I'm a Hardcore Free-Market Advocate, But Medicare for All Represents the Optimal Hope for US Health System

Out-of-pocket costs. In-network. Out-of-network. Concierge medical services. Personal healthcare costs. Fixed payment. Shared insurance. Insurance consultants. Coverage agents. Healthcare consultants. ACA. HMO. Preferred Provider Organization. Exclusive Provider Organization. POS. High Deductible Health Plan. Health Savings Account. FSA. Health Reimbursement Arrangement. Explanation of Benefits. COBRA. SHOP. Single coverage. Family coverage. Premium tax credits.

Confused? You should be. Who comprehends this complex system? Not the typical entrepreneur. Nor the typical employee. Choosing the appropriate medical coverage for companies – or for our families – appears to require it requires a PhD in medical insurance.

Our Medical System Isn't Just Complicated, It Is Expensive

Based on recent research, typical households pays $twenty-seven thousand annually on medical coverage (increasing by 6% from last year). Typical company healthcare expense is projected to surpass $17,000 per employee in 2026, a 9.5% jump from 2025.

Currently federal operations is shut down due to political disagreements regarding tax credits which analysts predict will lead to premium increases up to 100% for numerous US citizens.

When Will 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 since this can't continue.

I'm not proposing national healthcare. I'm advocating that our already existing Medicare system – an established insurance framework – simply expand to cover everyone. The existing system doesn't change. How our healthcare providers receive payment would change. Trust me, they'll adapt.

The Way National Health Insurance Could Function

A national health insurance program would need payments from both employees and employers. In similar programs, a worker making average wages pays approximately five point three percent toward medical coverage. The company must contribute about 13.75%.

Does this appear expensive? Not if you compare it to what the typical American pays. I can name dozens of clients who are easily contributing between 8% to 15% of their employee wages to their healthcare costs. And keep in mind that with inclusive programs, these contributions include pension plans, illness coverage, parental benefits and unemployment benefits along with funding medical services. When including these expenses versus our current spending on retirement programs, unemployment insurance and paid time off, the gap narrows.

Execution for America

In the US, a national health premium would raise our Medicare tax deduction, a system already established. It ought to be income-adjusted – wealthier individuals would contribute higher amounts than those earning less. There would be both worker and company payments. Similar to many our government's military, IT, social programs and infrastructure, the system should be outsourced to third-party administrators rather than a government office.

Benefits for Small Businesses

Universal healthcare coverage would be a significant advantage for entrepreneurs such as my company. It would place us on a level playing field against big corporations who can afford superior coverage. It would render management much easier (automatic payroll withholding remitted like retirement and Medicare taxes, rather than separate payments to insurance companies and insurance providers).

It would make simpler for us to budget our yearly costs, instead of going through the complicated (and ineffective) theater of negotiating with the big insurance providers that we must do each year. Due to simplification, there would be improved comprehension of coverage among workers – as opposed to the current system where they have to interpret the complications of existing plans. And there would certainly be reduced responsibility for companies as we no longer would be privy to our employees' medical records for purposes of risk assessment and alternative plans.

Capitalist Perspective

I'm as capitalist as they get. However I recognize that public institutions has a significant role in our lives, including national security to supporting essential systems. Providing healthcare to all through a national insurance system strengthens our economy's infrastructure. It's a better, easier system for small businesses which hire the majority of American employees and generate half of our GDP. It enables employees to enjoy better health, come to work more often and be more productive.

Considering Challenges

Are there a million considerations I haven't covered? Of course there are. Given all the healthcare cost increases experienced recently, it's evident that the Affordable Care Act isn't functioning very well. And I realize that we're not a small, Scandinavian country where big changes can be readily adopted. But expanding Medicare for all, even with the additional taxes that would be incurred, would still be a superior and less expensive approach both for controlling healthcare costs but providing access to everyone.

Need for Realistic Evaluation

We as Americans, must tone down national pride. America's medical care isn't so great. The US places well below many other countries with the best healthcare in the world, based on comprehensive research. Maybe one positive aspect in this current situation could be that we undertake a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that big changes need to happen.