🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. Preferred providers. Non-preferred providers. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. ACA. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. EPO. POS. HDHP. HSA. Flexible Spending Account. HRA. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Single coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Baffled? You should be. Who comprehends all this stuff? Certainly not the average business owner. Nor the typical employee. Selecting the right healthcare insurance for our business – or for households – appears to require demands advanced expertise in healthcare.

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

According to a recent study, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand annually for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). The average company healthcare expense is projected to surpass $17,000 per employee in 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Now the government is shut down due to partisan disputes over tax credits which analysts predict will lead to premium increases up to 100% for numerous US citizens.

When Will We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

When will we seriously consider a national health insurance program in the United States? I have to believe we're approaching that point because this can't continue.

I'm not proposing government-run medicine. I'm proposing for our current Medicare program – an established insurance framework – simply expand to include all citizens. Our infrastructure remains intact. The way our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Trust me, they will adjust.

The Way Universal Coverage Could Function

A national health insurance program would require contributions from both workers and companies. In comparable systems, a worker earning moderate income must contribute about five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer pays approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem expensive? Unless you contrast that with what average US resident spends. I can name dozens of clients who are routinely paying between 8% to 15% of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that with comprehensive systems, these contributions include retirement benefits, illness coverage, maternity leave and unemployment benefits along with funding healthcare facilities. When including these expenses compared with our current spending for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Execution for America

In the US, a national health premium would raise existing Medicare taxes, a system already established. It ought to be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would pay more than those earning less. This includes both an employee and company payments. And, like many our government's military, IT, social programs and transportation services, the system should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a significant advantage for entrepreneurs like mine. It would put small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors who can afford superior coverage. It would render management significantly simpler (a payroll deduction remitted like retirement and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would make simpler to plan expenses our yearly costs, instead of going through the complex (and ineffective) process of negotiating with the big insurance providers required annually each year. Due to simplification, there would be a better understanding of coverage by our employees – as opposed to existing arrangements which require them to decipher the complexities of current options. And there would definitely exist reduced responsibility for employers since we wouldn't would be privy to workers' medical records for purposes of weighing risks and different options.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as capitalist as they get. However I recognize that government play important functions in society, including national security to funding needed infrastructure. Ensuring medical coverage to all through a national insurance system strengthens economic foundations. It represents superior, easier system for entrepreneurs which hire the majority of the country's workers and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Are there a million considerations I haven't covered? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases we've seen in recent years, it's clear that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning very well. And I realize that we're not a compact European nation where big changes are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, despite the additional taxes required, would remain a superior and less expensive strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage for all citizens.

Need for Honest Assessment

We as Americans, we need to tone down national pride. Our healthcare system isn't so great. We rank well below numerous nations with the best healthcare in the world, according to comprehensive research. Maybe one positive aspect amid present circumstances is that we take serious examination in the mirror and agree that big changes are necessary.