As a Dedicated Capitalist, But Universal Medicare Is the Best Solution for American Healthcare

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Shared insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. ACA. HMO. PPO. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. HDHP. Health Savings Account. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. COBRA. SHOP. Single coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Confused? It's understandable. Who comprehends all this stuff? Not the typical entrepreneur. Neither the average worker. Choosing the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for households – seems like it requires advanced expertise in healthcare.

The Healthcare System Isn't Just Complicated, It's Expensive

Based on recent research, the average family pays $27,000 annually on medical coverage (up 6% compared to last year). The average employer health insurance cost is expected to surpass $17,000 per employee by 2026, a 9.5% jump compared to 2025.

Now the government has ceased functioning due to partisan disputes regarding tax credits which analysts predict will lead to premium increases up to 100% for numerous US citizens.

When Might We Seriously Consider Universal Healthcare?

How soon might we genuinely evaluate a national health insurance program in the United States? I'm convinced we're getting closer since this can't continue.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare program – an established insurance framework – simply expand to include all citizens. Our infrastructure doesn't change. The way medical professionals receive payment would change. Trust me, they'll adapt.

The Way Universal Coverage Could Function

A national health insurance program would need contributions from employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker earning moderate income must contribute approximately 5.3% to their healthcare. The company pays approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear like a lot? Unless you compare it to what average American pays. I know dozens of businesses that are routinely paying between eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages for medical benefits. Remember that in comprehensive systems, those payments also cover retirement benefits, sick pay, maternity leave and job loss protection along with funding healthcare facilities. When you add these expenses versus our current spending on retirement programs, job loss coverage and paid time off, the difference decreases.

Implementation in the US

For America, a national health premium would raise existing Medicare taxes, a system that is already in place. It ought to be means-based – wealthier individuals would contribute higher amounts than lower-income earners. This includes both worker and employer contribution. And, like many federal military, technology, welfare services and infrastructure, the system should be outsourced to third-party administrators instead of federal agencies.

Advantages for Entrepreneurs

A national health insurance program would be a huge benefit for small businesses like mine. It would place small companies in equal competition with our larger competitors who can afford superior coverage. It would render management much easier (automatic payroll withholding remitted like retirement and healthcare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would enable it easier to plan expenses our yearly costs, rather than enduring the complicated (and ineffective) process of bargaining with the big insurance providers that we must do each year. Because it's simplified, there would exist improved comprehension about benefits by our employees – contrasted with the current system which require them to decipher the complications of current options. Additionally there would definitely exist less liability for employers since we wouldn't would be privy to our employees' health histories for purposes of risk assessment and different options.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as possible. But I've learned that government has a significant role in society, from providing defense to supporting needed infrastructure. Providing healthcare to all through a national insurance system strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It's a better, simpler approach for entrepreneurs that employ the majority of the country's workers and generate half of our GDP. It makes it possible employees to be healthier, have better attendance and be more productive.

Considering Challenges

Are there a million considerations I haven't covered? Certainly. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced in recent years, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning effectively. And I realize that America isn't a small, Scandinavian country where big changes can be readily adopted. But expanding Medicare for all, even with the additional taxes required, would remain a superior and more affordable approach both for managing medical expenses and ensuring coverage to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

We as Americans, we need to reduce national pride. America's medical care isn't so great. The US places well below numerous nations with the best healthcare globally, according to comprehensive research. Perhaps a positive aspect in this present circumstances could be that we undertake serious examination in the mirror and acknowledge that big changes are necessary.