{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017377567140600316, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01263823064770932, 'mean_word_length': 4.81651376146789, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What do Hillary Rodham Clinton and Newt Gingrich have in common?

In a somewhat tongue-in-cheek style, this article tries to persuade conservatives that it might be in their best interests to consider broader health system reform alternatives in their quest to reduce the cost of federal health entitlements for a balanced budget by 2002. The conventional means for reducing the federal budget by $450 billion in 7 years will inflict much pain on many voters. The substitution of a new, more targeted entitlement, prospectively, for all Americans represents an alternative that provides much gain to many and only some pain to a few.