🔗 Share this article As a Dedicated Free-Market Advocate, But Universal Medicare Represents the Optimal Solution for US Healthcare Deductibles. Preferred providers. Out-of-network. Premium health services. Personal healthcare costs. Fixed payment. Co-insurance. Benefit advisers. Coverage agents. Medical advisors. ACA. HMO. PPO. EPO. Point of Service. High Deductible Health Plan. HSA. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Small Business Health Options Program. Individual coverage. Dependent coverage. Premium tax credits. Confused? It's understandable. Who understands this complex system? Not the typical entrepreneur. Nor the typical worker. Choosing the appropriate healthcare insurance for our business – or for our families – appears to require demands advanced expertise in healthcare. The Healthcare System Is More Than Complicated, It Is Costly According to recent research, typical households spends $27,000 each year for their health insurance (up 6% compared to last year). Typical company healthcare expense is projected to exceed $seventeen thousand per employee in 2026, an increase of 9.5% compared to 2025. Now federal operations is shut down because political disagreements regarding tax credits which analysts predict could cause a doubling of premiums for millions of Americans. When Will We Truly Examine National Health Insurance? How soon might we genuinely evaluate universal healthcare coverage in the United States? I'm convinced we're approaching that point because this situation is unsustainable. I'm not suggesting national healthcare. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare program – an established insurance framework – merely extend to include all citizens. The existing system doesn't change. The way medical professionals receive payment changes. Trust me, they will adjust. The Way Universal Coverage Would Work A national health insurance program would need payments from both employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker earning average wages must contribute approximately 5.3% to their healthcare. Their employer must contribute about thirteen point seventy-five percent. Does this appear like a lot? Not if you contrast it to what the typical US resident spends. I know multiple clients that are easily contributing anywhere from 8% to 15% of payroll costs for medical benefits. And keep in mind that in comprehensive systems, these contributions include pension plans, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When you add those costs versus what we pay on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and paid time off, the difference decreases. Execution in the US In the US, a national health premium would increase existing Medicare taxes, a framework already established. It should be means-based – wealthier individuals would pay more than lower-income earners. There would be both worker and employer contribution. Similar to much of federal military, technology, welfare services and transportation services, the system could be managed to third-party administrators instead of federal agencies. Benefits for Small Businesses A national health insurance program would be a significant advantage for small businesses such as my company. It would put small companies in equal competition against big corporations that can pay for better plans. It would make administration much easier (automatic payroll withholding remitted like social security and healthcare taxes, rather than individual transactions to benefit firms and insurance providers). It would make it easier for us to budget our yearly costs, rather than enduring the complex (and fruitless) theater of negotiating with the big insurance providers required annually every year. Because it's simplified, there would be improved comprehension of coverage by our employees – contrasted with the current system which require them to interpret the complexities of current options. And there would definitely exist reduced responsibility for companies since we wouldn't have access to our employees' health histories for purposes of risk assessment and different options. Capitalist Perspective I'm as pro-market as they get. But I've learned 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 enhances our economy's infrastructure. It's a better, 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 increase productivity. Addressing Concerns Are there numerous factors I'm not addressing? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's clear that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning effectively. I understand that we're not a compact European nation where big changes are easier to implement. But expanding Medicare for all, despite increased taxation that would be incurred, would still be a superior and less expensive approach for not only controlling healthcare costs and ensuring coverage for all citizens. Need for Realistic Evaluation As Americans, must tone down our own arrogance. Our healthcare system isn't exceptional. We rank well below numerous nations in healthcare quality globally, according to comprehensive research. Perhaps a bright spot amid present circumstances could be that we take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that big changes need to happen.