🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. In-network. Out-of-network. Concierge medical services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. Preferred Provider Organization. EPO. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. COBRA. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? You should be. Who comprehends all this stuff? Certainly not the average entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Selecting the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for households – seems like demands a PhD in medical insurance.

Our Medical System Isn't Just Complex, It's Costly

Based on a recent study, the average family spends $27,000 annually for their health insurance (increasing by 6% compared to last year). Typical employer health insurance cost is projected to surpass $seventeen thousand for each worker by 2026, a 9.5% jump from 2025.

Currently the government has ceased functioning due to political disagreements regarding subsidies that experts say could cause premium increases up to 100% for millions of Americans.

When Might We Seriously Consider National Health Insurance?

When will we seriously consider universal healthcare coverage here in America? I'm convinced we're approaching that point because this can't continue.

I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare system – an established insurance framework – simply expand to cover everyone. The existing system remains intact. How medical professionals receive payment would change. Believe me, they will adjust.

How Universal Coverage Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would require contributions from both employees and employers. In comparable systems, a worker earning average wages must contribute about five point three percent to their healthcare. The company must contribute about thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Unless you compare it to what average American pays. I know dozens of clients that are easily contributing between 8% to 15% of payroll costs for medical benefits. And keep in mind that with comprehensive systems, those payments include pension plans, illness coverage, maternity leave and unemployment benefits in addition to supporting healthcare facilities. When you add these expenses compared with our current spending for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and paid time off, the difference decreases.

Execution for America

In the US, universal healthcare funding would increase our Medicare tax deduction, a system already established. It ought to be means-based – those at higher income levels would contribute higher amounts than lower-income earners. There would be both an employee and employer contribution. And, like much of federal military, technology, welfare services and transportation services, the system should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Advantages for Small Businesses

A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for small businesses like mine. It would place us on a level playing field against big corporations that can pay for better plans. It would render administration much easier (a payroll deduction remitted like social security and healthcare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make simpler to plan expenses our yearly costs, instead of going through the complex (and fruitless) theater of bargaining with the big insurance providers required annually every year. Because it's simplified, there would exist improved comprehension of coverage among workers – contrasted with existing arrangements where they have to interpret the complications of existing plans. And there would definitely exist reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't would be privy to our employees' medical records for purposes of weighing risks and different options.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as possible. However I recognize that public institutions play important functions in our lives, from providing defense to supporting needed infrastructure. Ensuring medical coverage for everyone through a national insurance system enhances our economy's infrastructure. It represents superior, simpler approach for entrepreneurs which hire the majority of the country's workers and fund half the economic output. It enables for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Considering Challenges

Are there a million considerations I haven't covered? Certainly. But with rising medical expenses experienced recently, it's evident that current healthcare legislation is not working very well. And I realize that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where big changes are easier to implement. However extending Medicare for all, despite the additional taxes that would be incurred, would remain a superior and more affordable strategy both for managing medical expenses but providing access to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, we need to reduce our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. The US places significantly behind numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, according to comprehensive research. Perhaps a positive aspect in this current situation could be that we undertake serious examination in the mirror and agree that big changes are necessary.