🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. Preferred providers. Non-preferred providers. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Insurance brokers. Healthcare consultants. ACA. HMO. PPO. EPO. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? You should be. Who understands all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Selecting the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for households – appears to require it requires a PhD in healthcare.

Our Medical System Is More Than Complex, It Is Costly

According to recent research, typical households pays $twenty-seven thousand each year on medical coverage (increasing by 6% from last year). The average employer health insurance cost is projected to exceed $17,000 per employee in 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Currently the government is shut down because political disagreements regarding subsidies which analysts predict will lead to premium increases up to 100% for millions of Americans.

When Will We Truly Examine National Health Insurance?

How soon might we seriously consider a national health insurance program in the United States? I have to believe we're getting closer because this can't continue.

I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm advocating for our current Medicare system – an insurance system – merely extend to cover everyone. Our infrastructure doesn't change. The way our healthcare providers get paid would change. Believe me, they will adjust.

How National Health Insurance Could Function

A national health insurance program would need contributions from workers and companies. In comparable systems, a worker earning moderate income pays about five point three percent toward medical coverage. Their employer must contribute about 13.75%.

Does this seem expensive? Not if you compare it to what the typical US resident spends. I know dozens of businesses who are easily contributing anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs for medical benefits. Remember that with inclusive programs, these contributions also cover pension plans, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When you add these expenses compared with what we pay for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Execution for America

In the US, a national health premium 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 those earning less. There would be both worker and company payments. And, like many our government's military, technology, welfare services and transportation services, the program could be managed to third-party administrators instead of a government office.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a huge benefit for entrepreneurs like mine. It would put small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors that can pay for superior coverage. It would render administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to retirement and Medicare taxes, rather than individual transactions to benefit firms and coverage administrators).

It would make it easier to plan expenses annual expenditures, instead of enduring the complicated (and fruitless) theater of bargaining with major insurers required annually each year. Because it's simplified, there would be a better understanding about benefits among workers – as opposed to the current system where they have to decipher the complications of current options. Additionally there would definitely exist less liability for companies since we wouldn't have access to workers' medical records for risk assessment and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as possible. However I recognize that public institutions play important functions in society, including national security to funding essential systems. Providing healthcare for everyone through a national insurance system enhances economic foundations. It's a better, simpler approach for small businesses that employ more than half of American employees and fund half the economic output. It enables for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive.

Considering Challenges

Are there numerous factors I haven't covered? Of course there are. Given rising medical expenses we've seen recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act is not working effectively. And I realize that America isn't a compact European nation where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding universal Medicare, despite the additional taxes that would be incurred, would remain a better and less expensive strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage for all citizens.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

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 globally, based on major studies. Maybe one bright spot in this current situation could be that we take a hard look in the mirror and agree that big changes need to happen.