A Look at Health Care Under Obama

ABC News Medical Editor<br>Nov. 5, 2008&#151; -- Forty-seven million Americans -- most from working families -- have no health insurance, and 25 million more are considered "underinsured," meaning they have health insurance but not enough to protect them from high medical bills.

Now, with the fear of an economic recession, tens of millions of additional workers are worried about losing their health benefits if they lose or change jobs. The plans proposed by President-elect Barack Obama to address the situation reflect two very different ideas about health care reform.

Currently, 160 million Americans get their health insurance from an employer, and according to surveys from the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation specializing in health policy research, most people want to keep it that way, for a variety of reasons.

"There are better premiums, there are better benefits … you've got a human resources manager to help you out if you've got a claim denied," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said.

She says Americans will become cost-conscious if they have to pay their own way. And she cautions that the cost of the Obama plan to the federal government could be very high -- "between $60 billion to $120 billion more than the very expensive health care we already have," she said.

There is one thing health policy experts we've spoken with over the course of this campaign agree on: Health care reform will not be a winner-take-all game for Obama.

"There's not going to be a plan that satisfies the right or that satisfies the left. There can only be a plan that represents some kind of a combination approach," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

"It will fundamentally depend on the Congress, and on the willingness of a president, to reach out and try to craft a bipartisan solution," said health economist Gail Wilensky, former Medicare head and an adviser to John McCain's campaign.

Davis also emphasizes the bipartisan role the president will have to play to steer government and business to work together on health care solutions that are cost-effective for both the family and federal budgets.

"We spend an enormous amount of money on administrative costs, because we have no leadership, no collaboration between the government sector and the private sector," Davis said.