A heated debate has broken out over President Bush’s threat to veto a bill that would give additional funding to a program that currently provides health care to millions of children. The president's reasoning? He thinks the bill will socialize medicine. If socialized medicine is what it takes for innocent children to get health care, then I say bring it on. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is part of the Social Security Act and is administered by individual states. However, the federal government decides the budget for each state’s specific SCHIP program. Each state’s SCHIP program provides health care to needy children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but still need insurance. The bill in front of Congress would increase funding for the program by $35 billion, yet President Bush has vowed to veto it. In Wisconsin, a veto from President Bush against an increase in funding for Wisconsin’s version of SCHIP, called BadgerCare, would be a huge blow to thousands of families currently depending on that federally funded health care. BadgerCare covers children and their families as long as they meet very minimal guidelines including not having health insurance, having a child younger than the age of 19 living in the family household and having an income within a certain range, according to the official BadgerCare website. That, of course, got me thinking: Is depriving needy children and families of health care really worth it in order to avoid a certain ideology? My answer would, of course, be no. So, why is President Bush threatening a veto? One of the reasons is that he puts his faith in the free market economy and minimal government involvement. The only problem with this is that the free market is not working when it comes to health care. What is working in many countries around the world is universal health care. Currently, our free market economy is failing millions of people by not providing them comprehensive and necessary health care. The socialist template can help us. Take the kibbutzim movement in Israel for example. The idea is that everyone works together for the greater good of the community. The beauty of this system is that although people have their own assets, everyone reaps the benefits of the communal efforts of the kibbutz. Universal health care is the same basic principal, but on a massive scale. The working people of America will all contribute some of their assets, namely taxes, for the common good of every American having comprehensive health care. This all sounds wonderful, yet there are reasons why universal health care has not come into existence here in America. One of these reasons is capitalism. The United States has built up an infrastructure of multimillion dollar insurance companies that control not only the insurance of those who can afford it but also the hopes of millions of stockholders. When stated like this, there seems to be so much at stake tied up in the insurance industry. Why rock the boat with universal health care? The answer to this all-encompassing question can be found using one of the main philosophies of socialism: The degree of social welfare in a country can dictate the economic growth of said country. For example, if everyone is insured here in the United States, the population will be happier, more prosperous and thus will drive our free market even more efficiently. Our current government is willing to deprive millions of American children of health care simply to preserve an ideal. This seems both wrong and inhumane. Please don’t get me wrong; I am not suggesting that the United States switch to a socialist government. What I am suggesting is that SCHIP, Wisconsin’s BadgerCare and universal health care are good and effective programs that should not be thrown away simply because of the stigma surrounding socialism. Danielle Werder ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and social welfare.