david: does that mean if a s&p got a tax break, feinberg can adjust their pay? >> i think we're all at risk here. now that quentin's pop last friends are running the country, i hi we have to focus where the pay czar is to pay attention to be on the monopoly. the pay czar goes after the people who founded google. that's kind of a monopoly. i think they get paid $1 a year. they thud get 50 cents. a bigger monopoly is the government. let's have a pay czar limit the discounted present value of

government pensions to $2 million. that would be devastating. david: pensions and benefits for government workers. should we be afraid? >> i'm not afraid of the pay czar. the pay czar will have limited impact on most people. most people are at-will employees. our salaries can be reduced at any time. the pay czar will have limited impact on anybody else. he only has jurisdiction over the top companies that took the most money from tarp. that's seven companies. only the senior executives at those companies. it's a very limited impact. i think he's a big talker. i think he thistle be like the wizard of oz in the emerald city. i think he will be more like the scarecrow. david: doesn't it bother when you hear him saying i have the discretion in any company that received federal assistance, not just the tarp funds? >> david, in a weird way, it makes me happy that he says that. now it's out there for everybody to see. it's just one more brick that is weighing down the obama administration. up there with rahm emanuel's never let a crisis go to waste and some of these other exorbitant examples of

overreach, the public is now seeing what these guys are all about. that's why their ratings are tanking. that's why i think we're going to have balance in government after the 2010 elections. david: that's not a bad point. look at the town hall reactions to the health care proposals. there does come a tipping point. maybe this is more of an example of how the public will be outraged at this. >> the public is starting to understand this has nothing to do with improving the economy. the less you have spent, the countries that have sent the less stimulus money in proportion to their economy are doing the best right now. look at india. it's growing. look at the companies that have increased their spending. united states as a percent of g.d.p. they are still shrinking. it's not about helping the economy. it's about redistributing wealth. you don't have to just impact companies or alter the can i of companies that have received tarp money because pay is competitive. if a bank has received tarp money has gotten a cut. >> the thing that bothers me most about this whole pay czar

statement is where he says i have the discretion. the concept of the czar is fundamentally at odds with the constitution of the american people. >> there are regulations that have been promulgated. they are gite clearly delineated. he can say what he wants but he does not have unlimited discretion here. one of the things he has to take into account is retaining people at these companies. the market value of those employees. >> i'm not worried about feinberg. i'm worried about another pay czar. nancy pelosi. what if she raises taxes on people making more than $100,000. that's scary. >> america has spent more. news flash. wall street is in the united states. the biggest offenders in the world financial meltdown were american banks. a.i.g. needed saving the most. goldman sachs needed saving. merrill lynch needed saving. those were the big offenders. they made the big mistakes. they are the ones who dug us in this really big hole.

that's why we have had to spend so much. david: i keep hearing that offender comment from quentin and other people. the question is if people were so offensive, if they broke laws, why aren't folks going to jail, mike? >> you have to start by pointing -- >> they wrote the law. david: hold on a second, quentin. >> you have to start out by pointing fingers at people like barney frank and chris dodd. by their support of fannie mae and freddy mac and preventing any regulation there, they allowed them to continually lend support bank loans and housing loans to people they knew couldn't afford to pay it back. yes, the banks were part of this, but so were barney frank and chris dodd. david: plenty of blame to be going around, but i suspect barney frank will not be going to jail. >> you don't know yet. he was a big part of this. >> we could put his pension. david: let's hope that at least comes true. when we come back, a new plan that may have some rolling over in their graves, literally. in their graves, literally. cash for cas

hoveround power chair? the statue of liberty? the grand canyon? it's all possible with a hoveround. tom: hi i'm tom kruse, inventor and founder of hoveround. when we say you're free to see the world, we mean it. call today and get a free hoveround information kit that includes a video and full color brochure. dennis celorie: "it's by far the best chair i've ever owned." and if you qualify get it for little or no money. jim plunkitt: "no cost. absolutely no cost to me." breaking news...when you call today, we'll include a free hoveround collapsible grabber with the purchase of your power chair. it reaches, it grabs, it's collapsible and it's portable. it goes wherever you go. get it free while supplies last. declare your independence call now, you'll be glad you did. call the number on your screen.

david: so first it was cash for clunkers. now it's cash for caskets. this is real, folks. state and local governments paying for funerals for people who can't afford them, with taxpayer money. it's happened before, but it's being taken to a whole new level. jack gates says this is taking cradle to grave entitlements to a whole new level. >> i'm all for publicly funded funerals for service men and women that come back, that have died in the field of battle. but look, this is ridiculous. you have to have a bare minimum as a social safety net for

those who can't afford funerals. but expanding this program takes the worst part of cash for clunkers and combines it with the bad parts of cash for clunkers. mainly putting state and local tax dollars on the line to provide a welfare net. david: is this outrageous, mark? >> no, this isn't outrageous. the reason this is expanding, david, is it's just another sign of just how bad the economy is and how many people are poor out there and can't afford to bury themselves. i don't see anything wrong with this. and gosh, guys, come on. it sounds very callous of you to not want to bury the poor who are indigent. >> the fact is it's taking the cradle to gave thing a little further than anybody expected it to go. >> i'm mr. softy. the reason why i don't like this is government subsidies always increase the cost of something. it doesn't matter whether it's health insurance, energy, food. when the government pours money into something, the price goes up, not down. that's why i think this is a bad idea. i'm mr. softy. david: quentin, mr. softy says

it's a bad idea. what say you? >> what's outrage here to me is the way people want to play gotcha with the government all the time. we have been burying the poor for centuries. have you ever heard of a potter's field? they have existed since forever. there are more burials of the indigent now because there are more poor people. you seem to think the poor are some other species than you. sometimes the poor are just you with a little bit of bad luck. have some cart here. >> there is no risk of bodies piling up in the street here. we're in a recession. there is no typhoon. jack is exactly right. the only people with who deserve publicly funded funerals are service men and women and people who served this country. david: what do you think about quentin's comment that we are in a pretty desperate economic situation now. a lot of people just can't afford it. the families can't. shouldn't we chip in and do more of the potter's field sort of thing? >> we should do city burials

like we do in the city of new york. we have prisoners from rikers island burying these people there. david: what's wrong about that? >> you know who complains about that? the funeral industry. they tried to make cheaper caskets. the funeral industry complained it was unfair competition. >> you should die in washington, d.c., because you get $800 forward a funeral there. with a casket and procession and everything else. if we want to be humane, we should have the same consideration for the unborn as we do for the dead. this is for another day. this is something that has to be curtailed. there are more people that can't afford funerals right now. there are things like burial insurance and other ways to go. david: last word from jack. what do the most 100 powerful women have in common? they are all on the top 100

david: just released, the "forbes" top 100 most powerful women in the world. our reformers have the stocks that have been led by these women that will be sure to make you money. evelyn, let's start with hewlett packard. >> i like this stock because it's on track to grow 11% every year for the next five years. p.c. sales have been sluggish but they are bound to rebound. david: as the executive v.p. of hewlett packard, what do you

think? >> my biggest problem with ann livermore is she is not c.e.o. i like the stock, but i think it's expensive. wait until it pulls back a little bit. david: or wait until she becomes c.e.o. rite-aid, that was a penny stock a couple of weeks ago. >> now it's $1.50, somewhere in there. mary sammons is fantastic. their pharmacies cut costs and expand their food print. david: will she lead them to financial success? >> do you know this company is in financial trouble? it's a little less terminal than it was three months ago. unlike that one, my stock, marathon oil. david: c.f.o. is janet clark. >> that one is coining money. it's coining money when oil prices are still going down. they will be going up over the next decade. >> at the same time marathon recently missed their expectations, so i would be a little cautious on that.