Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
On the topic of the original article, I do find his proposed veto of health care for millions of CHILDREN to be offensive beyond words, but he has the power to do so if he chooses (demonstrating yet again he's an oxygen thief). Can he do it? Yes. Should he do it? Well I suppose Herod didn't feel bad about his little executive order, so why should W?

The question is why is he doing it? There are articulate reasons they don't support this. I haven't studied it, but if its that open and shut and the executive was simply being irrational, you'd get your override. I think its rarely that simple.

The reason given is that it could encourage people to leave the rolls of private insurance because the program would pay for them. I found that here.

To be blunt, the whole damn system is going to go down the tubes and millions will LOSE what they have because Bush wants to make sure the insurance companies can continue to make a (dishonest) buck.

And since the thought occurs to me, the right always screams "private is better! private is better!" If that's the case, why are police and fire departments public? The army is public, but they're trying to change that, and I think we can see just how well that is turning out (See the recent releases on Blackwater in Fallujah). Private may do some things well, but public interests and national service are two areas where the private interest and the public need are in gross conflict.

RE: Balkinization