This past week, Democrats from the U.S. House of Representatives were unable to override a Presidential veto from a week ago related to children's health care in the U.S.

The bill, which would have provided health care for many children in the U.S. who lack insurance, was too expensive, according to its detractors. What do you think -- should part of your taxes go to subsidize health care for uninsured children? The total for this plan was $35 billion in expanded care costs

On Thursday, the override vote fell 13 votes short of passing, with a 273 to 156 count. A two-thirds majority is needed to override a veto.

Source

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has until October 14 to sign or veto bill SB 120 requiring chain restaurants with 15 or more locations to post calories next to each regular food item on food boards. Hand-out menus would need to include more comprehensive nutritional information.

Just imagine strolling into a McDonalds, looking up at the menu and seeing 1,110 calories posted next to Value Meal #1 -- a Big Mac, large fry and a drink. I won't even count drink calories, assuming you're filling up at the self-serve with diet soda. No wonder the California Restaurant Association is calling its members to pressure the Governor to stamp SB 120 with a big, fat veto.

The chief of the restaurant association says the bill is a "feel-good Band Aid" ignoring true issues underlying obesity. A Sacramento cardiologist says people eat out more and calorie counts are a good thing.

If I were the Governor, I'd sign that bill. It's about time calorie counts stared us right in the face as we crane our necks at the tantalizing food shots on menu boards. Maybe we'll choose the 520 calorie lunch instead -- a Ranch Snack Wrap with Grilled Chicken and a small fry. Would calorie counts modify your order?

Source

In just the fourth veto of his presidential career, President Bush vetoed legislation this week geared at increasing a popular children's health care program. No surprise there, as Bush's record on social programs for health is pretty well known by most Americans.

But this has to do with children, and by vetoing the bill, Bush risks alienating himself from fellow Republicans, some of whom fear damage to next year's elections as a result.

I'm not sure I would characterize the bill as "cruel and heartless" like many Democrats are calling it, but when it comes to the health care of children, should we leave that up solely to strapped parents across the nation and leave it at that? What do you think here? I do support the idea that cigarettes taxes would have been used to fund the increase, but is that the right thing to do?

Source