Obama's medical plan - not good enough for his own family?

Obama's controversial overhaul of the American health care system is infuriating both Republicans and health care industry moguls - leading one doctor to plant a poser on the president during an ABC News town hall event:

"Will you promise," the doctor demanded, "that your wife and daughters will only get the medical services covered by your new health insurance plan?"

"No," said Obama. "I'd always want them to get the very best care." Even if that meant buying a more expensive insurance program, or paying for non-covered services out of pocket.

Critics are highlighting this as an example of hypocrisy - a 'Dukakis moment' according to some. Obama's proposing a health care system that even he wouldn't entrust to cover all his family's medical needs.

But is that hypocritical? Or merely honest?

Obama's health care proposal offers some medical care for millions of uninsured people. It might not be comprehensive coverage - the 'best that money can buy' - but it is at least some coverage.

It hasn't been put in place to replace private medical insurance. It's been put there to supplement it - to offer the uninsured something, where they used to get nothing.

If Obama could find a way to offer medical coverage that was better than private health insurance, he wouldn't just be a miracle worker - he'd be the first man in history to make a nationalized health care system work!

[And yet, the Republicans would still attack him, for destroying the 'free market' private health care industry. You just can't win with them. - Editorial Bear.]

No, what he proposes isn't perfect. But perhaps it's the step in the right direction. And, more importantly, it's not like his Republican critics have managed to put forward anything better.

They criticize Obama for not entrusting his family's health to his new system. Perhaps the question should be reversed:

Would they show their 'faith' in the existing system by entrusting their family's health to the current options open for America's 46 million uninsured?

If the answer to that is 'no' (as it should be, for anybody who cares about their family's welfare) than they're the ones who the accusations of hypocrisy should be leveled at.

A Grim Day for Politics

The Iowa caucuses are the first post in the marathon run to presidential nomination - which makes them incredibly important.

In both 1996 and 2000, the results of the Iowa caucuses accurately predicted which Republican candidates would run for election that year. If that accuracy is repeated, it puts former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on the bill to stand for election as the 44th President of the United States of America.

Which is a disaster.

I don't heart Huckabee

My major reason for disliking Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate is his slavish devotion to Christian evangelicalism. Now there is nothing wrong with being devout - but from the birth of the American nation to the present day, there has always been (in theory) a policy dividing church and state. Mike Huckabee doesn't want any part of that policy.

"Let's take this nation back for Christ." So said Mike Huckabee in 1998 - and on December 31st 2007, he stood by that comment on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'

Here is a man who believes that the bible is the literal 'word of God,' defiantly supports Creationism (and believes it should be taught in schools) and proudly declared that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle."

How on earth did this man win the support of the Iowa GOP?

"There's only one explanation for it," he proudly declared, "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

Divine intervention, apparently.

Blatant Hypocrisy

Although Huckabee claims to believe that the bible is the literal word of God (including that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' bit) he's still a grudging supporter of the death penalty.

Despite being a Republican (supposedly the party of 'small government' and fiscal responsibility) his tenure as Governor of Arkansas saw a 65% increase in spending and an explosion in the state's debt to a whopping $1 billion.

His 'dedication' to democracy is clear - in 1999 he attached a 4% tax increase on diesel fuel in the state of Arkansas without voter approval, in direct violation of his oath of office.

And his attitude towards government? In 1998, Huckabee proudly declared: "Government doesn't have the real answers. The real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Jesus is not on the Electoral Roll

There is nothing wrong with being religious. The tenants of Christianity offer excellent moral guidance in how to live our day-to-day lives and interact with other human beings with kindness and tolerance (well, as long as they're not homosexual, apparently.)

However, a heavily edited, oft-translated, trimmed, tweaked and tailored manuscript written two thousand years ago DOES NOT offer an effective basis for running the most powerful nation on Earth.

America requires leadership dedicated to humanity, rationality and logic - and Mike Huckabee can offer the United States none of those things.

If Mike Huckabee wins the 'ticket' to run for the presidency, even the most devout Christian would be best off praying for a Democrat to win the election.