🔗 Share this article

Out-of-pocket costs. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Concierge medical services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Co-payment. Co-insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. PPO. EPO. POS. HDHP. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. COBRA. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Family coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends this complex system? Certainly not the average business owner. Neither the average employee. Choosing the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for households – appears to require demands advanced expertise in medical insurance.

The Medical System Isn't Just Complex, It's Expensive

Based on a recent study, typical households spends $27,000 each year for their health insurance (up 6% from last year). The average employer health insurance cost is projected to exceed $17,000 per employee in 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025.

Now federal operations has ceased functioning because political disagreements over subsidies that experts say could cause a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens.

When Will We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

How soon might we seriously consider a national health insurance program here in America? I'm convinced we're getting closer because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm advocating for our current Medicare system – an established insurance framework – merely extend to include all citizens. The existing system remains intact. How our healthcare providers get paid would change. Believe me, they'll adapt.

The Way National Health Insurance Would Work

Universal healthcare coverage would need contributions from workers and companies. In comparable systems, an employee making average wages must contribute approximately five point three percent to their healthcare. The company must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem like a lot? Not if you compare that with what the typical US resident spends. I can name dozens of clients that are routinely paying between eight to fifteen percent of payroll costs for medical benefits. Remember that in inclusive programs, those payments also cover retirement benefits, sick pay, parental benefits and unemployment benefits along with supporting healthcare facilities. When including these expenses compared with what we pay for our retirement plans, job loss coverage and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Implementation in the US

In the US, a national health premium would raise existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It should be income-adjusted – 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 infrastructure, the program could be managed to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Advantages for Small Businesses

Universal healthcare coverage would be a significant advantage for small businesses such as my company. It would place us on a level playing field against big corporations who can afford superior coverage. It would render management significantly simpler (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to retirement and Medicare taxes, instead of individual transactions to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would make simpler for us to budget annual expenditures, instead of going through the complicated (and fruitless) theater of negotiating with major insurers that we must do each year. Because it's simplified, there would be a better understanding about benefits by our employees – as opposed to existing arrangements where they have to interpret the complications of existing plans. Additionally there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't would be privy to our employees' medical records for purposes of risk assessment and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as pro-market as they get. However I recognize that public institutions play important functions in our lives, including national security to funding needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare for everyone through a national insurance system strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It's a better, simpler approach for small businesses which hire more than half of the country's workers and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to be healthier, have better attendance and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Exist numerous factors I'm not addressing? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced in recent years, it's clear 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. But expanding Medicare for all, even with the additional taxes that would be incurred, would remain a better and less expensive strategy for not only controlling healthcare costs and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, must reduce our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank significantly behind numerous nations with the best healthcare globally, according to comprehensive research. Maybe one bright spot amid present circumstances is that we undertake a hard look in the mirror and agree that big changes need to happen.