🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. In-network. Out-of-network. Concierge medical services. Personal healthcare costs. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. EPO. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. FSA. HRA. EOB. COBRA. SHOP. Individual coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? It's understandable. Who understands all this stuff? Not the typical business owner. Nor the typical worker. Choosing the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for our families – seems like demands a PhD in healthcare.

The Healthcare System Isn't Just Complex, It Is Costly

According to recent research, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand each year on medical coverage (up 6% compared to last year). The average company healthcare expense is expected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee by 2026, an increase of 9.5% from 2025.

Now the government is shut down because partisan disputes over subsidies which analysts predict will lead to a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans.

When Might We Truly Examine National Health Insurance?

When will we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program here in America? I'm convinced we're approaching that point since this can't continue.

I'm not suggesting government-run medicine. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare program – an insurance system – merely extend to include all citizens. The existing system doesn't change. How medical professionals get paid changes. Trust me, they will adjust.

How Universal Coverage Could Function

A national health insurance program would need payments from employees and employers. In comparable systems, an employee earning moderate income must contribute approximately 5.3% toward medical coverage. The company must contribute about 13.75%.

Does this appear like a lot? Not if you compare it to what the typical American pays. I can name dozens of clients that are routinely paying anywhere from 8% to 15% of their employee wages for medical benefits. And keep in mind that in inclusive programs, these contributions include pension plans, illness coverage, maternity leave and job loss protection along with supporting medical services. When including those costs versus our current spending on retirement programs, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Implementation for America

In the US, universal healthcare funding would increase existing Medicare taxes, a system that is already in place. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would pay more than those earning less. There would be both an employee and employer contribution. And, like many our government's defense, IT, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed by private contractors rather than federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program represents a huge benefit for entrepreneurs like mine. It would place us on a level playing field with our larger competitors that can pay for superior coverage. It would make management much easier (a payroll deduction remitted like social security and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would make simpler for us to budget annual expenditures, rather than going through the complex (and ineffective) theater of negotiating with the big insurance providers required annually each year. Because it's simplified, there would be improved comprehension of coverage among workers – contrasted with the current system where they have to decipher the complexities of existing plans. Additionally there would certainly be less liability for employers as we no longer have access to workers' medical records for purposes of risk assessment and different options.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as pro-market as possible. But I've learned that government has a significant role in society, including national security to supporting needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare to all through a national insurance system strengthens economic foundations. It's a better, easier system for small businesses which hire the majority of the country's workers and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to enjoy better health, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Exist a million considerations I'm not addressing? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's evident that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning effectively. And I realize that America isn't a compact European nation where major reforms are easier to implement. However extending Medicare for all, even with the additional taxes required, would still be a superior and less expensive strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Time for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, we need to reduce national pride. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank significantly behind numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, according to major studies. Maybe one bright spot in this present circumstances is that we undertake a hard look in the mirror and agree that major reforms need to happen.