🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Concierge medical services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Co-payment. Co-insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? It's understandable. Who understands all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Neither the average employee. Selecting the right medical coverage for companies – or for households – appears to require it requires advanced expertise in medical insurance.

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

According to a recent study, typical households spends $27,000 each year on medical coverage (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical employer health insurance cost is projected to surpass $17,000 for each worker in 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025.

Now federal operations is shut down due to political disagreements regarding subsidies which analysts predict could cause premium increases up to 100% for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Seriously Consider Universal Healthcare?

How soon might we genuinely evaluate universal healthcare coverage in the United States? I have to believe we're approaching that point because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not proposing government-run medicine. I'm advocating for our current Medicare program – an established insurance framework – merely extend to cover everyone. Our infrastructure doesn't change. The way medical professionals receive payment changes. Trust me, they'll adapt.

How National Health Insurance Would Work

Universal healthcare coverage would require payments from workers and companies. In similar programs, an employee earning average wages must contribute approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company pays approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Unless you compare that with what average US resident spends. I can name dozens of clients who are easily contributing anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages for medical benefits. And keep in mind that in inclusive programs, these contributions include retirement benefits, sick pay, maternity leave and job loss protection along with funding medical services. When you add those costs compared with our current spending on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Implementation in the US

In the US, a national health premium would raise our Medicare tax deduction, a system already established. It should be means-based – those at higher income levels would pay more than lower-income earners. This includes both an employee and company payments. And, like much of federal defense, technology, social programs and transportation services, the system could be managed to third-party administrators rather than federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a significant advantage for small businesses like mine. It would put us on a level playing field with our larger competitors who can afford better plans. It would render administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to social security and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would enable it easier to plan expenses annual expenditures, rather than going through the complex (and ineffective) process of bargaining with the big insurance providers required annually each year. Due to simplification, there would exist a better understanding of coverage by our employees – contrasted with existing arrangements where they have to decipher the complexities of current options. And there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies as we no longer have access to our employees' medical records for risk assessment and alternative plans.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as capitalist as they get. But I've learned that public institutions play important functions in society, including national security to supporting needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare to all through a national insurance system strengthens economic foundations. It's a better, simpler approach for entrepreneurs which hire the majority of American employees and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive.

Considering Challenges

Exist a million considerations I haven't covered? Certainly. But with rising medical expenses experienced in recent years, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act is not working very well. And I realize that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where big changes can be readily adopted. But expanding Medicare for all, despite the additional taxes that would be incurred, would remain a better and more affordable approach for not only managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Time for Honest Assessment

As Americans, must tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't so great. We rank well below numerous nations with the best healthcare in the world, according to major studies. Perhaps a positive aspect in this current situation could be that we undertake serious examination at ourselves and agree that major reforms are necessary.