🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Insurance brokers. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. HRA. EOB. COBRA. SHOP. Individual coverage. Dependent coverage. Premium tax credits.

Baffled? You should be. Who understands all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Choosing the appropriate healthcare insurance for companies – or for our families – appears to require it requires a PhD in healthcare.

Our Medical System Isn't Just Complicated, It's Expensive

Based on recent research, the average family pays $twenty-seven thousand each year on medical coverage (increasing by 6% from last year). The average company healthcare expense is expected to surpass $17,000 per employee in 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Now the government is shut down due to political disagreements over subsidies that experts say could cause a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans.

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 government-run medicine. I'm proposing for our current Medicare system – an established insurance framework – simply expand to include all citizens. The existing system remains intact. How our healthcare providers receive payment changes. Believe me, they will adjust.

How National Health Insurance Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would need payments from both workers and companies. In similar programs, an employee earning average wages must contribute about five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Not if you contrast it to what average US resident spends. I can name dozens of clients that are routinely paying between eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. Remember that in comprehensive systems, these contributions include retirement benefits, illness coverage, maternity leave and job loss protection along with funding medical services. 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 framework that is already in place. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would contribute higher amounts than lower-income earners. This includes both an employee and company payments. And, like much of our government's military, technology, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed by private contractors instead of a government office.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a huge benefit for small businesses such as my company. It would put us on a level playing field with our larger competitors that can pay for better plans. It would render administration much easier (a payroll deduction processed similarly to social security and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make it easier for us to budget our yearly costs, instead of going through the complicated (and ineffective) theater of negotiating with major insurers that we must do every year. Due to simplification, there would exist improved comprehension about benefits by our employees – as opposed to existing arrangements where they have to interpret the complications of existing plans. And there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't have access to our employees' medical records for weighing risks and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as possible. But I've learned that public institutions has a significant role in our lives, from providing defense to funding essential systems. Ensuring medical coverage for everyone through a national insurance system strengthens economic foundations. It's a better, easier system for entrepreneurs which hire the majority of American employees and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to enjoy better health, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Exist a million considerations I'm not addressing? Certainly. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's evident that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning effectively. I understand that we're not a compact European nation where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, despite increased taxation that would be incurred, would still be a better and less expensive strategy both for controlling healthcare costs but providing access to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, we need to reduce our own arrogance. America's medical care isn't exceptional. We rank significantly behind many other countries in healthcare quality in the world, according to major studies. Maybe one positive aspect amid present circumstances is that we undertake a hard look in the mirror and agree that major reforms need to happen.