🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Concierge medical services. Personal healthcare costs. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. 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. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends this complex system? Certainly not the average business owner. Nor the typical worker. Choosing the appropriate healthcare insurance for our business – or for households – appears to require it requires advanced expertise in medical insurance.

The Healthcare System Is More Than Complex, It Is Expensive

Based on recent research, typical households spends $27,000 annually on medical coverage (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical employer health insurance cost is expected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee in 2026, a 9.5% jump from 2025.

Currently the government has ceased functioning because political disagreements over tax credits that experts say could cause premium increases up to 100% for millions of Americans.

When Will We Seriously Consider National Health Insurance?

How soon might 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 proposing national healthcare. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare system – an insurance system – simply expand to cover everyone. Our infrastructure doesn't change. How medical professionals receive payment would change. Trust me, they will adjust.

How National Health Insurance Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would require payments from workers and companies. In similar programs, a worker making average wages must contribute about five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem like a lot? Not if you compare that with what average American pays. I know dozens of businesses that are easily contributing anywhere from 8% to 15% of their employee wages for medical benefits. Remember that in comprehensive systems, those payments also cover retirement benefits, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits in addition to supporting healthcare facilities. When including these expenses compared with what we pay for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Implementation for America

In the US, a national health premium would increase our Medicare tax deduction, a framework that is already in place. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would pay more than lower-income earners. This includes both worker and employer contribution. Similar to many our government's defense, technology, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed by private contractors instead of federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs like mine. It would place small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors who can afford superior coverage. It would make administration much easier (a payroll deduction remitted like retirement and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would enable it easier to plan expenses annual expenditures, instead of enduring the complicated (and fruitless) process of negotiating with major insurers required annually each year. Due to simplification, there would exist improved comprehension of coverage by our employees – as opposed to existing arrangements which require them to interpret the complications of current options. Additionally there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't would be privy to workers' medical records for purposes of risk assessment and alternative plans.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as pro-market as they get. However I recognize that public institutions play important functions in society, including national security to supporting essential systems. Providing healthcare to all via universal healthcare strengthens economic foundations. It represents superior, simpler approach for small businesses that employ more than half of the country's workers and generate half the economic output. It enables employees to be healthier, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Are there numerous factors I'm not addressing? Certainly. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's clear that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning very well. I understand that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where big changes are easier to implement. However extending universal Medicare, despite increased taxation that would be incurred, would still be a better and less expensive strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage for all citizens.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, we need to tone down national pride. America's medical care isn't so great. The US places significantly behind numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, according to comprehensive research. Maybe one bright spot in this current situation is that we undertake a hard look at ourselves and agree that major reforms need to happen.