Congress should vote No on the override of the President's veto of H.R.976.

I know even Senator Grassley (R-IA) says that the bill is safe from abuse re adult use as it lets the HHS Secretary determine what's too much, still, why is the door open? As it is, even the American Cancer Society has been running cable tv ads lately in Lake County IL, all the alleged cancer patients appearing to be my age (47) or well older even minus afflictions; I've nothing against separate research funding and development funding to help such people, but like Katrina and Rita victims, why do we all have to be collectivized into single supplier, single source public care at expense of private R/D and health jobs, so that all who need care overburden the unique system while reducing likelihood of strident bounds toward cures?

Many in government tell us the eyes of potential immigrants and foreigners are upon us, and we must show them the USA has constructive leadership; I share that concern and simply think that it may be shooting such goal in the foot to enact just any old legislation for such primary purpose.

I concur with President Bush on his own merits re SCHIP as is veto, and the within balance is to show my concurrance also with objections as raised by the American Conservative Union.

As one of their nationals, I am disappointed that Congress voted for a massive expansion of government controlled health care known as the SCHIP bill. I am appalled that supporters of the massive expansion of government controlled health care known as the SCHIP bill have used children as political props on television to change some votes and override the President's veto.  I urge Congress to reject these tactics and vote to sustain the veto.

While claiming to expand the coverage of health care to poor children, this bill actually does the opposite.  It prevents the federal government from asking the states to certify that 95% of poor children are covered before covering other people.   

This bill would allow, and even encourage states to cover families who have private insurance and make up to $62,000 per year.  States that have done this and added adults to the program have now run out of money and cannot cover the poor children this program is supposed to help.  How absurd; and since tobacco use alone would allegedly fund such additional coverage, why are areas such as Chicago even now widening tobacco use bans to literally every place in their jurisdictions?

I believe the real purpose of this bill is to attract people who already have private insurance and get them to switch to government run health care.  I understand that the Congressional Budget Office has a study that shows that 77% of the children that would be included in the expansion of this program already have personal health insurance.  Whatever the problems with the present system, government-run health care is not the solution.

It is clear to me supporters of this bill do not have the interests of poor children at heart, but want to play politics with their health.  If it were otherwise, they would have drafted a bill that puts poor children first.  No one should be a part of this cynical attempt to make a political point.  Congress should vote "NO" on the override of the president's veto of the SCHIP bill.