Newest Bush Veto... Children's Health Care

I would really like to know how you feel about this bill and if you agree it should have been vetoed or if you feel it should have been signed into law.

Read about the bill and the veto here

The bill would have expanded government run health care programs for low income children. It would have added $35 Billion over 5 years allowing an additional 4 million people to be added to the already 6 million that currently use the Children's Heath Care insurance program. Sounds pretty good, but at what cost....

To pay for the $35 Billion increase the bill proposed to raise cigarette tax to $1.00 a pack. Currently the tax is at $.61 per pack. Now I'm extremely anti-smoking but I do feel that if people want to kill them selves with cancer sticks they have a right to do that and the government should not have the right to target them out and impose such a huge tax burden on them...although at the same time I hope it will encourage people to stop smoking.

But who would this bill have really helped.....

It would have allowed children from families that make as much as $80,000 a year to qualify for free government run health care programs. $80,000 a year! The bill provided incentives to states to offer the health care programs to their lowest income families first but they would be able to offer the program to people making 6 times the poverty level.

I personally feel this bill was irresponsible and the president was right to veto it. I'm OK with an expansion in children's heath care programs for poor families but expanding the program to wealthy families at the expense of tax payers is irresponsible and dangerous. It was moving to far into socialized medicine territory. Democrats in Washington are complaining that the president will spend billions to pay for this war but will not increase the amount spend on Children's health care but protecting this country from terrorists and extremists and expanding democracy are the primary jobs of the government, providing health care at tax payer's expense.

I feel that anytime taxes are raised to provide funding for social issues the people they want to pay for it should vote on it. Since this bill would have only affected smokers, smokers should have been allowed to vote on it. Of course, how do you single out smokers and only allow them to vote... Exactly why taxes should not be imposed on a single group of people. If we're going to pay for something, we should have the right to vote on it and determine for ourselves if it's something we feel is worth spending our money on. Democrats fail to recognize that individuals should have the right to say where their money goes.

So I'd be very interested to hear how you feel about this veto.