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

Deductibles. In-network. Non-preferred providers. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Insurance brokers. Medical advisors. Affordable Care Act. Health Maintenance Organization. Preferred Provider Organization. EPO. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. Flexible Spending Account. HRA. EOB. COBRA. SHOP. Individual coverage. Family coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends all this stuff? Certainly not the average entrepreneur. Nor the typical employee. Choosing the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for our families – seems like it requires advanced expertise in medical insurance.

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

According to recent research, the average family spends $twenty-seven thousand annually for their health insurance (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical company healthcare expense is projected to surpass $17,000 per employee by 2026, a 9.5% jump from 2025.

Currently federal operations is shut down due to partisan disputes over subsidies that experts say could cause premium increases up to 100% for millions of Americans.

When Might We Seriously Consider National Health Insurance?

How soon might we genuinely evaluate universal healthcare coverage here in America? I'm convinced we're approaching that point because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not suggesting government-run medicine. I'm proposing for our current Medicare program – an established insurance framework – simply expand to include all citizens. Our infrastructure doesn't change. How our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Believe me, they'll adapt.

The Way National Health Insurance Could Function

Universal healthcare coverage would need contributions from both employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker making moderate income pays about five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company pays approximately 13.75%.

Does this appear like a lot? Unless you contrast that with what average US resident spends. I can name multiple businesses who are routinely paying between 8% to 15% of payroll costs to their healthcare costs. Remember that in comprehensive systems, these contributions include pension plans, illness coverage, maternity leave and job loss protection in addition to supporting medical services. When you add those costs compared with what we pay on retirement programs, job loss coverage and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Execution in the US

In the US, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would contribute higher amounts than those earning less. There would be both worker and employer contribution. And, like many our government's military, technology, welfare services and infrastructure, the program should be outsourced to third-party administrators instead of federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a significant advantage for small businesses such as my company. It would place small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors who can afford better plans. It would render administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding remitted like social security and Medicare taxes, instead of individual transactions to benefit firms and coverage administrators).

It would make it easier to plan expenses our yearly costs, rather than going through the complicated (and ineffective) process of bargaining with the big insurance providers that we must do each year. Due to simplification, there would be a better understanding of coverage by our employees – as opposed to existing arrangements where they have to decipher the complexities of existing plans. And there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't have access to our employees' health histories for purposes of weighing risks and different options.

Free-Market Viewpoint

I'm as capitalist as they get. But I've learned that public institutions has a significant role in our lives, from providing defense to funding needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare for everyone through a national insurance system enhances economic foundations. It's a better, simpler approach for small businesses that employ the majority of American employees and fund half the economic output. It enables for workers to enjoy better health, come to work more often and increase productivity.

Considering Challenges

Exist a million considerations I haven't covered? Certainly. But with rising medical expenses experienced recently, it's clear that current healthcare legislation is not working effectively. And I realize that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where major reforms can be readily adopted. But expanding universal Medicare, even with increased taxation that would be incurred, would remain a better and less expensive strategy both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

As Americans, must reduce national pride. Our healthcare system isn't so great. The US places well below many other countries in healthcare quality in the world, based on major studies. Perhaps a bright spot in this current situation is that we take serious examination at ourselves and acknowledge that big changes are necessary.