🔗 Share this article

Deductibles. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Concierge medical services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. ACA. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. EPO. Point of Service. HDHP. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends this complex system? Not the typical business owner. Neither the average worker. Selecting the appropriate healthcare insurance for companies – or for our families – appears to require demands advanced expertise in medical insurance.

The Healthcare System Is More Than Complicated, It's Expensive

Based on a recent study, typical households pays $27,000 each year on medical coverage (up 6% compared to last year). The average company healthcare expense is expected to exceed $17,000 for each worker by 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Now the government is shut down due to partisan disputes regarding tax credits that experts say could cause a doubling of premiums 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 since this can't continue.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare system – an insurance system – merely extend to include all citizens. The existing system remains intact. The way medical professionals get paid would change. Trust me, they'll adapt.

The Way Universal Coverage Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would require contributions from workers and companies. In comparable systems, an employee earning average wages must contribute about 5.3% to their healthcare. The company pays about thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Not if you contrast it to what the typical US resident spends. I know dozens of clients who are easily contributing between eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs for medical benefits. Remember that in comprehensive systems, these contributions include retirement benefits, illness coverage, parental benefits and job loss protection along with supporting healthcare facilities. When including those costs versus our current spending on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Execution for America

In the US, universal healthcare funding would raise existing Medicare taxes, a system that is already in place. It ought to be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would pay more than lower-income earners. This includes both worker and employer contribution. Similar to much of our government's defense, IT, social programs and transportation services, the program could be managed to third-party administrators instead of federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program represents a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors that can pay for superior coverage. It would make management much easier (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to retirement and Medicare taxes, instead of separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would enable it easier for us to budget annual expenditures, instead of going through the complicated (and ineffective) theater of negotiating with the big insurance providers that we must do every year. Due to simplification, there would be improved comprehension about benefits among workers – contrasted with the current system where they have to decipher the complexities of current options. Additionally there would definitely exist less liability for employers since we wouldn't have access to our employees' medical records for purposes of weighing risks and different options.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as pro-market as possible. But I've learned that government play important functions in society, including national security to funding essential systems. Providing healthcare to all through a national insurance system strengthens economic foundations. It's a better, easier system for small businesses that employ the majority of the country's workers and fund half the economic output. It enables for workers to be healthier, come to work more often and be more productive.

Addressing Concerns

Exist numerous factors I'm not addressing? Certainly. Given rising medical expenses we've seen recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning very well. And I realize that we're not a compact European nation where major reforms are easier to implement. But expanding universal Medicare, even with the additional taxes required, would still be a better and more affordable strategy for not only controlling healthcare costs but providing access to everyone.

Need for Honest Assessment

As Americans, we need to tone down our own arrogance. America's medical care isn't exceptional. The US places well below numerous nations in healthcare quality in the world, according to comprehensive research. Perhaps a bright spot amid present circumstances is that we take a hard look in the mirror and agree that major reforms need to happen.