🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Insurance brokers. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. FSA. HRA. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Single coverage. Family coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends all this stuff? Certainly not the average business owner. Nor the typical worker. Selecting the right healthcare insurance for companies – or for households – seems like it requires advanced expertise in healthcare.

Our Medical System Isn't Just Complex, It Is Expensive

Based on recent research, the average family pays $27,000 each year on medical coverage (increasing by 6% compared to last year). Typical company healthcare expense is expected to surpass $seventeen thousand per employee in 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Now the government is shut down due to political disagreements over subsidies that experts say will lead to a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans.

When Might We Seriously Consider National Health Insurance?

How soon might we genuinely evaluate universal healthcare coverage in the United States? I have to believe we're getting closer because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not suggesting government-run medicine. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare program – an insurance system – simply expand to include all citizens. The existing system doesn't change. The way our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Believe me, they'll adapt.

The Way National Health Insurance Could Function

A national health insurance program would require contributions from both workers and companies. In similar programs, an employee making moderate income must contribute about five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Unless you contrast it to what average US resident spends. I know multiple businesses that are routinely paying anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that in inclusive programs, those payments include pension plans, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits along with supporting medical services. When including these expenses compared with our current spending on retirement programs, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Implementation for America

In the US, a national health premium would increase our Medicare tax deduction, a system already established. It ought to be means-based – those at higher income levels would contribute higher amounts than those earning less. This includes both an employee and company payments. And, like many our government's defense, technology, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed to third-party administrators instead of a government office.

Benefits for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put us on a level playing field against big corporations who can afford superior coverage. It would render management much easier (a payroll deduction processed similarly to retirement and Medicare taxes, rather than separate payments to benefit firms and coverage administrators).

It would enable simpler to plan expenses annual expenditures, rather than going through the complicated (and ineffective) process of bargaining with the big insurance providers required annually each year. Due to simplification, there would exist improved comprehension of coverage by our employees – contrasted with existing arrangements which require them to decipher the complexities of existing plans. And there would definitely exist reduced responsibility for companies as we no longer would be privy to our employees' health histories for risk assessment and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as possible. However I recognize that public institutions play important functions in our lives, including national security to supporting needed infrastructure. Ensuring medical coverage to all via universal healthcare enhances our economy's infrastructure. It represents superior, simpler approach for entrepreneurs that employ more than half of American employees and generate half the economic output. It enables for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive.

Addressing Concerns

Exist a million considerations I'm not addressing? Of course there are. Given rising medical expenses we've seen recently, it's evident that current healthcare legislation is not working effectively. I understand that we're not a compact European nation where big changes can be readily adopted. But expanding Medicare for all, even with increased taxation required, would still be a better and less expensive strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage for all citizens.

Time for Honest Assessment

We as Americans, we need to tone down national pride. America's medical care isn't exceptional. The US places well below numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, based on comprehensive research. Perhaps a positive aspect amid current situation could be that we take a hard look at ourselves and agree that big changes are necessary.