🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. ACA. HMO. PPO. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. HDHP. HSA. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Single coverage. Family coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? It's understandable. Who understands all this stuff? Certainly not the average business owner. Neither the average employee. Selecting the right medical coverage for companies – or for households – seems like it requires advanced expertise in medical insurance.

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

According to a recent study, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand annually on medical coverage (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical company healthcare expense is projected to surpass $seventeen thousand for each worker in 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025.

Now the government has ceased functioning because partisan disputes regarding tax credits which analysts predict will lead to a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans.

When Might We Truly Examine 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 advocating that our already existing Medicare system – an insurance system – merely extend to cover everyone. The existing system doesn't change. The way medical professionals receive payment changes. Trust me, they'll adapt.

The Way National Health Insurance Would Work

Universal healthcare coverage would need contributions from employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker earning moderate income must contribute approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear expensive? Not if you contrast that with what average American pays. I know dozens of clients who are routinely paying between eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs for medical benefits. And keep in mind that in comprehensive systems, those payments include retirement benefits, illness coverage, maternity leave and job loss protection along with supporting healthcare facilities. When including those costs compared with our current spending for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Execution for America

In the US, a national health premium would raise our Medicare tax deduction, a framework that is already in place. It should be means-based – those at higher income levels would pay more than lower-income earners. This includes both worker and company payments. And, like many our government's military, IT, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed by private contractors rather than a government office.

Benefits for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program represents a huge benefit for small businesses like mine. It would put us on a level playing field against big corporations that can pay for better plans. It would make administration much easier (a payroll deduction remitted like social security and Medicare taxes, rather than separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would make it easier for us to budget our yearly costs, instead of going through the complex (and fruitless) process of bargaining with major insurers required annually each year. Because it's simplified, there would exist a better understanding of coverage by our employees – as opposed to the current system which require them to interpret the complications of current options. Additionally there would certainly be less liability for employers as we no longer have access to workers' medical records for weighing risks and different options.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as they get. However I recognize that government has a significant role in society, from providing defense to supporting needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare 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 employees to enjoy better health, have better attendance and be more productive.

Addressing Concerns

Are there a million considerations I'm not addressing? Certainly. Given rising medical expenses experienced in recent years, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning effectively. I understand that America isn't a small, Scandinavian country where big changes are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, even with the additional taxes that would be incurred, would remain a superior and more affordable approach both for controlling healthcare costs but providing access to everyone.

Time for Honest Assessment

We as Americans, we need to tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. The US places significantly behind numerous nations with the best healthcare globally, based on comprehensive research. Perhaps a bright spot amid present circumstances is that we take serious examination in the mirror and acknowledge that major reforms need to happen.