Health Care Reform | 07/02/2009 10:50 am

Obama Tries to Sell Health-Care Plan, But Others Still Worry About Medical Bankruptcies (Video)

There are too many people being sent into financial ruin with crappy coverage, experts say, so what’s Congress going to do about that?

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

We here at wOw told you a few weeks ago about a horrible tragedy going on in America. It turns out, two out of three bankruptcies in America are due to medical bills. If you or your spouse suffers from a serious ailment that lands you in the hospital for any extended period of time, it just may send you into financial ruin.

Now, The New York Times follows up on that, reporting on how even as Congress and Washington try to push through health-care reform to cover the tens of millions of Americans without medical insurance, many health policy experts say giving everyone an insurance card won’t be enough to fix this particular problem. For many Americans, the coverage they have is so skimpy, any major problem can send them right into the red.

"Underinsurance is the great hidden risk of the American health-care system," said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who has analyzed medical bankruptcies, and who is heading up the panel overseeing distribution of the government’s economic bailout funds, to the Times. "People do not realize they are one diagnosis away from financial collapse."

Many hope President Obama and Congress will take this into account when they debate health-care reform. Obama yesterday pushed his plan on how to insure the more than 45 million Americans currently without coverage, and he promised to sign a health-care reform bill by the end of the year that cuts health-care costs, expands access to coverage and creates greater efficiency in the system. A key part of this plan includes a public option.

The middle class may be a particularly tough crowd for Obama to sell his plan to. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released yesterday shows that people are worried their health-care costs would go up if the administration’s proposals passed, and only one in five thinks that his or her family would be better off under the Obama plan. Fifty-one percent of people surveyed say they favor the president’s health-care plan, with 45 percent opposed.

You can watch Obama at the Virginia town hall below:

192 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Obama needs to fix what is broken first….medicare and welfare fraud…. or will he just let that languish on and on at the taxpayer’s expense?

By deber B on 07/02/2009 1:11 pm

e-mail alert

Deber, the "sorry" game has been going on for 2 decades in the U.S.

By C jay on 07/03/2009 8:26 pm

e-mail alert

DeBurca: So every vote against it is evidence of a politician who is voting against the wishes of his or her constituency because they’ve been bought off.

That is simply not true. If it were, Obama would not have to repeatedly hold town meetings to win over folks to his side. People would be clamoring for the plan… but they’re not. Most people are covered one way or another, and see this more as a nuisance… another hand on their wallet. At the most, only about 15% of the population is set to benefit from this new health plan.

By Marjorie C. on 07/02/2009 12:55 pm

e-mail alert

Marjorie, we KNOW it’s not true. And, I agree that only 15% will benefit from this new health plan.

By deber B on 07/02/2009 1:08 pm

e-mail alert

VALID SOURCE, please?

By C jay on 07/03/2009 8:27 pm

e-mail alert

Yep—three of my prescriptions doubled and tripled over the last two years. I need those meds to stay alive—literally— and Big Pharma continues to make money hand over fist at the expense of the consumer. That pisses me off. As for health insurance I’m ok at present but even then the cost is going up incrementally. The public should have the option of government sponsored health insurance. BTW, how many of those bitching today about the cost of said health care bitched about the 8 or 9 trillion that Georgie spent. Not many I’ll bet.

By F P on 07/02/2009 1:22 pm

e-mail alert

F P: …how many of those bitching today about the cost of said health care bitched about the 8 or 9 trillion that Georgie spent.

They brought their complaint to the last election. Who got elected? Not a Republican. Now, we’re facing trillions upon trillions of debt… much of it frivolous spending. I hope the voters bring their new complaint to the next election. People are watching… and counting… and listening. Bush was an overspender by most estimates, an aberration for the Republican Party. Obama is running true to the Dem philosophy… tax and spend until the limit is reached, and I think the limit has been reached.

By Marjorie C. on 07/02/2009 1:51 pm

e-mail alert

8-9 trillion is not over-spending—esp on a disastrous war that should never have happened. And at the time as I recall the people voted Georgie in even after he started that damned war. Frivolous spending by Georgie was always the issue and you Repubs didn’t seem to mind that type of "over-spending".

By F P on 07/02/2009 2:52 pm

e-mail alert

F P: …the people voted Georgie in even after he started that damned war.

I’m not a Republican and I never once voted for George Bush. Instead, in the last round, I voted for John Kerry. Now, if you want to know why Bush got in a second time, there is your answer. John Kerry.

As things have played out, George Bush is looking better every day… miserable war and all.

By Marjorie C. on 07/02/2009 4:17 pm

e-mail alert

First off…it was not "Georgie’s" war. I guess that you conveniently forget that other countries agreed with the war and were allies in the effort. That good old Bush Derangement Syndrome again….

What….didn’t you hear about the just released interviews with Saddam about the WMD’s? He said that he was so worried about the capabilities of Iran that he wanted for the world to think that Iraq had WMD’s. He made sure that the world believed it. The intel was correct, according to what Saddam wanted to be believed. So there you go…right from his own mouth.

But…that was then…and this is now, isn’t it? Democracy has seemed to ignite a desire in young Iraians for more freedom…

Obama has QUADRUPLED the Bush debt. Got that?

By Kelly In Texas on 07/03/2009 5:00 pm

e-mail alert

F P: …three of my prescriptions doubled and tripled over the last two years

Another point, those prescriptions could be obtained from the VA, no? You are luckier than most, you have choices as to where to go for health care.

By Marjorie C. on 07/02/2009 1:54 pm

e-mail alert

I choose not to go to the VA for very private reasons. When I needed them the most they were shall we say: dismissive.

By F P on 07/02/2009 2:50 pm

e-mail alert

FP..you just demonstrated what a public system would be like! You want that to be your ONLY option??? Do you also suppose they have to charge more in the US to offset the low costs mandated by other countries with socialized medicine?

By S.J. Morgan on 07/02/2009 3:22 pm

e-mail alert

Horse hockey, SJ. The VA works for many many thousands—just because i choose—key word their incase you missed it—not to use the VA doesn’t make the program less valuable for very very many of vets. And once again you feeble attempt to blame everything governmental on socialism is pathetic. Socialism is here and has been since the great depression. Read your history SJ. And not the Spectator or the National Review.

By F P on 07/03/2009 8:02 am

e-mail alert

With all respect, you disproved your own argument. Right now, when a single payer, government run (the VA) beauracracy is “dismissive” you still (under the current system) have a choice to go elsewhere. If ObamaCare providers (the only care available) is “dismissive” what will your choice be then? Mexico?

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/02/2009 6:28 pm