🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Concierge medical services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Insurance brokers. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. HDHP. HSA. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. COBRA. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Baffled? You should be. Who comprehends all this stuff? Certainly not the average entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Selecting the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for our families – appears to require it requires a PhD in healthcare.

The Medical System Is More Than Complicated, It Is Costly

According to recent research, the average family spends $twenty-seven thousand annually for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). The average employer health insurance cost is expected to exceed $17,000 per employee by 2026, an increase of 9.5% from 2025.

Currently the government has ceased functioning due to partisan disputes over tax credits which analysts predict will lead to premium increases up to 100% for millions of Americans.

When Will We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

How soon might we seriously consider a national health insurance program here in America? I'm convinced we're approaching that point because this can't continue.

I'm not proposing government-run medicine. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare system – an established insurance framework – merely extend to cover everyone. Our infrastructure remains intact. The way our healthcare providers receive payment changes. Believe me, they'll adapt.

How Universal Coverage Would Work

A national health insurance program would require contributions from both employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker earning moderate income must contribute approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company pays about 13.75%.

Does this seem like a lot? Unless you compare that with what average US resident spends. I can name dozens of businesses who are routinely paying anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages for medical benefits. Remember that with comprehensive systems, those payments include pension plans, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits in addition to funding healthcare facilities. When you add these expenses compared with what we pay for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Implementation for America

In the US, a national health premium would raise existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It ought to be means-based – those at higher income levels would contribute higher amounts than those earning less. There would be both an employee and company payments. And, like many federal defense, technology, social programs and infrastructure, the program could be managed to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Benefits for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program would be a huge benefit for small businesses like mine. It would place us on a level playing field with our larger competitors that can pay for better plans. It would render administration significantly simpler (a payroll deduction processed similarly to social security and healthcare taxes, rather than separate payments to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would enable simpler to plan expenses annual expenditures, instead of going through the complex (and fruitless) theater of negotiating with major insurers required annually each year. Because it's simplified, there would be improved comprehension of coverage among workers – contrasted with existing arrangements which require them to interpret the complexities of current options. Additionally there would certainly be less liability for companies since we wouldn't would be privy to our employees' medical records for purposes of risk assessment and different options.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as possible. However I recognize that public institutions has a significant role in our lives, from providing defense to funding needed infrastructure. Ensuring medical coverage for everyone through a national insurance system strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It represents superior, easier system for entrepreneurs which hire more than half of the country's workers and fund half the economic output. It makes it possible employees to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive.

Addressing Concerns

Are there a million considerations I'm not addressing? Of course there are. But with all the healthcare cost increases we've seen in recent years, it's clear that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning effectively. And I realize that America isn't a small, Scandinavian country where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, even with increased taxation that would be incurred, would remain a superior and more affordable strategy for not only managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Time for Realistic Evaluation

We as Americans, we need to tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank significantly behind many other countries with the best healthcare globally, based on comprehensive research. Maybe one positive aspect amid present circumstances is that we take a hard look at ourselves and agree that major reforms need to happen.