As a Committed Capitalist, Yet Universal Medicare Represents the Top Solution for American Health System

Deductibles. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Insurance brokers. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. SHOP. Single coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Baffled? You should be. Who understands this complex system? Certainly not the average entrepreneur. Nor the typical worker. Choosing the right healthcare insurance for our business – or for households – appears to require it requires advanced expertise in healthcare.

The Healthcare System Is More Than Complicated, It Is Costly

Based on recent research, the average family spends $27,000 annually for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). The average employer health insurance cost is projected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee by 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025.

Currently the government is shut down because partisan disputes over subsidies that experts say will lead to a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans.

When Might We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

How soon might we seriously consider a national health insurance program in the United States? I have to believe we're approaching that point because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare program – an insurance system – simply expand to cover everyone. The existing system doesn't change. How our healthcare providers get paid changes. Believe me, they'll adapt.

The Way Universal Coverage Would Work

Universal healthcare coverage would require payments from both employees and employers. In similar programs, an employee earning moderate income must contribute approximately 5.3% to their healthcare. Their employer pays approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem expensive? Unless you contrast that with what average American pays. I can name multiple clients that are routinely paying anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that in comprehensive systems, those payments include pension plans, illness coverage, maternity leave and job loss protection in addition to supporting healthcare facilities. When including those costs versus what we pay on retirement programs, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Execution in the US

In the US, universal healthcare funding would raise existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It should be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would pay more than lower-income earners. There would be both an employee and employer contribution. Similar to much of federal defense, IT, welfare services and transportation services, the program should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than federal agencies.

Benefits for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program represents a huge benefit for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put small companies in equal competition against big corporations that can pay for superior coverage. It would render administration much easier (a payroll deduction remitted like social security and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would enable simpler to plan expenses our yearly costs, instead of enduring the complex (and ineffective) process of bargaining with major insurers required annually every year. Due to simplification, there would be improved comprehension about benefits among workers – contrasted with the current system which require them to decipher the complications of existing plans. Additionally there would definitely exist less liability for employers as we no longer would be privy to our employees' health histories for risk assessment and different options.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as pro-market as possible. However I recognize that government has a significant role in our lives, including national security to funding needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare to all through a national insurance system strengthens economic foundations. It's a better, simpler approach for entrepreneurs which hire more than half of the country's workers and fund half the economic output. It enables for workers to enjoy better health, come to work more often and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Are there a million considerations I'm not addressing? Certainly. But with rising medical expenses we've seen in recent years, it's clear that current healthcare legislation isn't functioning very well. I understand that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, even with increased taxation required, would still be a better and less expensive strategy for not only controlling healthcare costs but providing access to everyone.

Time for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, must tone down national pride. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. The US places significantly behind many other countries in healthcare quality globally, based on comprehensive research. Maybe one bright spot in this current situation could be that we undertake a hard look at ourselves and agree that major reforms are necessary.