The far left in the United States are outraged that Bush vetoed the bill that would have provided "free" health insurance to minors.

When these discussions get going, I am always amazed that the obvious solution isn't taken: Start charities that provide health insurance to the "needy".

It wouldn't be that hard to do.  Those who really feel strongly about paying for health insurance for other people could donate to these charities. Then, those who wanted said health insurance would send in their past year's tax return along with proof of children and then be given health insurance for that child. 

These kinds of charities already exist for people who have a random illness like cancer, breast cancer, childhood diseases, etc.  So what is the difference?  The difference from my limited research is that most of these charities and their fund raising are performed by conservatives (particularly religious conservatives). 

As was documented in the excellent book "Who really cares" American liberals have replaced concrete action with political belief.  To them, posting a blog or protesting or some other symbolic but ultimately futile gesture is the same as actually doing something.

For this reason, American liberals are much more inclined to support federal government provided projects for the needy because it takes the burden of having to do anything to back up their political beliefs.  The sacrifice and effort is transferred to other people (typically people who disagree with their views and are hence demonized by the left even as those they demonized are, as a practical matter, the ones actually doing the doing).

It is a pity conservatives aren't more inclined to step up and ask "Why not start a charity?" when an advocate of a socialist policy starts railing for some new government welfare program.  After all, the left routinely says "Why don't you volunteer for the military?" when a conservative supports US foreign policy.