Last night, during Mike Huckabee's program, he responded to a letter sent to him regarding his position on health care reform. He indicated that he favored an expansion of Medicaid to cover the uninsured, but that he differed with Democrats in that he wanted the insured to have to pay premiums. His position is that they should have a "vested interest" in keeping costs down and that helping to cover the premiums of a "government sponsored" program would do that.
I'm sorry, but isn't that a "progressive" position? By that, I mean, doesn't this move us one step closer to a government-run one-payor health care system?
Doesn't it also (in light of my two previous posts) violate the constitution?
Huckabee calls himself a conservative, and I'm sure in the current political environment, most others would brand him conservative, as well. However, the more I study government and how it is supposed to function (according to the framers of the constitution), the more I'm convinced that there is little difference between those who label themselves conservatives and those who label themselves liberals or progressives. They are all trying to increase the size and scope of government to suit their own ends ... not ours.
(While it's true that Huckabee is no longer holding political office), it is time to recall the whole lot of them, and find people who truly UNDERSTAND what the constitution says and are willing to take an oath to defend it.