I said before, this subject sows discord. As at the Thanksgiving dinner table, politics and religion should be banned from what is ostensibly a professional forum.

Irene, I think that there are enough qualified and capable women of all parties, types, stripes, and interests to fill a candidate slate! Will they do it? I dunno. Maybe someday...

@Irene_L.A. wrote:

There are going to be many more Democrats running for office, I am doing research to see who I feel best for the job and the Democratic party...a few good ones.... Finding a young Dianne Feinstein would be my choice, and there may be one, problem being, is country ready for a woman, I know i am.
...

I suppose it is all about world view. I grew up in Ontario, Canada. I paid less for insurance than I do now in Iowa, yet it covered more. Ever get laid off and have to decide whether to spend your unemployment benefits on COBRA or the mortgage? I've been there. (That's not a thing in Canada since coverage is not tied to your employer.)

@Shop-et-al wrote:

@heartlandcanuck: It does sound generous and kind, when you say it like that-- you express that more and more people will become eligible.

You did not explain why any more persons should be made eligible-- which is to be cast into an unnecessary safety net. Will there be an unwanted side effect? How will able-bodied, motivated, active, self-insuring, and/or employer-insured persons feel about this downgrade? And, who will customize care and tailor each care plan for each individual? The larger and more cumbersome a provider becomes, the less flexible it is. It will not be able to adapt to each situation quickly enough (sometimes) to avoid doing harm and even to do some good for some people. Even the existing providers are not sufficient to cover all persons equally and totally. It is not difficult to study numbers and explanations and realize that when only one system is in place, the coverage will not be better than it is now, when multiple providers of insurance and care are operational.

I think it is a good idea to continue to poke and prod and palpitate this notion of government care. The next question for the patient is: why should more and more persons be cast into the government's care?

Actually your #2 is incorrect - emergency services, schools, et all are not socialist. If they were they would pick and chose who they tended to and not everyone is entitled to an education - only the ones with money. Here you can prosper depending on your earnings, socialist nations take the earnings they feel are above and beyond and re-distribute to all so everyone is equally poor. I suggest you read up on 3rd world socialist countries to see if that is really how you want to live. I lived in one for 2 years - not something I would wish on my fellow Americans

Yes, those items (emergency services, schools, welfare) are "socialist." They are paid for through taxes for the common good. They are, however, items that the vast majority of folks support. I do have some relatives in rural Idaho who want to stop paying taxes for local roads, emergency services and public schools because they would rather only pay for what they personally use. My point in citing this is to demonstrate that 99.9% of us believe that we should pay taxes for some things that are for "the common good."

You state, "they would pick and choose [sic] who they tended to and not everyone is entitled to an education - only the ones with money." This is the antithesis of socialism. As for "reading up".... I am very well-read and quite well-educated. I did quite a bit of reading to refresh my memory on a few things when this thread started up. One of the difficulties with discussions about "socialism" is that there are different forms and nuances of it and many folks would rather stick it with a single label and lambaste it as a whole than to take the time to understand what a particular candidate is saying.

Do understand: I am NOT a socialist or even a liberal. I am not promoting socialism - democratic or otherwise. I am only pointing out that Bernie's *democratic* socialism is different than what you seen in those third world countries. Bernie's philosophies are far better compared to what you see in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and France. Those are NOT third world countries. When asked what "socialism" means to him, he frequently cites those countries. He is very clear that he believes in democracy,which is very different than what we see in nations such as Venezuela.

I don't see it like our school system where we have Charter schools for bright kids and we actually moved to get my daughter into a fabulous small school district (public), very small in Calabasas, it wasn't one for all, and she got an amazing education with 400 graduates, unlike L.A. school's. We don't know Bernie's plans, but he seems like a one for all kinda guy.

I suggest you read up on countries like Canada and Sweden, which are hardly third world countries, before you try using that scare tactic.

@lbtweety47 wrote:

Actually your #2 is incorrect - emergency services, schools, et all are not socialist. If they were they would pick and chose who they tended to and not everyone is entitled to an education - only the ones with money. Here you can prosper depending on your earnings, socialist nations take the earnings they feel are above and beyond and re-distribute to all so everyone is equally poor. I suggest you read up on 3rd world socialist countries to see if that is really how you want to live. I lived in one for 2 years - not something I would wish on my fellow Americans

@Irene_L.A. wrote:

I don't see it like our school system where we have Charter schools for bright kids and we actually moved to get my daughter into a fabulous small school district (public), very small in Calabasas, it wasn't one for all, and she got an amazing education with 400 graduates, unlike L.A. school's. We don't know Bernie's plans, but he seems like a one for all kinda guy.

Irene, this is interesting. Here, small town in the middle of nowhere, we have one charter school. It is not designated for specific students, and it is popular with all kinds of people. Do the bright kids go to separate charter schools where you live?

From my knowledge and what I've heard, yes, you have to be tested to get into a charter school, that's the purpose of them.