As a Dedicated Free-Market Advocate, Yet Medicare for All Is the Best Solution for American Health System

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Co-payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. Affordable Care Act. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. Flexible Spending Account. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. EOB. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Individual coverage. Dependent coverage. Insurance subsidies.

Baffled? It's understandable. Who understands all this stuff? Certainly not the average business owner. Neither the average worker. Selecting the appropriate healthcare insurance for our business – or for households – appears to require demands a PhD in medical insurance.

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

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

Currently the government has ceased functioning because partisan disputes over tax credits which analysts predict will lead to a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans.

When Might We Truly Examine Universal Healthcare?

When will we seriously consider a national health insurance program here in America? I'm convinced we're approaching that point because this situation is unsustainable.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm proposing that our already existing Medicare system – an established insurance framework – merely extend to cover everyone. The existing system doesn't change. The way our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Believe me, they will adjust.

How Universal Coverage Could Function

A national health insurance program would need contributions from both employees and employers. In similar programs, an employee earning moderate income pays approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company must contribute approximately thirteen point seventy-five percent.

Does this appear expensive? Unless you compare that with what average US resident spends. I know dozens of businesses that are easily contributing anywhere from eight to fifteen percent of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. Remember that in comprehensive systems, these contributions include retirement benefits, sick pay, parental benefits and job loss protection in addition to funding medical services. When including those costs versus our current spending for our retirement plans, unemployment insurance and vacation benefits, the gap narrows.

Implementation for America

In the US, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It ought to be income-adjusted – those at higher income levels would contribute higher amounts than those earning less. This includes both worker and employer contribution. And, like many federal defense, IT, welfare services and infrastructure, the system should be outsourced by private contractors rather than federal agencies.

Benefits for Small Businesses

Universal healthcare coverage would be a significant advantage for entrepreneurs like mine. It would place us on a level playing field against big corporations that can pay for better plans. It would make management significantly simpler (automatic payroll withholding processed similarly to social security and healthcare taxes, rather than individual transactions to insurance companies and coverage administrators).

It would make it easier for us to budget annual expenditures, rather than enduring the complicated (and fruitless) theater of negotiating with major insurers required annually each year. Because it's simplified, there would be a better understanding about benefits by our employees – as opposed to the current system where they have to decipher the complications of current options. And there would certainly be less liability for companies as we no longer have access to workers' health histories for purposes of risk assessment and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as they get. But I've learned that public institutions has a significant role in society, including national security to funding essential systems. Ensuring medical coverage to all through a national insurance system strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It represents superior, easier system for entrepreneurs which hire more than half of the country's workers and fund half of our GDP. It enables for workers to be healthier, come to work more often and increase productivity.

Addressing Concerns

Exist a million considerations I haven't covered? Certainly. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act is not working very well. I understand that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where major reforms can be readily adopted. However extending Medicare for all, despite increased taxation required, would still be a better and less expensive strategy for not only controlling healthcare costs but providing access to everyone.

Need for Honest Assessment

We as Americans, must tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank significantly behind numerous nations with the best healthcare globally, according to major studies. Maybe one bright spot in this present circumstances is that we undertake a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that major reforms are necessary.