I'm a Hardcore Capitalist, But Medicare for All Represents the Top Solution for US Health System

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Out-of-pocket expenses. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. EPO. POS. HDHP. Health Savings Account. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Baffled? You should be. Who comprehends all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Nor the typical worker. Selecting the right medical coverage for our business – or for households – seems like it requires a PhD in healthcare.

The Medical System Isn't Just Complex, It Is Costly

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

Now the government has ceased functioning because partisan disputes regarding subsidies that experts say will lead to a doubling of premiums for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Truly Examine National Health Insurance?

When will we seriously consider a national health insurance program 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 – merely extend to include all citizens. The existing system remains intact. The way medical professionals get paid changes. Trust me, they will adjust.

The Way Universal Coverage Could Function

A national health insurance program would require payments from workers and companies. In comparable systems, an employee making average wages must contribute about five point three percent to their healthcare. Their employer pays about thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this seem like a lot? Unless you compare it to what the typical American pays. I can name dozens of businesses that are easily contributing anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. Remember that with comprehensive systems, these contributions include pension plans, sick pay, maternity leave and job loss protection along with funding healthcare facilities. When you add those costs versus our current spending on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Execution in the US

For America, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a system that is already in place. It should be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would contribute higher amounts than those earning less. There would be both worker and employer contribution. Similar to many federal military, technology, social programs and transportation services, the program should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Benefits for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program represents a huge benefit for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would put us on a level playing field with our larger competitors who can afford superior coverage. It would render administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to retirement and Medicare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make simpler for us to budget our yearly costs, instead of enduring the complicated (and fruitless) process of bargaining with the big insurance providers required annually each year. Because it's simplified, there would exist a better understanding of coverage among workers – as opposed to existing arrangements where they have to interpret the complexities of existing plans. Additionally there would definitely exist less liability for companies as we no longer would be privy to our employees' medical records for risk assessment and alternative plans.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as pro-market as possible. But I've learned that government has a significant role in society, including national security to supporting essential systems. Ensuring medical coverage to all via universal healthcare strengthens economic foundations. It represents superior, simpler approach for small businesses which hire the majority of American employees and fund half of our GDP. It makes it possible for workers to be healthier, come to work more often and be more productive.

Considering Challenges

Exist a million considerations I'm not addressing? Certainly. Given rising medical expenses experienced recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act is not working effectively. I understand that America isn't a small, Scandinavian country where major reforms can be readily adopted. But expanding universal Medicare, even with increased taxation required, would still be a better and more affordable strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage for all citizens.

Need for Honest Assessment

As Americans, we need to reduce our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank well below many other countries in healthcare quality globally, based on major studies. Maybe one bright spot amid present circumstances could be that we take a hard look at ourselves and acknowledge that major reforms are necessary.