🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Concierge medical services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends this complex system? Certainly not the average business owner. Neither the average worker. Selecting the right medical coverage for our business – or for households – seems like demands advanced expertise in medical insurance.

The Medical System Is More Than Complex, It's Costly

Based on recent research, typical households spends $twenty-seven thousand each year for their health insurance (up 6% from last year). Typical employer health insurance cost is expected to exceed $17,000 for each worker in 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025.

Now federal operations is shut down because political disagreements regarding subsidies which analysts predict will lead to a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Truly Examine National Health Insurance?

When will we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program here in America? I'm convinced we're getting closer since this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not suggesting government-run medicine. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare program – an established insurance framework – simply expand to include all citizens. The existing system remains intact. How medical professionals get paid would change. Trust me, they will adjust.

The Way National Health Insurance Would Work

A national health insurance program would need contributions from workers and companies. In similar programs, a worker earning average wages pays about five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company must contribute approximately 13.75%.

Does this appear expensive? Unless you contrast that with what the typical American pays. I know dozens of clients that are easily contributing between 8% to 15% of their employee wages for medical benefits. Remember that in inclusive programs, those payments also cover pension plans, sick pay, parental benefits and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When including those costs compared with our current spending on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and vacation benefits, the difference decreases.

Implementation for America

In the US, universal healthcare funding would increase existing Medicare taxes, a system already established. It should be means-based – those at higher income levels would pay more than lower-income earners. There would be both worker and employer contribution. Similar to much of federal defense, IT, social programs and infrastructure, the program could be managed to third-party administrators instead of federal agencies.

Advantages for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs like mine. It would place small companies in equal competition against big corporations who can afford better plans. It would render administration significantly simpler (a payroll deduction processed similarly to retirement and Medicare taxes, rather than separate payments to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make simpler for us to budget our yearly costs, rather than enduring the complicated (and fruitless) theater of bargaining with major insurers that we must do every year. Because it's simplified, there would exist a better understanding about benefits by our employees – contrasted with the current system which require them to interpret the complexities of existing plans. And there would definitely exist less liability for companies as we no longer would be privy to workers' medical records for weighing risks and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as possible. However I recognize that public institutions has a significant role in society, including national security to funding needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare to all via universal healthcare strengthens 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 enjoy better health, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Are there numerous factors I haven't covered? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases we've seen in recent years, it's clear that the Affordable Care Act is not working effectively. I understand that America isn't a compact European nation where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, even with increased taxation that would be incurred, would remain a superior and less expensive approach both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage for all citizens.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

We as Americans, must tone down our own arrogance. America's medical care isn't so great. The US places significantly behind many other countries in healthcare quality globally, according to major studies. Maybe one bright spot in this present circumstances is that we undertake serious examination at ourselves and acknowledge that major reforms need to happen.