🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. ACA. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. EPO. Point of Service. HDHP. HSA. FSA. HRA. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? It's understandable. Who understands this complex system? Not the typical entrepreneur. Nor the typical worker. Selecting the right healthcare insurance for companies – or for our families – seems like it requires a PhD in healthcare.

Our Healthcare System Is More Than Complicated, It Is Expensive

According to a recent study, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand each year for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). The average employer health insurance cost is projected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee in 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025.

Currently the government has ceased functioning because political disagreements regarding tax credits which analysts predict will lead to a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens.

When Will We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

How soon might we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program here in America? I have to believe we're approaching that point because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare program – an established insurance framework – merely extend to cover everyone. Our infrastructure remains intact. How our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Trust me, they will adjust.

The Way National Health Insurance Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would need payments from workers and companies. In similar programs, an employee earning average wages pays about 5.3% to their healthcare. Their employer must contribute about thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem expensive? Not if you contrast it to what average US resident spends. I know multiple clients that are routinely paying anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. Remember that in comprehensive systems, these contributions also cover retirement benefits, illness coverage, maternity leave and unemployment benefits along with funding healthcare facilities. When including these expenses versus our current spending on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Execution in the US

In the US, a national health premium would raise our Medicare tax deduction, a system that is already in place. It ought to be means-based – 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, technology, welfare services and infrastructure, the program should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than federal agencies.

Benefits for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program would be a significant advantage for small businesses such as my company. It would put us on a level playing field with our larger competitors who can afford superior coverage. It would make management significantly simpler (a payroll deduction remitted like retirement and Medicare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would enable it easier for us to budget our yearly costs, instead of going through the complicated (and fruitless) process of negotiating with the big insurance providers that we must do each year. Because it's simplified, there would be a better understanding of coverage among workers – contrasted with existing arrangements which require them to interpret the complexities of existing plans. Additionally there would certainly be less liability 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. But I've learned that public institutions play important functions in society, including national security to supporting needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare for everyone via universal healthcare enhances our economy's infrastructure. It represents superior, simpler approach for entrepreneurs that employ more than half of the country's workers and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible employees to be healthier, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Exist numerous factors I haven't covered? Of course there are. Given rising medical expenses experienced in recent years, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning effectively. And I realize that we're not a compact European nation where major reforms can be readily adopted. However extending Medicare for all, despite increased taxation required, would still be a superior and less expensive approach for not only controlling healthcare costs but providing access for all citizens.

Time for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, must reduce national pride. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank well below numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, based on comprehensive research. Perhaps a bright spot in this present circumstances could be that we take a hard look at ourselves and agree that major reforms need to happen.