🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Co-payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Insurance brokers. Healthcare consultants. ACA. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. HDHP. HSA. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? You should be. Who understands all this stuff? Certainly not the average business owner. Nor the typical worker. Choosing the appropriate healthcare insurance for companies – or for households – appears to require demands a PhD in healthcare.

The Medical System Is More Than Complex, It Is Costly

Based on recent research, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand annually for their health insurance (up 6% from last year). The average company healthcare expense is expected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee in 2026, an increase of 9.5% from 2025.

Currently federal operations has ceased functioning because partisan disputes regarding tax credits that experts say could cause a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Truly Examine National Health Insurance?

How soon might we seriously consider universal healthcare coverage here in America? I have to believe we're getting closer because this can't continue.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare program – an established insurance framework – merely extend to cover everyone. The existing system remains intact. How medical professionals get paid would change. Believe me, they'll adapt.

The Way National Health Insurance Would Work

A national health insurance program would require payments from both employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker making average wages pays approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem expensive? Not if you compare it to what average US resident spends. I can name multiple clients who are easily contributing between eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that with comprehensive systems, these contributions include retirement benefits, sick pay, maternity leave and unemployment benefits along with supporting medical services. When including these expenses versus what we pay for our retirement plans, unemployment insurance and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Execution for America

For America, universal healthcare funding would increase existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It ought to be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would pay more than lower-income earners. This includes both worker and employer contribution. Similar to much of federal military, technology, social programs and infrastructure, the program should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a huge benefit for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put small companies in equal competition against big corporations who can afford better plans. It would render administration significantly simpler (automatic payroll withholding remitted like social security and healthcare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would enable simpler to plan expenses our yearly costs, instead of going through the complicated (and fruitless) process of negotiating with the big insurance providers required annually every year. Due to simplification, there would be a better understanding about benefits among workers – contrasted with the current system which require them to interpret the complexities of existing plans. Additionally there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't have access to workers' medical records for purposes of weighing risks and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as they get. However I recognize that public institutions play important functions in society, from providing defense to funding needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare for everyone through a national insurance system strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It's a better, simpler approach for small businesses which hire the majority of the country's workers and generate half of our GDP. It enables employees to enjoy better health, come to work more often and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Are there a million considerations I haven't covered? Certainly. Given rising medical expenses experienced recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act is not working effectively. And I realize 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 better and more affordable strategy both for controlling healthcare costs and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Time for Realistic Evaluation

We as Americans, we need to tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't so great. The US places well below many other countries with the best healthcare globally, according to comprehensive research. Maybe one positive aspect in this current situation is that we take serious examination in the mirror and acknowledge that major reforms need to happen.