The number usually quoted was that 40 million Americans (a little over 1 in 8 ) have no health insurance. Whether that's a sign America needs a public healthcare program usually has a lot to do with how many of those 40 million lack health insurance because they simply can't afford it, or because they think themselves so healthy that monthly premiums would cost more than paying the full cost out of pocket at need. Statistically, the lions share of the latter will find out they're wrong sooner rather than later, and when they can't pay the staggering bills that result the difference will be passed along to the rest of us in the form of higher costs for both healthcare itself and insurance (part of costs to those with insurance already include paying that difference). It's likely that at some point in the legal arguments this issue will be raised as a constitutional basis for "promoting the general welfare" of the 270 million insured Americans forced to pay part of the cost for the 40 million uninsured ones. One other stat to bear in mind: According to PBS, 50% of bankruptcies in 2007 were filed by people with jobs AND HEALTH INSURANCE but broken by catastrophic healthcare costs.

The truly shameful and inexcusable thing about the Great Healthcare Debate of 2009 is that even when the bill was passed it did NOTHING to actually lower the cost of healthcare; it simply required the entire country to pay private insurers who inflated the cost of a vital service they don't even provide to the point tens of millions can't obtain it. Obama wanted a win more than he wanted public healthcare, so he refused to introduce a public option in hopes of getting votes from Republicans who still unanimously voted against it. Likewise, Republicans want Obama to lose more than they want to preserve essentially the healthcare bill they insisted was the only one they'd accept (but voted against anyway). Isn't politics great?